The Illusion of Objectivity: Disposing of Unwanted Evidence

We ferociously defend beliefs—especially beliefs about ourselves. While we readily dispose of evidence contradicting our beliefs, we blindly accept flimsy evidence in support. Vocal supporters of presidential candidate almost never switch positions. No matter what is revealed. A devastating report is excused. But when the slightest shred of indecency is detected in the opponent, the world stops, the revelation is gleefully presented as unforgivable. But if the tables turn, and our candidate makes the same error, it is excused as non-consequential. Fake news!

Leonard Mlodinow, PhD., explains, “Through motivated reasoning each side finds ways to justify its favored conclusion and discredit the other, while maintaining a belief in its own objectivity. And so those on both sides of important issues may sincerely think that theirs is the only rational interpretation” (Mlodinow, 2013).

​This concept of bias judgments applies to more than political positions; we invest in our self-image, challenges to that image brings fury. We ferociously protect beliefs about ourselves—negative or positive. We are invested in our beliefs. These ego investments need to be defended or we suffer an emotional fallout. The need to be right trumps being right. Beliefs create the interpreting context of new data, creating the context to sort and organize the facts. When something doesn’t fit, it’s easier to reject the information than to re-examine the interpreting context.

Memories and Bias

We constantly shuffle memories in and out of storage, recalling and updating with each experience. Each episode smoothly integrating into the autobiographical self—the structure used to define the self. We need a backdrop of experience to define the self and we need a steadiness of self to interpret new experiences. Accordingly, we remain connected to past hurts, failures, successes, and pleasures; these become the building blocks—we are the person behind all these good and bad the experiences.

Moreover, we are on automatic mode, even though it appears we are consciously making interpretations as we encounter facts in our environment. Our unconscious immediately interprets an event first; only after this automatic interpretation do we consciously provide reasons to support the conclusion. In psychology, we refer to this as confabulation.

Marianna Bergamaschi explains:

“Confabulations are mostly telling a normative story: they are arguments primarily offered to justify one’s attitudes, and they are produced by our argumentative reasoning mechanism driven by the biological goal of presenting ourselves as good reasoners and as reliable sources of information” (Bergamaschi, 2020).

How Mood and Context Impact Our Interpretation of Facts

Our mood significantly influences how we perceive and interpret facts. For instance, when we are in a positive mood, we are more likely to view information with optimism and give it a favorable interpretation. This can lead us to see the best in situations and individuals, focusing on the positive aspects while potentially overlooking negative details. Conversely, a negative mood can cloud our judgment, making us more critical and skeptical of the same facts. We might fixate on potential problems and negatives, thereby skewing our perception towards a more pessimistic view.

Dr. Daniel Siegel, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine, wrote that a “filter of our mental activities and their representations that shapes our subjective mental life is mood.” He further explains that mood creates “an innate clustering of a number of mental activities and biases our interpretations, how we create meaning, the feeling tone of our inner life, and the way we interact with others” (Siegel, 2012).

Similarly, context plays a crucial role in shaping our interpretation of facts. The context in which information is presented can frame our understanding and response to it. For example, the same piece of news delivered in a supportive and encouraging environment can be received with more openness and positivity compared to when it is presented in a tense or hostile setting. Contextual factors such as cultural background, prior experiences, and the current environment influence our interpretative lens, altering how we process and react to facts. Understanding these dynamics helps us recognize the subjectivity in our perceptions and encourages a more balanced approach to interpreting information.

See Context Dependent for more on this topic

Fundamental Attribution Error

Studies indicate that over ninety percent of people believe they are above average in driving skills—a statistical impossibility. Spend thirty-minutes on a California freeway and we quickly realize the great error in this false proclamation of superior drivers. With a little reality-based evaluation, the superior driver can improve by allowing more stopping distance, paying more attention, and slowing down. We refer to this biased interpretation of self as the fundamental attribution error in psychology.

​The biased self-autobiography influences behavior; not always for our benefit. In the examples case, the biased view of driving skill may interfere with careful and attentive driving. Biases of self also greatly interfere with important relationships. Our biased evaluations of our relationships skills interfere with mindful attention to the essentials for healthy connections. And when our relationships implode, we can happily skip over our involvement in the destruction, dispose evidence of any wrongdoing, and focus on the imperfections of our partner.

See Fundamental Attribution Error for more on this topic

Faulty Beliefs and Maladaptive Behaviors

Some beliefs are more invasive, intruding on our private lives, and obstructing mindful efforts for change. When we believe we possess above average relationship skills, discernment, and logic, our faulty beliefs interfere with relationships. Our beliefs often lead to maladaptive behaviors that negatively impact our lives.

Instinctively, when our beliefs contradict someone else’s, we fail to consider the possibility of being in the wrong; it is always their error. These extremely biased beliefs are dangerous, we miss cases when we are blatantly incorrect.

​Blaming partners is a typical response when relationships falters. It is not uncommon for both partners to believe they were the one wronged—the true victim. Both individuals relying on their own biased interpretations and filtered facts. Both partners invested in changing the partner instead of improving themselves. Relationship partners dispose of any evidence suggesting that they also need to do some personal work.

We conveniently self-deceive to hide personal inadequacies—concealing from ourselves. Defense mechanisms, unconsciously deployed, protect from the discomforts of truth. Most convicted criminals adamantly defend or deny their crimes—no matter how heinous. Improvement demands we recognize these deceptive powers. We don’t evenly attribute facts to others the same way we do to ourselves.

A Single Kind Act

Considering the large populations in modern cities, and the sheer number of interactions, we work extremely well with others. Most live their lives without causing harm. We stop at red lights. We hold the door, and we alert a stranger who accidentally dropped their keys. I believe most are considerate. And most of us are kind, too. But because we do some things kind, doesn’t imply everything we do is kind. Our small acts of kindness support a belief of inner goodness. But this doesn’t mean we can’t occasionally be selfish and rotten.

We believe we are kind and find ample evidence to prove it, obscuring detrimental acts of unkindness that could be eliminated, instead of mindful acceptance and then change, we simply justify the nasty behavior, dispose of any contrary evidence; we then can see our unkind act not as unkind but justified and necessary.

​Conflicting Behaviors

The absent workaholic excuses neglecting the children because she’s working for their futures. The abuser blames a violent fit of rage on loving too much. We excuse the rude comment as a necessary stern correction. We cast nasty behaviors in a positive light by falsely attributing goodness to the evil, obscuring behaviors in need of change. Our cognitive interpretation game eases cognitive dissonance that accompanies conflict between ideal visions of ourselves and the reality of our behaviors.

Robert Trivers, a Professor of Anthropology and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University, wrote:

“So powerful is our tendency to rationalize that negative evidence is often immediately greeted with criticism, distortion, and dismissal so that not much dissonance need be suffered, nor change of opinion required” (Trivers, 2011).

By recognizing immature ego-defending tendencies, we can skeptically evaluate behaviors that don’t coincide with the desired self. With focused attention, we discover behaviors that distract from our desired destination. Actions once obscured, now appear obvious. We can no longer dispose of the evidence.

See Cognitive Dissonance for more on this topic

Associated Concepts

• Motivated Reasoning: This refers to the unconscious mechanisms that motivate biased reasoning to keep our beliefs intact without discomforting recognitions of possible errors.
• Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.
• Self-Serving Bias: The common habit of a person taking credit for positive events or outcomes, but blaming outside factors for negative events.
• Critical Thinking: This refers to the ability to analyze information objectively, understand its underlying assumptions, evaluate evidence, and form reasoned judgments rather than simply accepting what is presented. It involves a disciplined and self-reflective approach to problem-solving and decision-making.
• Dunning-Kruger Effect: A cognitive bias wherein people with limited knowledge or competence in a domain overestimate their own ability or knowledge.
• Hostile Media Effect: The perception that media coverage is biased against one’s position on an issue due to one’s own strong partisan views.
• Cognitive Interpretations: This refers to the mental processes through which individuals perceive, analyze, and make sense of the information they encounter. In the context of psychology and cognitive science, cognitive interpretations encompass the various ways in which individuals interpret and attribute meaning to stimuli, experiences, and situations.

References:

Bergamaschi Ganapini, Marianna (2020). Confabulating Reasons. Topoi.  39.1: 189-201. DOI: 10.1007/s11245-018-09629-y
(Return to Main Text)

Mlodinow, Leonard (2013). Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior. Vintage; Illustrated edition. ISBN-10: 0307472256
(Return to Main Text)

Siegel, Daniel J. (2012). Pocket Guide to Interpersonal Neurobiology: An Integrative Handbook of the Mind (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology). W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN-10: 039370713X; APA Record: 2012-04054-000
(Return to Main Text)

Trivers, Robert (2011). The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life. ‎Basic Books; 1st edition. ISBN-10: 0465085970; APA Record: 2011-24018-000
(Return to Main Text)