Affiliation Bias (Also, Philosocom's Directory on Biases)
- Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein
- Feb 24, 2022
- 5 min read
Updated: Apr 6
Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley and Mr. Joseph Bright
The article discusses the concept of "affiliation bias," which refers to the tendency to support and promote ideas or principles simply because one is associated with them or the groups behind them.
It argues that this bias can hinder the pursuit of truth by causing individuals to overlook flaws and counterarguments.
The article uses various examples to illustrate how affiliation bias operates, and stresses the importance of recognizing and overcoming such biases to achieve a more objective understanding of reality.
The article offers a thoughtful analysis of how affiliation bias can affect one's judgment and objectivity, providing a clear definition of the bias and its implications with concrete examples. It also emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and the willingness to question one's beliefs and affiliations, encouraging intellectual honesty and openness.
*********************
Introduction To the Bias In Question
To promote something, like an ideology or a principle, just because one is affiliated with it or with a sect/organization behind it, is something one can call "Bias by affiliation". To be affiliated with something, you see, instead of choosing to look at things from an eagle's view, is something that could be difficult for one in the search for the truth. It's simply because this bias encourages you to convince yourself it is true, even if there is a certain flaw that makes it questionable.
Results of Thinking Under the Affiliation Bias:
1.Content Creation
Due to this bias, some flaws may be overlooked, and thus, the content provider wouldn't be as reliable as they otherwise could've been. They would've been more reliable if they recognized the flaws of their agendas instead of promoting it to be loftier than it actually is. Furthermore, a less biased content creator would not make their content so pro or against something, just because they are affiliated with it or is against their affiliation.
Instead, they would strive for a more balanced approach, and be open enough to criticize the very thing, person or organization they support and belong to.
That is unless you create content for the sake of advertising... Then, you'll have to be biased. Are all advertisements reliable? What are even the odds that they are? There are there to make you buy/follow/subscribe to something without giving you the bigger picture. The shallowness of the world deserves to be criticized, even if it's a necessary evil.
2. General Overview
Would you be willing to go against your own religion? Your family values? Your chosen political party? If you are not biased by your affiliation, then you would, if you didn't deny the truth of its existence. If you automatically support someone or something because you are affiliated with it, then you would have a harder time criticizing them, and thus you would overlook the counter-points which are against them.
That is even though criticism can be intellectually used to expand our understanding of reality. That includes lambasting, even.
And if someone would point out their flaws, you might feel the need to be defensive. Since offense can be used out of defensiveness, you may use fallacies such as ad-hominem, whataboutism and the strawman's fallacy to divert the feelings of being attacked, by projecting them unto the critic.
Learning From The Bias' Fault
From this we can learn two insights:
Information presented in social media feeds is not accurate, despite being preferred by the population over articles. UnconventionalRD: "Social media also moves a lot faster than blogging. You post something, people see it, and you start getting engagement and feedback almost immediately." 1.1. However, despite the masssive userbase invovled, many social media posts lack sources, as there are less/no consequences for individual people posting information on social media before verifying it. Thus, they increase the spread of misinformation over these popular platforms.
The affiliation bias can deceive you merely because you support a certain group/social category, or are a part of such a category. 2.1. In a sense, positivity can therefore blind us from the broader, more-dualistic scope of reality. That bias is well-deserved when someone passed away (AKA honoring the dead), but not in many other cases.
Philosophical Commentary
In philosophy, being proven wrong is more important than one may think. It is even more important when one recognizes their fallacy. This can easily be the stepping stone to the truth.
In society in general, it is a bigger thing to convert to another religion than it is to subscribe to a different philosophy or philosopher. It's because religion is usually more dominant in one's life than one's thoughts are, as religion often comes with a greater sense of identity, both individually, collectively, and in some cases, nationally.
If you live in a Christian nation, for example, and decide you turn Hindu, not all people are going to like it. That could even include your family. As a result of this religious change you might even be estranged. You might be harassed, laughed at and so on.
The religions I mentioned are just examples; I wasn't referring to Christianity specifically as I didn't to Hinduism. It's just that, if you decide one day to become nihilist after being existentialist, you will not be as bothered by other people as you would with adopting a new religion (like, I don't know, Shinto-ism).
And the greater value normally attributed to religion compared to philosophy, as the former is greatly institutional, often compels you to be biased to your affiliation to it.
Why I Choose To Not Be Affiliated
That is a problem that I have with any societal affiliation: The fact that it isn't as open minded as philosophy, and the fact that open mindedness to include new ideas is imperative for the seeking of the truth. Not as open minded to the point of finding out that some of its claims were false. This is why I have a problem with being a part of society: It's unnecessarily more difficult to criticize it when you're not outside of it.
To quote Mr. Kaiser Basileus:
There's no point thinking outside the box if you can't act outside the box.
Religion is a very tribal thing, you see. Not because of primitivity, but because it is so embedded with identity, it is very tempting to become biased by your affiliation with it. If presented with something being declared as false but is actually a very important thing in your religion, then you, the religious member, will be inclined to find as many ways as possible to debunk it.
And you, in some instances, may feel compelled to do it in the name of loyalty, or even in the name of not being criticized by your own people. It difficult therefore, to choose the religious path in life, if you seek greater clarity, which much of it is arguably given by doubting yourself and your ideals. You might want to be agnostic just to prepare a more-open mind.
Apply the same to any affiliation that won't necessarily accept you if you criticize it in the name of the truth.
(Note: Such ideas can apply to fields outside of religion, of course. Like politics, sports, even, and philosophical beliefs surrounding consumerism. Anything were affiliation/attachment is a feature)
One of my motives for partially isolating myself from this world was to try and be more neutral and less biased by external sources. It is done by observing things from afar and very rarely participating in them, whether these are politics or even a comment section about something intellectually based.
Comments