Can School Debias?
Scott Lilienfeld asks "Can psychology save the world?":
Premise #1: The greatest threat to the world is ideological fanaticism. …
Premise # 2. Biased thinking is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for ideological fanaticism. … Among the most malignant biases, and those most relevant to ideological fanaticism, are: (1) … the assumption that "because I perceive reality objectively, others who disagree with me must be foolish, irrational, or evil" (see Pronin, Puccio, & Ross, 2002); (2) Bias blind spot ("not me" bias): the erroneous belief that we are not biased, although others are (Pronin, Gilovich, & Ross, 2004); and (3) Confirmation bias: the tendency to selectively seek out information consistent with one’s beliefs and to ignore, minimize, or distort information that is not (Nickerson, 1998).
Premise # 3: Critical thinking is the most effective (partial) antidote against ideological fanaticism. By critical thinking, I mean thinking designed to overcome one’s biases, especially the three aforementioned biases.
So, the most important psychological experiment never done would (1) begin with the construction of a comprehensive evidence-based educational programme of debiasing children and adolescents in multiple countries against malignant biases, (2) randomly assign some students to receive this program and others to receive standard educational curricula, and (3) measure the long-term effects of this debiasing program on well-validated attitudinal and behavioural measures of ideological fanaticism. …The greatest obstacle to conducting this experiment … is the surprising paucity of research on effective debiasing strategies. Nevertheless, at least some controlled research suggests that encouraging individuals to seriously entertain viewpoints other than their own (e.g., "considering the opposite") can partly immunize them against confirmation bias and related biases (Kray & Galinsky, 2003; Wilson, Centerbar, & Brekke, 2002).
It would be great to develop methods that debias students, and to test those methods in randomized experiments. The benefits would go far beyond less ideological fanaticism. But I suspect the greatest obstacle to this vision is that parents and the public do not especially want debiased children. Hat tip to Tyler Cowen and Timothy Terhaar.
I disagree with the above comment that study into biases has not been conducted, and even more so with the idea that education on bias is not present in our education system (I think it is a standard college course for most undergraduates). As for "debiasing" -- well, the act of "debiasing" described above is really no different than a bias, in that it indoctrinates a person into your particular world-view. Your particular world-view may be rooted in the techniques of critical thinking, which is why it is listed in the above premises that must be accepted for the argument to make sense. I'd disagree with that premise. So called "critical thinking" is very much a bias.
Empirically speaking, logical-reasoners are some of the most bias people I know, particularly in their unwillingness to consider any topics or possibilities that aren't reasoned according to their rules of critical thinking (which are taught to them in a system that is very much an indoctrination). In fact, many logical-reasoners prefer simply not to SPEAK with people who aren't capable (say, through lack of training or "indoctrination") of forming "logic-game" context arguments.
Many of the rules of logic simply make conversation and the exploration a "game" of sorts where whoever can reason better and prove their case better "wins".
Being more logical does NOT make a person right. Being UNBIASED (which, it could be argued, is a state that does not exist), does not make a person right.
Nor does "winning" an argument by proving the logical flaws of your "opponent" make you right, although many lawyers might argue the opposite.
Critical thinking and logical reasoning are wonderful tools, but when you speak of them in terms of "debiasing" and "education" you commit what you are supposedly trying to avoid. Critical thinking should most certainly not be a religion, but its adherents are rarely any different than the "fanatics" they are trying to cure.
In practical terms, a fella dislikes talking to smarmy "you're biased and I'm right" types as much as he does door-to-door 7th day adventists.
All that being said, I'm all for "debiasing" (ie, brainwashing) experiments that indoctrinate people into the system of critical thinking. Sounds like fun. Parties are better when you have folks to offset the religious nutcases. Put them in a pit for gladiator combat for the amusement of the masses. We should just avoid kidding ourselves about what's being done. Go forth and multiply your flock, o prophet. Teeheehee!
-MRAPS I like critical thinking books better than religious texts. They're usually shorter.
Beginning fall of 08, I will begin teaching high school social studies in Fairfax County. For my masters degree, I do need to conduct some kind of research with my students. If you think that there is a worhtwhile experiment that could be done with only a few teachers and classrooms of students (who are already of high school age) I would be happy to help if I can. I will be student teaching in the spring, but my ability to implement any kind of experiment will be more limited.