Article Analysis of Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds by Elizabeth Kolbert

Every person in the world has some kind of bias. In, Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds, an article by Elizabeth Kolbert, the main bias talked about is confirmation bias, also known as myside bias. Kolbert tries to show us that we must think about our own biases and uses her rhetoric to show us that we must be more open-minded, cautious, and conscious while taking in and processing information to avoid confirmation bias, but how well does Kolbert do in keeping her own biases about this issue at bay throughout her article? I would argue that while arguing against this and trying to prove to the readers how bad confirmation bias is, Kolbert succumbs to it in her article. Kolbert cherry picks studies that help to prove her argument and does not show any studies that may disprove her or bring about an opposing argument, that facts can, and do, change our minds.

To understand why an article all about biases might itself be biased, I believe we need to have a common understanding of what the bias being talked about in this article is and a brief bit of history about it. According to Psychology Today, confirmation, or myside, bias, “occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true.” This does not sound ideal, so how did we come to be this way? Kolbert relates this to our ancestors saying that they were, “primarily concerned with their social standing, and with making sure that they weren’t the ones risking their lives on the hunt while others loafed around in the cave.” These people did not want to solve problems like confirmation bias, And an article I found from newscientist.com agrees, saying that “It expresses the tribal thinking that evolution has gifted us a tendency to seek and accept evidence that supports what we already believe.” But if this idea is so ancient, why does Kolbert argue that it is still a very prevalent issue and how does she say we can avoid it?

“In a well-run laboratory, there’s no room for myside bias; the results have to be reproducible in other laboratories, by researchers who have no motive to confirm them. And this, it could be argued, is why the system has proved so successful.” Kolbert is saying that, unless you have a bias against confirmation bias, it’s impossible to avoid and Kolbert cherry picks articles, this is because each one proves her right. In the Stanford suicide note study, the students stick with what they believe even after finding out their beliefs are based on completely false information. The what makes a successful firefighter study and capital punishment study have the same results, one even left the participants feeling stronger about their beliefs than before. There are no studies that show the flexibility of the human mind to change its beliefs and values, nothing showing the capability of humans to say they are wrong. I believe more evidence for why confirmation bias is impossible to avoid and is very dangerous, though some of these became more prevalent after the article was published, could include groups such as the kkk, neo-nazis, and anti-vaxxers. These groups thrive on confirmation bias and help prove the argument that Kolbert is making, that something needs to change. These groups take false information and conspiracy theories and run with them without question. A recent example is the anti-vax leader saying drinking your urine can cure Covid, meanwhile, almost any scientist and major news program would tell you otherwise. Another big example, though after the time of the article, is the January six Capital Riot of twenty-twenty one. Rioters joined there on false pretenses of election fraud and wanted justice for something that had no facts to back it up. But back to the article, Kolbert is clearly onto something in saying that confirmation bias needs to change, but neglects the fact that in many cases, facts do change our minds.

But rejecting myside bias is also woven throughout society. The Grinch, A Christmas Carol, Star Wars. All of these are movies, and though fictitious, they would not exist as they do today if humans could not change their beliefs, because they would not feel at all realistic or relatable. The Grinch's heart growing three sizes after seeing the fact that the Who’s do not only care about presents, Ebenezer Scrooge helping Bob Cratchit after being shown what will happen in the future if he does not change, and Darth Vader saving Luke Skywalker after realizing that though he has done bad things the fact remains that he is still good, none of these scenarios would make sense if humans could not let facts change what they believe to be true, even if based on false information. Some real-life examples include Elizabeth Warren and Ronald Reagan, both of whom at one point in life had facts change their minds and switched which political party they were a part of one from republican to democrat and the other the reverse. So clearly facts change can and do change our minds and the idea that they do is a huge part of culture today.

I know firsthand that confirmation bias is both an issue, but not unavoidable. Growing up religious, the me that exists today is completely contradictory to what the old me believed, but I allowed myself to weigh in the facts that contracted what I so dearly believed in. I allowed myself to realize that there was so much more to the world than being satisfied with what one has known all their life and just believing everything that confirms it and disregarding anything that slightly goes against it, therefore contradicting Kolbert's idea that confirmation bias is unavoidable and one of our most primitive instincts. Inevitably Kolbert is right, confirmation bias is a big issue. She even helps prove this by being biased in her article herself, whether intentionally or not. Her arguments, while strong, could still be better by adding studies or examples where facts did change people's minds. So while Kolbert does have a very important message to give her readers she does not give it to them in the unbiased way that it should have been presented and that the readers deserved.