Question

Finding middle ground on a contentious issue can be difficult, if not impossible at times. Attempting to convince someone that they may be slightly incorrect about a topic and/or they should see something from your point of view, is one of the most difficult parts of human relationship and conversation. In this paper, discuss three scenarios where middle ground would be incredibly difficult to find on a controversial issue due to confirmation bias. Throughout the paper, explain what confirmation bias is and apply the concept to each scenario you formulated. Specifically, discuss how it can serve to divide people with opposing opinions.

Answer 1

Confirmation Bias refers to a situation when people seek out and believe only that information which corresponds/aligns with their current belief systems. Hence, the new information "confirms" their existent beliefs and fortifies them further.

Situation 1: Communal riots are happening in your country. Two religious groups are vehemently against each others' beliefs. On TV and the internet, each group seeks out information that agrees with their point of view. One religious group watches programs condemning the other, and vice versa. This confirms their negative beliefs about each other, fuelling hatred and riots further, and dividing the two groups further as well.

Situation 2: You and your friends are meat-eaters, while another group in your class are all vegans. You argue frequently amongst each other about which way of life is correct, but never reach an agreement. You each put points forth that agree with your existing viewpoints. This keeps you divided, because neither group is able to accept information contrary to their ideology.

Situation 3: During a debate in the workplace, a group of peopple put forth ther belief that the human race can never be completely peaceful- that violence and aggression are part of human nature. The other group firmly believes that humans are fundamentally good, and that given the proper measures and awareness, peace can be achieved. Examples are discussed in the debate which both groups interpret according to their own beliefs. General whataboutery continues. Middle ground is not reached because neither group can understand why the other group believes what they believe.