Reading between the directional bias

"Our impulsive belief is here always what sets up the original body of truth, and our articulately verbalized philosophy is but its showy translation into formulas." — William James, "The Varieties of Religious Experience."

By way of introduction, I'll tell you a depressing story about pantyhose.

In 1977, two psychologists — Richard Nisbett and Timothy Wilson — conducted an experiment under the guise of a consumer survey.

In a retail store, they allowed shoppers to evaluate several pairs of nylon stockings. The experimenters found a left-to-right position effect, which is to say the right-most stockings were chosen by a factor of four to one.

Even when shoppers were told their choice was most likely caused by an unconscious right-side bias, and that all the other shoppers chose the right-most pair in conditions where the stockings were randomly resituated, these people nonetheless steadfastly claimed the right-most pair really did feel softer and better.

In America, a right-side bias is probably because we read English from left to right.

When similar experiments were conducted on Israelis who read Hebrew from right to left, opposite results were found. Despite knowledge about the replication and validity of a methodologically sound experiment, the Israeli shoppers also claimed of course, that a left-side bias was irrelevant for them.

People often adhere to their feelings rather than knowledge. It's a conflict as old as ideas about consciousness itself.

While you might be inclined to scoff at the stubborn ignorance of these shoppers, you should keep in mind that psychology experiments are as much about you and me as they are about other people.

The unsettling point of Nisbett and Wilson's experiments is that we are all guilty of steadfastly believing in things we erroneously think are supported by logic or reason.

In fact, we might know less about ourselves than we think we know.

When I was first asked to write a political column for The O'Colly, I was hesitant because I know how rare it is for people to change their minds about politics on account of sound argument, reasonable evidence, or careful and honest debate.

How often has a political debate changed your mind about anything?

Time and time again, social scientists have shown  people have a tendency to seek out and amplify evidence that supports their prior beliefs while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts those beliefs.

Almost any time I have advocated for anything in a public forum, someone gets upset or angry. Reasonable argument often derails into derisions of character. People form teams. No one gives up.  

On occasion, however, readers do change their minds. Or, I change my mind. Some readers can dismiss another's perspective without dismissing personhood. I'm

not advocating a full disregard of your passions outright, though. I'm only advocating for it if you're a stupid idiot.

Just kidding.  

Kirk Martin is a Personhood doctoral candidate.