The Age of Self-Deception: A Philosophical Reflection on Misinformed Partisans, Cognitive Biases, and Hyper-Polarization Within a Democratic State
I am one of the very limited people who actually enjoys talking politics. I find great value in conversating with people who have different ideologies, frameworks, and schools of thought. My speculations lead me to believe that most people don’t enjoy talking politics because they’re talking with individuals that are often close minded and easily offended. The culture around political thought has become one that is unstimulating to participate in.
Politics is not my expertise. However, I feel like I can provide insight on political thought that may be found useful in the age of self-depception. Throughout this article, I’ll explore various explanations for some of the problems that reside in the political arena.
⚉ ⚉ ⚉
Unfortunately, mainstream media’s employment of deceptive and fallacious information has created misinformed partisans. This has diminished the purpose our democracy is intended to serve. Deception and corruption within the system has led people to believe that they’re aware and knowledgeable on political affairs, when in reality, they’ve been misguided by misinformation, cognitive biases and hyper-partisan tendencies.
This has provoked a massive polarization between the two political parties. Not only does the average citizen face the inability to identify reliable information on the internet, but their bias and belief perseverance towards their preferred party prohibits them from gaining a deeper understanding of political affairs.
In order for a democracy to adequately serve its purpose, there are demands that must be met. Within our democracy, we utilize an ideology that shapes how the government is ran. Since the US is a Democratic Republic, the republic serves to provide a form of government that is expected to be followed. The ideology that guides our government ensures free and fair elections, citizen participation, protection of citizens’ human rights, and honors the rule of law. The form of government we follow outlines a system that allows people to fairly vote on representatives, and those representatives make laws in accordance to the peoples will and preferences.
In order for this system to sufficiently work, partisans are required to be properly informed.
Mainstream Media & Misinformation
Bernard Berelson, the author of the book, Voting, was an American behavioral scientist who was compelled by public opinion. In his book, he states, “The democratic citizen is expected to be well informed about political affairs. He is supposed to know what the issues are, … what the relevant facts are, what alternatives are proposed, [and] what the likely consequences are” (Voting, 1954)
Highlighting the text above, it’s crucial that partisans are able to access factual information that facilitates a correct evaluation of candidates and political policies. Subsequently, partisans are then expected to formulate their preferences based on proper evaluation of political affairs. We are then granted the privilege to exercise our rights by voting for the representatives that we deem best fit.
Unfortunately, in the era of accelerated technological progress, the spread of misinformation has infested our internal databases with deluded ways of processing information. This has prohibited partisans from rationally assessing and analyzing information on candidates and policies while browsing mainstream media outlets. Processing strategies have become lackadaisical. There is a lack of general will to build and improve the reliability of one’s internal database. My speculations lead me to believe this is due to the advancements made in the technological industry. This has made things much more effortless. It is much easier to acquire information that is readily available at your fingertips than exercising your cognitive curiosities by further researching hazy claims.
Partisans’ preferences are skewed because they are formulated upon information that isn’t reliable nor comprehensible. The likelihood of political and social systems accurately encompassing and representing such preferences is nearly unattainable.
Given we are often deceived by misinformation through mainstream media, this is concerning for many reasons. One issue is that the decisions are being put forth by partisans who lack an inclusive knowledge on political candidates and affairs. Furthermore, their knowledge on such affairs isn’t always credible. Secondly, we’ve been stroked to believe that our elected officials are genuine, trustworthy, and ethical. While it’s not reasonable to categorize all elected officials into a group that deploys deceptive strategies, I find there to be more of them than not. Thirdly, and in my opinion, most importantly, the deception we are victimized by is creating a fallacious perception of reality.
This has caused suffering and oppression within a system that is supposed to complement partisans interests. The main objective of a democracy “aims essentially to preserve and promote the dignity and fundamental rights of the individual, to achieve social justice, foster the economic and social development of the community, strengthen the cohesion of society and enhance national tranquillity, as well as to create a climate that is favourable for international peace” (Universal Declaration on Democracy, 1997). As far as I’m concerned, these intentions are not being sufficiently attained. More and more partisans seem to be dissatisfied, unfulfilled, and perturbed with the function of our political and social institutions. Ultimately, this reflects on the preferences partisans are proposing, the candidates they’re investing their faith in, the misinformation they’re consuming, and the function of structures that aren’t built to represent unfounded ideologies.
Mainstream Media & Bias
Mainstream media outlets supply a diverse taste in resources. Differentiating what outlets are reliable, which information is factual, and which information is worthy of consumption is overwhelmingly difficult. We now have to put effort and curiosity into building a reliable internal database. Gaining the skills to form a proper evaluation of political affairs takes a certain type of will. This includes a hunger to learn and a will to open up your framework to new interpretations, allowing you to possess a well-rounded view on the world around you. The reward that comes with putting effort into becoming a perceptive indivdual heavily outweighs effortless browsing.
One issue is that mainstream media outlets provide antagonistic arguments that serve to support or threaten one’s preexisting beliefs. It doesn’t matter which arguments are based on facts, as long as it captures the intended audience’s attention, they’re meeting their requirements.
Existing literature has shown that regardless if the information being sought out is credible or not, people tend to support whatever position that confirms their existing belief. When you are biased towards a certain preference, you are less likely to thoroughly analyze that information because you subconsciously want that information to confirm your bias. This is related to a cognitive tendency to avoid information that might threaten one’s preexisting beliefs called belief perseverance. Belief perseverance is defined as, “cling[ing] to one’s initial belief even after receiving new information that contradicts or disconfirms the basis of that belief” (Psychology Research Net).
In turn, partisans who have preconceived beliefs in favor of certain topics are also unsurprisingly more willing to accept false information. Often this process is done subconsciously to avoid conflict within oneself. If partisans only collect information that only supports their biased ideological beliefs, their chances of collecting misinformation increases drastically. Lacking an ability to use analytic skills while comparing and contrasting information makes it less likely that one will be able to identify information that isn’t strongly supported. Furthermore, the analytic skills used to digest the validity of information aren’t being utilized when seeking information that will only support one’s personal bias. This skill is often only being utilized when one is attempting to dismantle the other side’s argument. On top of it all, biased partisans are also more likely to resist corrective information that threatens those beliefs, even if that information is more supported than their preexisting belief.
In the article, “Causes and Consequences of Mainstream Media Dissemination of Fake News: Literature Review and Synthesis,” their literature on fake news stresses the notion of selective exposure and attention. The article states, “Congruence between the misinformation and audiences’ prior attitudes, beliefs and opinions also shape audience retention of the misinformation from media reports about fake news. . .demonstrating that the ability to correct misinformation is attenuated by audience’s preexisting beliefs’’ (Tsfati et. al. 2020).
Additionally, when partisans adopt information that only supports personal biases, the chances that their preferences on policies and prospective candidates will contribute to the maximization of prosperity for the mass majority is reduced. To illuminate this idea, a similar idea was conveyed in the article, “Cognitive Biases in Moral Judgments That Affect Political Behavior.” Author Johnathan Baron states, “Cognitive biases that affect decision making may affect the decisions of citizens that influence public policy,” he continues stating, “to the extent that decisions follow principles other than maximizing utility for all, it is less likely that utility will be maximized, and the citizens will ultimately suffer the results” (2003, Baron).
This is considerably a paradoxical concern. Ultimately, we are the culprits of our own suffering, yet we continue to blame everyone but ourselves. As a citizen in a highly developed and institutionalized society, it’s hard to ignore the things that naturally consume us. However, this is not to say that we cannot work towards achieving a set of skills that are necessary for combatting deception by working on ourselves directly.
Overall, mainstream media is not interested in providing truthful information. Thus, these skills are crucial in order to have a proper evaluation of political affairs. Instead of attributing the inability to retain reliable information on institutions for their deceptive and manipulative strategies, it’s much more wise to develop the skills that’ll give you a better ability to evaluate such conflicting information.
The main issue is that mainstream media isn’t going to stop creating catchy click bait. Their purpose is to meet their daily viewership quotas by providing arguments that will fuel both sides of an argument, knowing that partisans will adopt one or the other. They seek active engagement. The more partisans engage, interact and adopt their literature, the more they’ll produce.
Polarization & Hyper-Partisanship
Membership within a particular political party provides a foundation for articulation of preferred interests and preferences. In today’s culture, if partisans adopt a certain label such as democrat or republican, they tend to strictly adhere to the foundations their respective party is guided by. The devotion to their political party has limited their willingness to build their preferences on a model that emcompasses a more curvaceous perspective. The uncompromising positions being held by these two parties has increasingly contributed to the divide we face today.
Polarization in politics refers to a divergence of political attitudes due to ideological extremes. In a two-party system, political polarization embodies the tension between its binary partisan identities and their political ideologies. Hyper-partisanship refers to the sharply polarized situation in which the two political parties are in fierce disagreement with one another. This is where partisans tend to be extremely biased in favor of a political party.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m sure there are democrats and republicans that follow the foundation of their preferred party because that’s what they genuinely support and believe in. Aside from that, the issues begin when partisans start taking pride in their own parties ego when formulating such preferences. Once partisans start adopting policies for the mere purpose of being labeled within that group, we’ve lost our sense of free and individual thought.
Not only are we faced with our preferences potentially being formulated on misinformation, but they are confirmed through the fear of having those preferences threatened. We’ve connected our personal identity with our political identity. We judge people based on their political preferences instead of their character. However, that is not to say that sometimes people can’t be easily judged on their political stance based on their distasteful behavior. Aside from that, I don’t feel it’s reasonable to judge your peers on their political identity versus how they treat, support and emphasize with those around them. Now-a-days, it seems to be your best bet to not affiliate yourself with a political party. That way, your peers won’t judge you for where you stand on the political spectrum and will maybe judge you on your actual character.
These social interactions simply show that political identities are sharply at odds. This has created a culture of me vs them. In order to stay loyal and patriotic towards one’s political identity in this environment, partisans have this misconception that they need to compete against those who think differently. This has generated a bipartisan culture that is founded on strictly consuming ones own views, leaving absolutely no room for alternatives.
This has contributed to a level of polarization that is awfully alarming. Partisans don’t support the most advantageous policies anymore, instead they support the policies that are respective to their political party. Who’s to say that you cannot support conservative gun policies while also supporting LGBTQ rights? Cross-contamination of political preferences is unheard of in our political climate. This has led to an increase in hyper-partisanship when voting. Instead of taking the time to educate oneself on specific candidates and their policies, they are voting strictly democrat or republican down the entire ballot. This goes all the way back to taking the easy route versus the effortful route. In a democratic state, partisans are expected to vote on behalf of their knowledge of candidates and their policies, not based entirely on the party they support.
Polarization has dominated our capacity to listen and learn from those who have differing ideologies. The influence this has had on our willingness to properly debate political affairs is concerning. It has diminished the value of debating because we have not been able to successfully collaborate and cooperate. Debating political affairs has turned into emotional bullying, verbal attacks, and defensiveness. Debating should consist of finding a conclusion by educational articulation of important factors worthy of consideration. Not for the sake of feeling secure in one’s own political preference.
In our current style of debating, we resent and disregard the ideas that challenge our own. We’ve lost the ability to consider other answers to controversial topics. This is known as arguing for one’s sense of security in their own opinions or parties opinions. We are basing our positions on feelings, not facts. We’ve lost track of our main motive while disputing political affairs, leading to unproductivity.
With all this being said, I believe it’s imperative to mention that moderate division in politics isn’t always a bad thing. There are advantages that come with having a two parties system. Debating on different political ideologies assists us in finding the most advantageous answers to controversial subjects. There is appreciation for the argumentative factor in disputes because they reveal the strength of arguments. While seeking the best possible resolution to a political dispute, it’s extremely valuable to have diverse sets of ideas and opinions that contribute to the conversation and offer alternative rationales. In order to successfully get down to a resolution, having both sides collaborate and cooperate in finding an answer is essential.
However, we are not facing moderate division, nor acknowledging the requirements for a strong debate. Nonetheless, once hyper-polarized tenancies enter the setting, there is no point in finding the strength of an argument if they are based on biases and egotistical foundations.
Concluding Thoughts
Overall, effectively managing a democracy under these conditions is obscure. Conventional democratic systems require its partisans to be properly informed on political affairs. The spread of misinformation has restricted our democratic system from effectively functioning because partisans’ preferences are formulated on a basis of misinformation and bias. If partisans only collect information that only supports their biased ideological beliefs, their chances of collecting misinformation increases drastically. In turn, our political and social systems aren’t sufficiently functioning because partisans are not able to properly assess and analyze information on candidates and political affairs.
I’ll conclude by proposing a few different recommendations for addressing the issues that come with the age of self-deception. One being that it’s critical we further our research on ways in which we can increase the general public’s ability to identify inaccurate information. Or better yet, utilize our academic setting to work towards instilling knowledge in partisans that’ll give them skills they need. Secondly, it is absolutely imperative that partisans begin to recognize how their existing biases influence their interpretation of new information. Thirdly, it is important that partisans are aware of how their identification with a political party can radically shape their ideological framework and how that might contribute to the polarization we are faced with today.
I’ll be honest, I don’t have the answers. Finding a solution to this issue is far from my level of expertise. However, focusing on these things may just help us redeem the effectiveness of our democracy.
Given the rapid advancements we’ve accomplished, along with the associated repercussions, a democracy does not coincide well with biased and misinformed partisans. If we would like to sustain our democracy, we must adapt to the institutional and societal changes that have occurred. I believe it’s crucial that partisans refuse to conform to beliefs that aren’t deeply explored and avoid complying with deception.
With gratitude and hope for a better future,
OLIVIA A. ARKELL
Sources
Berelson, Bernard. Voting. University of Chicago Press, 1954.
Wood, Thomas, and Ethan Porter. “The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2016, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2819073.
Tsfati, Yariv, et al. “Causes and Consequences of Mainstream Media Dissemination of Fake News: Literature Review and Synthesis.” Annals of the International Communication Association, vol. 44, no. 2, 2020, pp. 157–173., doi:10.1080/23808985.2020.1759443.
Baron, Jonathan. “Cognitive Biases in Moral Judgments That Affect Political Behavior.” Synthese, vol. 172, no. 1, 2009, pp. 7–35., doi:10.1007/s11229–009–9478-z.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and David Wootton. The Prince. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1995. Print.
Robinson, Ashley. What Is a Republic vs a Democracy? Understanding the Difference. 6 Oct. 2019, blog.prepscholar.com/republic-vs-democracy-difference.
“Universal Declaration on Democracy.” Inter-Parliamentary Union, 16 1997, http://archive.ipu.org/cnl-e/161-dem.htm.
