Truth is Out There
Many times when my family talks about current events or politics I play a sarcastic devil’s advocate without really seriously engaging in the discussion. My brother-in-law asked me the other day why I do not get more involved in the discussions, especially the ones revolving around economics and financial topics given my background.
The comment prompted me to really think about why I don’t join the debate. I think there is a few factors, but I find one that answers the question best: I commonly find that my alliance to a certain side of the issue is never as strong as those going toe to toe. Similarly, my opinion or conviction is rarely as extreme. I have noticed, people find ways to simplify and strongly argue for the side of the issue that falls nicely into their previously held ideologies (party lines). For example, the question of whether to spend or impose strict austerity measures to emerge us from the recession is politically polarizing. I feel that there are so many factors at play that it is difficult to choose one and only one side. I just finished reading “Crisis Economics” by Nouriel Roubini, the NYU professor that predicted the financial meltdown. In his book, he argues that both answers are correct; we need to continue to spend in the short term and increase austerity in the long term.
I just listened to an interesting “Freakonmics” podcast called “the truth is out there isn’t it” and it talked a lot about what I have witnessed in our discussions. The psychologists stated that most people do not rely on hard data to come to a decision, but look to their community’s/culture’s ideologies instead. They called this “cultural cognition”.
The other psychology term they referred to is “confirmation bias”. This is when we selectively look for information and evidence that already supports are pre-conceived notions. I had already been well aware of this concept prior to listening to the podcast and I am very convinced we are all impacted by this. I am committing this right now: the podcast agreed with my notion that people choose sides based on political affiliations rather than data. Despite it all, being the devil’s advocate is just too fun.











