I think a large number of Americans have moved beyond confirmation bias into information irrelevance

[IDemo]

"Confirmation bias" is the denial of factual evidence, often accompanied by a hardening of one's core beliefs as a defense mechanism. It's seen in many on the Right, to the point where the leadership feels compelled to sign on to the nonsense or be denied admittance to the tent.

Confirmation bias is viewed by the Progressive side as maddening and bewildering behavior. In a nation which has prided itself on its science achievements, over half of conservatives believe in "Intelligent Design", a disturbing figure which becomes more so when it is seen to have increased in recent years. Think the evidence against "Trickle-Down Economics" has consigned it to the round file? Not in the world of Grover Norquist, where it remains the single strongest policy driver.

But what is taking place in today's political environment seems to have taken the denial a step further into befuddlement: I'll call it "information irrelevance" until a better term comes along. I think it works quite well. It doesn't mean merely ignorant of the facts; it means that both the facts and myths surrounding hitherto important issues may be waved away from one's face like so many annoying mosquitoes. Standing firm with one's partisanship has become all that matters. There will still be those who pontificate using buzzwords (and dog whistles) about issues, but the only critical thing in the end has become safeguarding the tree fort.

Perhaps "tribalism" is next, or maybe this year's lunacy is a sign we're already there.

[onecaliberal]

1. Many many many supposedly lefties have the exact same problem.

[IDemo]

2. Not saying it's exclusively a conservative trait

But it's not even a bit difficult to see that the Right owns the lion's share of the behavior.

Paul Krugman explains here -- http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/asymmetric-stupidity/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

[ryan_cats]

10. I'm

I'm pretty sure there's a phrase to describe seeing this as primarily a problem on the right. I'll think of it in a moment.

[BernieforPres2016]

12. I'd use somebody other than Paul Krugman

to illustrate a point about bias and intellectual dishonesty. He has a long history of both.

[IDemo]

13. Can you point to something in the linked article with an argument against it?

[BernieforPres2016]

14. I didn't read the linked article

I only get 10 NYT articles a month and I'm not going to waste one of them on the POS Paul Krugman.

[IDemo]

15. Argumentum ad hominem. That is not exactly the most compelling argument I've heard n/t

[BernieforPres2016]

18. If you think Paul Krugman is a credible source, by all means use him.

I think using him in a thread you started about bias is kind of ironic.

[bemildred]

3. I call it the high school football game theory of politics.

Root for your side no matter what. It's always been very popular from what I could see.

[underpants]

4. Both your and the OP's point are very good

[bemildred]

5. Thank you

[IDemo]

7. It has always existed to one degree or another in American politics

But it has taken a leap into stratospheric heights over just the past year. Those of us old enough to remember can recall a time where 'reaching across the aisle' was an actual thing. Now, a McConnell/Trumpian wall has been built in that aisle.

[bemildred]

9. It has been on a rising course for some time now, I think.

And yes I know just what you mean. It's become an ideological crusade, not a very well-informed one either.

[cleanhippie]

6. It's not just the Right! Right here we see the same behavior from anti-GMO, naturopathy advocates.

The "alternative" medicinen and anti-GMO crowd are perfect examples. Despite the lack of evidence supporting their POV, and the overwhelming evidence supporting actual science, they care not.

[IDemo]

8. See #2

[Bestuserever]

11. That what Repubs are like today

[True Earthling]

16. Confirmation bias is not just a phenomenon on the right...

It's a human phenomenon. I see it on the left as well. If you disagree with that... then it proves my point.

"Confirmation bias" is looking for evidence that only supports your beliefs and preconceptions..ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

[IDemo]

17. The point of the OP is that, despite a David Brooks take on the issue

this is far from a "both sides do it" thing. When you look at the response by the Right on such issues as climate change, intelligent design and evolution, supply-side economics, war and regime change for peace, and a generally dismissive attitude regarding science and education, there is hardly an even number of those on the Left with the same fault.

[alarimer]

19. Confirmation bias is seeking evidence that confirms your preconceived notion or hypothesis

It is not quite as you have stated here. It is more about looking for confirming evidence than anything else. But you are right in that many of us (most?) commit this logical fallacy from time to time and a large number do it ALL the time. This is coupled with the fact that most people only harden their stance when confronted with evidence that disproves their notion.

For instance, people believe the full moon influences events, such as increased activity in emergency rooms, when in fact they are only remembering times when it was busy that happened to coincide with a full moon and forgetting those times when it was not busy during a full moon.

It is unfortunately not exclusive to the right wing. But policy-wise, I suspect progressives are less likely to do it. Unfortunately for our society, many so-called progressives still cling to the notion that being "tough" on crime actually works to reduce crime, when in fact there are many, many factors that contribute to the increase or decrease in crime. Many Democrats, for instance, still insist that the war on drugs is working, when it is not. Or that a single-payer health care system would be worse than what we have right now. We have evidence (from other countries) that it is better in many ways (lower proportion of GDP spent on health care, better outcomes because people will actually use it if they don't have to fear huge medical bills, etc.).

[IDemo]

20. And I believe it is not quite as you have stated

Because it isn't so much about looking for confirming evidence, as anyone is apt to do in the political sphere, but in entrenching one's stance even in the face of empirical evidence against it.