Bias Busting

Given that the brain is so loaded with cognitive biases and so easily influenced by logical fallacies, we need a set of techniques that we can use to help highlight these when evaluating moral arguments. I have assembled a list of techniques that may be used to attempt to compensate. They are merely tools to provoke thought, and many are situationally dependent.

Genetic fallacy

You dismiss an opinion based on nothing but the source of a specific opinion. This presents itself in moral acts as well. If a politician implements a policy that by every metric is positive, and you still find yourself wanting to dismiss the policy, you may be falling for the genetic fallacy.

This fallacy has many variants and is closely related to the ad hominem fallacy.

Try to think of all the positions you agree with from the author. It’s virtually impossible that you disagree with every single opinion that the author has. If you can’t bring yourself to agree on a single point, it’s likely you’re being driven by emotions over reason.

Imagine someone else is stating the opinion, someone you have great respect for. Does it change your view?

Reacting emotionally

Do I feel an emotional reaction in response to hearing an opinion, or policy suggestion? An example of the feeling you need to look for is the feeling you might get by reading something like

All black people should be enslaved.

The Holocaust was a good thing.

Women should not be permitted to vote.

It’s a kind of moral outrage, or righteous indignation. This may be a morally correct response, but this emotional response is almost certainly going to cloud your critical thinking abilities.

You can allow yourself to entertain an idea, no matter how outlandish or morally repugnant it seems at first glance. Your mind will not be polluted by the mere consideration of the idea.

• Try giving it an hour before replying and locking in your course of action.
• Give yourself time to calm down and process the thoughts.
• Play devil’s advocate. What arguments could be made in favour of the position? Don’t just say “none”, this is never true.
• Try giving the argument the best possible interpretation you could. (Steel manning)

Even a policy that claims it would be better to intentionally blow up the Earth could be argued for. It’s very likely the direction the argument would end up, but you won’t be harmed by simply thinking about it.

Just remember there were societies where it was considered normal to sacrifice children to the rain gods. If you think you couldn’t be morally confused about something, you have to remember your brain is made of the same stuff theirs was.

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

— F. Scott Fitzgerald

Reductio ad absurdum (i.e. extend to the extremes)

When you see an argument presented to you that sounds reasonable, it’s a worthwhile exercise to take the argument to the extremes to see if it breaks down into absurdity. Example:

John: I believe that the impact of speech is determined by the person hearing it. A sufficient emotional reaction is enough to declare it hate speech.

Jane: What if I claim that you saying “hello” to me has offended me greatly, and I would like to declare it hate speech?

John: Well that would be silly.

Jane: But you are the speaker, so you have no say on my emotional reaction. Any attempt to do so would be a claim that you can read minds.

John, who resides in the UK, was then arrested.

Flip the identities

If your view depends on a specific immutable characteristic of a person, flip the characteristic and see if you feel comfortable with the inverse view.

We should give women preference in hiring in male dominated industries

We should give men preference in hiring in female dominated industries

Race example:

We should give all black people preference in hiring

We should give all white people preference in hiring

Race example 2:

We should give black people a safe space away from white people

We should give white people a safe space away from black people

Allow yourself to feel the cognitive dissonance, and get used to identifying that feeling. Cognitive dissonance is a key indicator your position needs careful consideration. Not necessarily that your opinion is guaranteed to be wrong, but there may be more that is worth pondering.

Ad-hominem (i.e. you are bad, so I can ignore you)

This is probably the number one logical fallacy on the internet. Look out for these:

• You’re a racist
• You’re a sexist
• You’re a bigot
• You’re a fascist
• You’re a Nazi
• You’re a communist
• You’re a shill
• You’re a bot
• You’re uneducated
• You’re privileged
• You’re a terrible person

If you see one or more of these in one side of a debate, you’re likely to see that one side is making a cogent argument and the other is unwilling to engage with it. If you feel yourself with an urge to say one of these then you may be committing a logical fallacy and reacting emotionally.

Some techniques to try:

• Go and look up the definition of the term you intend to use and see if it applies.
• Try to explain the argument the other person is making, to confirm you have actually understood it.
• Make a list of supporting and refuting arguments for the other person’s point.

On an online medium, scan through the comments on an “offensive” post and see if there are any opinions that do not consist of name-calling. If there is a valid counterpoint that uses logic, someone will surely post it. If all that can be mustered in response are character assassination, it’s quite possible the perpetrator has a valid argument.

“A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect.”

Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Always Being Right

Group think and conformity

We avoid thoughts that risk leading us to a path of disagreement with a group. Some groups are more reactive to descent than others. It is common to see a member of some communities to be ostracised for disagreeing with a single political position. This can also be seen in some religious communities to those who come out as atheist.

All groups that consider morality to be part of their shared group identity tend to react badly to dissenting opinion. When you find yourself in this type of situation you have to be very careful, because you have many stacked cognitive biases driving you to a particular conclusion.

Imagine what would happen if you told your friends/family/group you have now adopted the opinion in question. Would the response be negative? If so, you need to think very carefully about what exactly it is you’re disagreeing with.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

— Mark Twain

Is someone trying to control you?

Humans naturally react to someone trying to take away behavioural freedom from them by resisting. Think about how you feel in response to the instruction/guidance. Are you in a neutral emotional state or do you feel righteous indignation? (similar to Reacting Emotionally above).

This is not to say your immediate response is necessarily wrong just because it’s emotional. It’s more a warning indicator that extra attention needs to be paid to assure you are calculating the best moral conclusion.

Are you virtue signalling?

Are you evaluating this idea in a public forum? Is it possible you have the judgment of your peers in mind as you speak? Do you feel a sense of pride or joy when espousing your beliefs, or a sense of superiority over the person you are speaking to?

These are signs that you may be more interested in looking good than being right. You need to remove yourself from the eyes of others and privately consider the viewpoints being discussed.

“Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.”

— La Rochefoucauld

Appeal to authority

If you see “experts say” or “science has shown” stop and ask yourself the following questions. Especially if you are the one saying it.

1. Does the claim seem completely extraordinary or particularly inflammatory?
2. Does the person claiming this show any actual references to which experts, or what science?
3. Do I agree with this? Do I disagree with this?
4. Am I dismissing this with a platitude like “Scientists change their mind all the time so you can’t trust them”
5. Am I using this to confirm a belief I already hold?
6. Did I dismiss evidence like this for a previous paper/article/scientist when it agreed with my point? or is it just now that it doesn’t agree?

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

— Carl Sagan

Be aware that the media routinely misinterprets, exaggerates, omits, scientific information. You will often find that if you look into every headline, the “science” behind it was blown way out of proportion.

This is often a problem that originates in the publicity departments of universities carrying out the research. But it could simply be an attempt clickbait, or just simple incompetence. This is also what leads people to think “scientists change their minds all the time” when what they mean is: “What I read in the media that scientists say, changes all the time”.

Who even is the “Authority”?

The mistake with appealing to authority isn’t just that the person is appealing to an authority, they are actually usually appealing to what someone else said about what an authority said. This is particularly common in science journalism.

Animal model extrapolation

“Red wine compound could help you live longer”

BBC News, The Guardian, and tabloids

The longevity effects of resveratrol were first shown in yeast and worms, later in mice at doses impossible to obtain from wine. You will find this pattern extremely common.

C. elegans. A small nematode worm is used as a biological model organism. Many of these “claims” by “scientists” are simply normal scientific work, testing the effects of chemicals on these worms (and other organisms). The PR departments and media machines then pump out something so far from reality it might as well be considered fiction.

Correlation does not equal causation

Confounding variables are elements that may explain a correlation without implying causation.

“Coffee drinkers are more likely to get lung cancer”

Confounding variable not controlled for: Smoker vs Non-Smoker

Smokers tend to drink more coffee. Once smoking is controlled for, the coffee–cancer link goes away.

Even without confounding variables, most research papers that are released do not claim any sort of causation, they are often very specific about this, even in the paper’s abstract. The media will sometimes frame it “accurately” like the above by using ambiguous language. Some will flat out get it wrong.

Are you mind reading?

Mind reading is a cognitive distortion that involves ignoring someone’s words and arguing with what you have imagined to be the content of their heart. Give the opposing party the benefit of the doubt. Assume for a time, that they might not, in fact, have secret malintent and are genuinely telling you what they believe. Be curious, ask follow-up questions. Avoid the ad hominem attack.

John: I think that race jokes are kind of funny, and we shouldn’t be cancelling people over them

Jane: You only find them funny because you internally hate [opposite race] and want them dead secretly

John: But I like jokes about my race too?

John was promptly arrested again.

Motivated reasoning

Is it possible that no matter what evidence is presented to you, your opinion could never change? Ask yourself “What would change my mind?”. If you can come up with no answer, then you are not engaging in rational argument, you have a dogmatic belief.

John: I believe the earth is flat

Jane: What evidence would convince you that it isn’t?

John: Well any evidence you provide could easily be faked by the government. So none.

Jane: What if we shot you into space in a rocket so you could see for yourself?

John: I’m sure it would just be an elaborate simulator run by the government. So no.

“If you’re not willing to change your mind, you’re not really thinking.”

— John Maynard Keynes

Moving the goal posts

Do you find yourself asking “What about…” (whataboutism)?

Have you conceded any point during the entire interaction? If you find yourself moving from one argument to another repeatedly, it’s likely you are shifting the goalposts. At some point during a debate one side should be able to concede something.

Think back, have there been any points made by your opponent that you have no answer to? Acknowledge it before moving on. Did you feel ashamed or bad for not being able to “win”? You might be debating to win rather than to attain knowledge or truth. Try to detach emotionally from the discussion.

• Practice conceding points where they are valid.
• Agree the point being discussed at the beginning, agree the conditions by which one could prove the point valid (if applicable).
• Define what types of evidence you would accept before anything is presented to you.

“I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth.”

— Karl Popper

Reductio ad Hitlerum (i.e. Hitler did this therefore it must be morally wrong)

Hitler having done or not done something, has no bearing on if that policy is morally good or not.

Here are some policies that Hitler introduced in Germany

• Large-scale state infrastructure projects (e.g., highways, public works) to reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy.
• Anti-smoking campaigns, fitness promotion, maternal health programs
• Family benefits, pensions, employment programs¹

Just because Hitler implemented pensions does not mean that if you want to implement pensions you are a Nazi.

Evaluate why you feel the need to bring up Hitler in a rational discussion of the pros and cons of a policy decision. Do you have any non-fallacious arguments you can use?

False dilemma (if you’re not with us, you’re against us)

Very few problems in life can be solved in one of only two ways. A false dilemma (or false dichotomy) is when an argument is presented as:

Are you in favour of racism or do you believe in open borders?

This is a contrived example to show the point. But similar arguments are made frequently, especially on “gotcha” type interviews. This is also an example of a leading question

The fallacy is in the fact there are many immigration policies one can logically adopt, and being opposed to open borders, does not necessitate one be in favour of racial discrimination.

Other common political examples

Do you believe trans people should be allowed in women’s spaces or do you want them dead?

Are you in favour of mass surveilance or do you want rampant terrorism?

Do you advocate for capitalism or socialism?

The false dilemma attempts to compress a range of possible options into a simple binary choice, when in most cases there are ranges, spectrums, compromises, or hybrid approaches which could also be considered.

If you see someone present a dichotomous question to someone in an interview ask yourself if that is a false dilemma? Does it highlight the interviewer’s biases or preference?

If you are formulating the question, try to reframe to allow for a wider range of answers.

To what degree do you believe mass surveillance would reduce terrorism? If at all? Are there other policies we could implement to achieve the same result?

Under what conditions and to what extent should we embrace socialism? What about capitalism?