There is a type of a bias that is so common in political commentary that it deserves a name. An example of this bias is exhibited by Brian Tamanaha over at the Balkinization Blog. Tamanaha notes that many Republicans in 2003 asserted strong arguments against judicial filibusters. But now that the Republicans will only have a minority of the Senate, with a Democratic President, they will have an incentive to engage in judicial filibusters. Tamanaha sarcastically writes, there is “nothing to worry about” because the Republican will no doubt continue their previous position opposing judicial filibusters. Obviously Tamanaha is charging the Republicans with hypocrisy, predicting that they will not conform to their stated principles.
I think I smell bias here. Can't this kind of tut-tutting wait until the Democrats actually attempt to remove Republican's filibuster rights, instead of discussing some hypothetical future hypocrisy?
And if the 111th Congress comes to a close without that ever happening, can we expect a mea culpa post for the automatic suspicion of equally-bad behavior on the part of the Democrats?
Second, it is said that the Democrats on the Gang of 12 gave up something, so that distinguishes them. But the Republicans on the Gang gave up something as well. So it is equal.Uh, what? No, equality only follows if what each side gave up is of relatively equal importance.
Third, Lord says it is less likely that we will see a majority of the Democrats opposing the filibuster than a majority of the Republicans favoring it. No reasons are given. This is not an argument, just an assertion. I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you gave your reasons for asserting that Democrats are equally likely as Republicans to reverse their 2005 stance?
Oh wait, you didn't. If only there was a word for when you require a higher standard from someone else than you hold yourself to...
I'd call your argument an instance of the "false balance" fallacy so common in journalism these days.Agreed 100%.
Tyrell,You seem to want to fit my post into a politically incorrect truth-tellers vs. hypersensitive whiners narrative. That might be because people claiming to attempt to reduce bias in society have been peddling that narrative rather than presenting our best available information about bias and bounded human rationality as natural phenomena. However, I think the literature is pretty robust now on how ordinal presentation of information can affect its interpretation by normal, boundedly rational people. That and other framings in the orginal post in my opinion are the more interesting place to go with it on Overcoming Bias.
First, some commentators (in the beginning) claimed that not every inconsistency between words and action is hypocrisy. I agree with that. But even if the inconsistency alleged is not hypocrisy (and the accusation is simply of "convenient inconsistency"), the bias still remains. The accuser is criticizing the other side of convenient inconsistency, but not his own side.
Second, Randy Ridenour said that if the accusor is participating in the politics of the matter (that is, he knows that his side is also open to the inconsistency), then it is not a bias. Quite true. In these cases, either 1) the accusor is making a political point which he knows applies to his own side also (and therefore is not subject to the bias) or 2) the accusor is not aware that the inconsistency applies to his own side and is moved by the bias. It is one or the other.
Democrats are far more likely to call Republicans hypocrites than vice versa.
I can see how that's true on social issues. On economic/social welfare/ecological issues the reverse is probably true (think of Edwards' mansion or Gore's electric bill). In general, the side that calls for the higher standard on an issue is the side more likely to be called hypocrites.
Are we hypocritical about hypocrisy? Do we not actually care very much, but pretend to be offended by our opponents' hypocrisy as a way to dis them?
I think there's contexts where hypocrisy is actually a substantive charge that both sides really do care about it. Think about what "hypocrisy" could mean in the context of an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.
All you're saying is that partisans point out the flaws in their idealogical opponents more than in their friends. Well, duh. You just got annoyed by some blogger on the other side of the aisle and wanted to vent about it.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, whether the complaints about it are "balanced" or not; that makes this post a slightly tasty bit of irony, but otherwise uninteresting.
I would like to point out Guest's comment, which I think is exactly right, but is being drowned out by comments which are almost right that MR can get away with nitpicking.
If anyone (unlike MR) is actually interested in this as a bias, the question that occurs to me is why it is not uniformly distributed. Democrats are far more likely to call Republicans hypocrites than vice versa.
Like those who are so hypersensitive that they perceive sexism or racism everywhere, you are exhibiting a hypersensitivity to perceived bias.
Writing is by nature a linear mode of communication, so it is impossible to name the elements of a set without "ordinally listing" them. It seems pretty uncharitable to call that unavoidable fact a "bias-exploiting technique".
I think this post diminishes the blog. I get the games in your post (ordinally listing democrats first in a sentence such as "It is committed by Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives" yada yada yada) , it would be more in the spirit of a Robin Hanson blog to discuss bias-exploiting techniques like this transparently.
Mr. Rappaport, I'm sorry, I didn't really see anything else in your post nontrivial other than the assertion that anyone who fails to agree that "the charge of hypocrisy against the Republicans is equally applicable to the Democrats" is biased. The idea that people are somewhat blind to the faults of their faction is fairly well-established. The only novel points to be made are those relevant to the specific instance. The "politics" of it, if you will. Note that others have commented on more general themes, but you only seem to find the interest to respond to the "political" issue, to arguing the facts of the specific instance.
First, it is not necessary for the Democrats and Republicans to be equally open to inconsistency for my point to hold, just comparable inconsistency.
There is a point you COULD have made that wouldn't have depended on that assertion, but the point you actually made (that anyone disagreeing with your assertion is biased) does indeed depend on that assertion holding true, as Ping clearly pointed out.
Second, it is said that the Democrats on the Gang of 12 gave up something, so that distinguishes them. But the Republicans on the Gang gave up something as well. So it is equal.
The Gang of 12 was a change in the status quo favoring the Republicans. Whether it's everything they "wanted" doesn't matter--the question is, was it more or less than what they had under the previous status quo? For the Democrats, it was less, for the Republicans, it was more. And they obtained by brinkmanship. Which has obvious implications for tit-for-tat games like the Senate's traditional respect for minorities.
Third, Lord says it is less likely that we will see a majority of the Democrats opposing the filibuster than a majority of the Republicans favoring it. No reasons are given.
Well, he gave one reason, and other is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be mentioned.
1. "One can criticize the reasons for a filibuster or the process of a filibuster." These are two different things, with only the latter being arguably hypocritical. Why do the latter if the former is sufficient?
2. Numbers. The Dems only need a few Republicans to vote yes on cloture to get nominees through. Considering how many Dems were willing to vote for Roberts and Alito, it's not all that likely that Dems will need to be hypocrites to get their way.
Finally, on the subject of bias generally, I think you should take another look at Mr. Tamanaha's post, and scroll down to the comments. Compare that comment, and Mr. Tamanaha's reaction to it, with this thread here. Someone notes an omission in Tamanaha's post, and he immediately concedes it. Someone points to problems with one of your assertions and it's just repeated dodging. Whose bias is worse? Why are you disappointed in your trip to Overcoming Bias when someone tries to help you overcome your bias?
This bias is so old and so common, it's in the Bible: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
I don't think the bias is particularly surprising. Rather than having general "hypocrisy-detection algorithms" that look for inconsistencies everywhere, our hypocrisy-detection functions as part of our machinery for attacking our opponents and confirming our own viewpoints. Thus we look in our brother's eye, but not our own. The underlying motivation seems to be attacking opponents, not being consistent.
This bias is so old and so common, it's in the Bible: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
I don't think the bias is particularly surprising. Rather than having general "hypocrisy-detection algorithms" that look for inconsistencies everywhere, our hypocrisy-detection functions as part of our machinery for attacking our opponents and confirming our own viewpoints. Thus we look in our brother's eye, but not our own. The underlying motivation seems to be attacking opponents, not being consistent.
How disappointing these last several comments have been. I came to Overcoming Bias for a discussion of the bias, not to engage in political arguments. You will see in my post that I said everyone commits this bias -- both Republicans and Democrats. The commenters seem to be bent out of shape because I used an example of a Democrat who was biased. Politics is the mind killer.
Please this is a distraction, as some of the commenters have seen.
I really don't want to engage in further discussion about the underlying issue, but it is my experience, that if you don't respond, people assume you have no response. So let me at least say some things. (I have also addressed the issue in an above comment.)
Posted by Mike Rappaport
Lord and Consumatopia do not prove their assertions. First, it is not necessary for the Democrats and Republicans to be equally open to inconsistency for my point to hold, just comparable inconsistency. In any event, I believe they are equally open to inconsistency.
Second, it is said that the Democrats on the Gang of 12 gave up something, so that distinguishes them. But the Republicans on the Gang gave up something as well. So it is equal.
Third, Lord says it is less likely that we will see a majority of the Democrats opposing the filibuster than a majority of the Republicans favoring it. No reasons are given. This is not an argument, just an assertion.
Another way to put it: One way to think about this is that commentators who write about the hypocrisy-charge bias are not commenting on political events but are actually engaged in them.
As far as I can tell, this is just a right wing rant against democrats. I have nothing against such things really, just like I have no particular objection to left wing rants against republicans... but it seems out of place for overcomingbias, which hopefully can avoid being just another partisan schlockfest.
Great post. I agree this is one of the most vexing biases, and seems to crop up in all realms of human relationships, not just politics. It gets recursively worse when the argument goes "meta" and the two sides start being hypocritical about who is unfairly charging the other of being hypocritical.
I think I smell bias here. Can't this kind of tut-tutting wait until the Democrats actually attempt to remove Republican's filibuster rights, instead of discussing some hypothetical future hypocrisy?
And if the 111th Congress comes to a close without that ever happening, can we expect a mea culpa post for the automatic suspicion of equally-bad behavior on the part of the Democrats?
Second, it is said that the Democrats on the Gang of 12 gave up something, so that distinguishes them. But the Republicans on the Gang gave up something as well. So it is equal.Uh, what? No, equality only follows if what each side gave up is of relatively equal importance.
Third, Lord says it is less likely that we will see a majority of the Democrats opposing the filibuster than a majority of the Republicans favoring it. No reasons are given. This is not an argument, just an assertion. I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you gave your reasons for asserting that Democrats are equally likely as Republicans to reverse their 2005 stance?
Oh wait, you didn't. If only there was a word for when you require a higher standard from someone else than you hold yourself to...
I'd call your argument an instance of the "false balance" fallacy so common in journalism these days.Agreed 100%.
Tyrell,You seem to want to fit my post into a politically incorrect truth-tellers vs. hypersensitive whiners narrative. That might be because people claiming to attempt to reduce bias in society have been peddling that narrative rather than presenting our best available information about bias and bounded human rationality as natural phenomena. However, I think the literature is pretty robust now on how ordinal presentation of information can affect its interpretation by normal, boundedly rational people. That and other framings in the orginal post in my opinion are the more interesting place to go with it on Overcoming Bias.
Two points:
First, some commentators (in the beginning) claimed that not every inconsistency between words and action is hypocrisy. I agree with that. But even if the inconsistency alleged is not hypocrisy (and the accusation is simply of "convenient inconsistency"), the bias still remains. The accuser is criticizing the other side of convenient inconsistency, but not his own side.
Second, Randy Ridenour said that if the accusor is participating in the politics of the matter (that is, he knows that his side is also open to the inconsistency), then it is not a bias. Quite true. In these cases, either 1) the accusor is making a political point which he knows applies to his own side also (and therefore is not subject to the bias) or 2) the accusor is not aware that the inconsistency applies to his own side and is moved by the bias. It is one or the other.
Posted by Mike Rappaport
Democrats are far more likely to call Republicans hypocrites than vice versa.
I can see how that's true on social issues. On economic/social welfare/ecological issues the reverse is probably true (think of Edwards' mansion or Gore's electric bill). In general, the side that calls for the higher standard on an issue is the side more likely to be called hypocrites.
Are we hypocritical about hypocrisy? Do we not actually care very much, but pretend to be offended by our opponents' hypocrisy as a way to dis them?
I think there's contexts where hypocrisy is actually a substantive charge that both sides really do care about it. Think about what "hypocrisy" could mean in the context of an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.
Are we hypocritical about hypocrisy? Do we not actually care very much, but pretend to be offended by our opponents' hypocrisy as a way to dis them?
All you're saying is that partisans point out the flaws in their idealogical opponents more than in their friends. Well, duh. You just got annoyed by some blogger on the other side of the aisle and wanted to vent about it.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, whether the complaints about it are "balanced" or not; that makes this post a slightly tasty bit of irony, but otherwise uninteresting.
I would like to point out Guest's comment, which I think is exactly right, but is being drowned out by comments which are almost right that MR can get away with nitpicking.
If anyone (unlike MR) is actually interested in this as a bias, the question that occurs to me is why it is not uniformly distributed. Democrats are far more likely to call Republicans hypocrites than vice versa.
@Hopefully Anonymous
Like those who are so hypersensitive that they perceive sexism or racism everywhere, you are exhibiting a hypersensitivity to perceived bias.
Writing is by nature a linear mode of communication, so it is impossible to name the elements of a set without "ordinally listing" them. It seems pretty uncharitable to call that unavoidable fact a "bias-exploiting technique".
I think this post diminishes the blog. I get the games in your post (ordinally listing democrats first in a sentence such as "It is committed by Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives" yada yada yada) , it would be more in the spirit of a Robin Hanson blog to discuss bias-exploiting techniques like this transparently.
Mr. Rappaport, I'm sorry, I didn't really see anything else in your post nontrivial other than the assertion that anyone who fails to agree that "the charge of hypocrisy against the Republicans is equally applicable to the Democrats" is biased. The idea that people are somewhat blind to the faults of their faction is fairly well-established. The only novel points to be made are those relevant to the specific instance. The "politics" of it, if you will. Note that others have commented on more general themes, but you only seem to find the interest to respond to the "political" issue, to arguing the facts of the specific instance.
First, it is not necessary for the Democrats and Republicans to be equally open to inconsistency for my point to hold, just comparable inconsistency.
There is a point you COULD have made that wouldn't have depended on that assertion, but the point you actually made (that anyone disagreeing with your assertion is biased) does indeed depend on that assertion holding true, as Ping clearly pointed out.
Second, it is said that the Democrats on the Gang of 12 gave up something, so that distinguishes them. But the Republicans on the Gang gave up something as well. So it is equal.
The Gang of 12 was a change in the status quo favoring the Republicans. Whether it's everything they "wanted" doesn't matter--the question is, was it more or less than what they had under the previous status quo? For the Democrats, it was less, for the Republicans, it was more. And they obtained by brinkmanship. Which has obvious implications for tit-for-tat games like the Senate's traditional respect for minorities.
Third, Lord says it is less likely that we will see a majority of the Democrats opposing the filibuster than a majority of the Republicans favoring it. No reasons are given.
Well, he gave one reason, and other is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be mentioned.
1. "One can criticize the reasons for a filibuster or the process of a filibuster." These are two different things, with only the latter being arguably hypocritical. Why do the latter if the former is sufficient?
2. Numbers. The Dems only need a few Republicans to vote yes on cloture to get nominees through. Considering how many Dems were willing to vote for Roberts and Alito, it's not all that likely that Dems will need to be hypocrites to get their way.
Finally, on the subject of bias generally, I think you should take another look at Mr. Tamanaha's post, and scroll down to the comments. Compare that comment, and Mr. Tamanaha's reaction to it, with this thread here. Someone notes an omission in Tamanaha's post, and he immediately concedes it. Someone points to problems with one of your assertions and it's just repeated dodging. Whose bias is worse? Why are you disappointed in your trip to Overcoming Bias when someone tries to help you overcome your bias?
This bias is so old and so common, it's in the Bible: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
I don't think the bias is particularly surprising. Rather than having general "hypocrisy-detection algorithms" that look for inconsistencies everywhere, our hypocrisy-detection functions as part of our machinery for attacking our opponents and confirming our own viewpoints. Thus we look in our brother's eye, but not our own. The underlying motivation seems to be attacking opponents, not being consistent.
This bias is so old and so common, it's in the Bible: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
I don't think the bias is particularly surprising. Rather than having general "hypocrisy-detection algorithms" that look for inconsistencies everywhere, our hypocrisy-detection functions as part of our machinery for attacking our opponents and confirming our own viewpoints. Thus we look in our brother's eye, but not our own. The underlying motivation seems to be attacking opponents, not being consistent.
How disappointing these last several comments have been. I came to Overcoming Bias for a discussion of the bias, not to engage in political arguments. You will see in my post that I said everyone commits this bias -- both Republicans and Democrats. The commenters seem to be bent out of shape because I used an example of a Democrat who was biased. Politics is the mind killer.
Please this is a distraction, as some of the commenters have seen.
I really don't want to engage in further discussion about the underlying issue, but it is my experience, that if you don't respond, people assume you have no response. So let me at least say some things. (I have also addressed the issue in an above comment.)
Posted by Mike Rappaport
Lord and Consumatopia do not prove their assertions. First, it is not necessary for the Democrats and Republicans to be equally open to inconsistency for my point to hold, just comparable inconsistency. In any event, I believe they are equally open to inconsistency.
Second, it is said that the Democrats on the Gang of 12 gave up something, so that distinguishes them. But the Republicans on the Gang gave up something as well. So it is equal.
Third, Lord says it is less likely that we will see a majority of the Democrats opposing the filibuster than a majority of the Republicans favoring it. No reasons are given. This is not an argument, just an assertion.
Another way to put it: One way to think about this is that commentators who write about the hypocrisy-charge bias are not commenting on political events but are actually engaged in them.
As far as I can tell, this is just a right wing rant against democrats. I have nothing against such things really, just like I have no particular objection to left wing rants against republicans... but it seems out of place for overcomingbias, which hopefully can avoid being just another partisan schlockfest.
Great post. I agree this is one of the most vexing biases, and seems to crop up in all realms of human relationships, not just politics. It gets recursively worse when the argument goes "meta" and the two sides start being hypocritical about who is unfairly charging the other of being hypocritical.