Confirmation Bias

 Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for information that supports one's previous beliefs. People tend to search for information that confirms that we are correct, rather than proving that they are wrong. As a whole, people are more likely to remember  and share information that supports their beliefs, rather than disproving themselves.

The diagram shows that in confirmation bias, many of the information is ignored or hidden. If people learned to read the facts and evidence as it is, rather than just trying to prove to others that they are right, there would be a lot less misinformation and confusion.

What's it all mean?

Confirmation bias is a fact of life for everyone, however most people don't even know it. Every day, almost every person uses confirmation bias is some way or form. For example, you get into an argument with a friend about some drama you heard about a co-worker. You're opinion on this person, has already affected whether you will tell the whole story to your friend. You may choose to only share the pieces that back your opinion rather than showing that maybe they are something else. 

This inability to accept the facts if they disprove your previous beliefs has caused many facts to be ignored. The world can not advance if people as a whole refuse to accept the facts that will push us forward. The first way to limit the effect of confirmation bias on your life to accept that it is already a part of your life. When you begin to notice how often you use confirmation bias, you can start to limit your reliance on it. Avoiding confirmation bias is a difficult process, you must make an active effort every day to limit the bias in your daily life.

Another way to limit confirmation bias in your life is to have an open mind when people disagree with you. Allowing your opinions to be flexible based on the information you are given will help you see when you are being biased. It's also important to work with your close friends and family to check on their bias. If you notice someone using confirmation bias all the time, say something. Addressing the situation is the only way to get rid of it. If people ignore the issue, it will continue to run rampant in society. This will lead to increased misinformation and thus leaving the world stuck in arguments constantly.

Society has become an incredibly heated discussion forum, with people screaming at others if they do not agree with their own opinions, regardless of the facts. If we do not make an effort to change the course of society, it will inevitably lead to a collapse in the credibility of scientists.

In Practice

A recent example of confirmation bias is wearing masks during the current global pandemic. Thousands of people refuse to wear masks and only read the facts that say that masks are not 100% reliable. However, science proves that masks are extremely reliable and can greatly limit transmission of Covid-19. The people that choose to wear masks still try to force anti-maskers to listen to science and follow the current state laws that require face coverings. However, anti-maskers fight tooth and nail that there is no reason for wearing masks and that they don't want to, so they just won't wear them. 

Looking at the confirmation bias that anti-maskers use to support their actions, it's abundantly clear that they ignore the facts and evidence. However, people are only calling them out on the masks, not their inability to accept facts that disprove their opinions. If society starts to accept that they can be wrong and that be wrong is not a bad thing, confirmation bias will cease to exist.

Sources:

https://www.mentimeter.com/blog/the-science/handling-confirmation-bias-in-a-live-setting

The World Wide Web

 The World Wide Web, commonly referred to as The Internet, has become integrated in every aspect of society. People can find jobs, go shopping, access their bank account, and instantaneously communicate with friends on the other side of the world. For children born after the turn of the century, life without internet would be unthinkable. This constant reliance on the internet has become a major drawback of the technology. If the internet were to collapse and cease to exist, even for a short period of time, society would be massively impacted. Nobody would know how to get places, people couldn't board planes, banks wouldn't be able to access your money, and the education system would crumble. The World Wide Web, is the most recognizable form of the Internet but is actually just the most common means of accessing data online in the form of websites and hyperlinks.

The History

Long before the Internet was ever created, scientists had already dreamed up systems similar to how the Internet looks today. Nikola Tesla thought up a "world wireless system" in the early 1900's . The idea was built upon by Paul Otlet in the 30's to be mechanized, searchable storage systems of books and music. However, the first official steps towards the Internet didn't happen until the early 60's with J.C.R. Licklider. He came up with the idea of an "intergalactic network" of computers which led computer scientists to one of the major building blocks of the Internet. Packet switching was a method for effectively transmitting electronic data, and would be crucial for the future of the Internet.

The first working prototype of the Internet came in the late 60's. The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) funded by the U.S. Department of Defense used packet switching to allow multiple computers to communicate on a single network. On October 29, 1969 the first "node-to-node" message was sent between two computers on this network. The short message consisting of one word, "LOGIN", crashed the system and the second computer only received the first two letters. However, this was still a major breakthrough for the invention of the Internet. The technology grew throughout the 70's. Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf developed Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol, TCP/IP, a communications model that set standards for how data could be transmitted between multiple networks. On January 1, 1983 ARPANET adopted TCP/IP ang began to assemble a "network of networks"

Tim Berners-Lee wrote the first proposal for the World Wide Web in March 1989 and his second proposal in May 1990. His proposal outlined how documents could be hyperlinked and accessed through browsers. Berners-Lee worked with  Belgian systems engineer Robert Cailliau and they formalized as a management proposal in November 1990, going into much deeper detail on how the system could actually work. By the end of 1990, they had the first Web server and browser up and running in a research facility, CERN. The first webpage address was http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html. This page only contained information on how the system ran and details on her to create your own server. 

In 1991, a simpler and more accessible version of the Web was released among computer scientist. In August, the Web was released to the public and spread like wildfire. Four months later, the first public web sever in the U.S was released by Paul Kunz and Louise Addis. At this point, Berners-Lee began asking through the Internet for help in developing a more user-friendly model of the Web. Early in 1993, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) released the first version of its Mosaic browser, and later became easily accessible on Mac and PC.

On 30 April, 1993, CERN made the source code of WorldWideWeb available on a royalty-free basis, making it free software. Allowing everyone across the world to help grow and develop the Web as we know it now. In May 1994,  the first International World Wide Web conference was held at CERN. By the end of 1994, the Web had 10 million users. CERN then submitted a proposal to the Commission of the European Union under the ESPRIT programme: “WebCore”, with the goal of ensuring that the web would remain an open standard for all and could not be locked up into a proprietary system.

The Drawbacks and Advantages

Although the Web made information easier to access, there are many drawbacks to the system. The web has become an integral part of everyone's life and because of this the world would fall apart if the Web went down. Many people get frustrated if the internet is down for even a few hours, let alone if it were down for longer. However, these drawbacks and massively outweighed by the advantages of it. Access to information, larger commercial markets, and increased communication across the world are much more important than the fact that people are completely dependent on the Web. The biggest thing to remember, is to keep your own reliance on the Internet in perspective. Use it when needed, but don't forget to unplug yourself from it for short periods of time when possible. 

https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web/short-history-web#:~:text=Tim%20Berners%2DLee%2C%20a%20British,and%20institutes%20around%20the%20world.

https://www.history.com/news/who-invented-the-internet#:~:text=The%20first%20workable%20prototype%20of,communicate%20on%20a%20single%20network.

The Eight Speech Theories

Having the freedom of speech is crucial for a democratic government to function and grow as times change. There are many different benefits of free speech, but all of them can be grouped into eight overarching theories.

The Theories

The first theory is that freedom of speech leads to a marketplace of ideas. This is the belief that the the truthfulness of any idea depends on the quality of it's competing ideas. If ideas are censored, then the rest of the ideas may not be testable for whether they are true or right. The next theory is participation in self government. This means that people must be able to communicate their ideas so that they can actively participate in the government. Another theory is the idea of stable change. Meaning if people are allowed to vent their thoughts and frustrations they are less likely to resort to violence and thus society will be more stable. Along the same lines is the idea of individual self-fulfillment. This is when people are given the opportunity to speak their opinions it allows them to create their own identity and have a sense of belonging with like-minded people. A very important theory is that free speech creates a check on governmental power. Without the ability to challenge the government, the government would remain stagnant and could be making the wrong decisions. Free speech also promotes tolerance. Letting people say what they want legally, but allowing society to set the rules for what is okay to say and what is wrong. Free speech also promotes innovation, allowing people to freely speak their ideas and build on others ideas to create even better ones. The last idea of free speech is that it protects dissent. This allows people, no matter how few of them feel that way, to advocate for their opinions regardless of what is the most common opinion.

In Practice

In the political landscape today, the biggest argument about free speech is basically the Trump Organization as a whole. Any recent news article could be used as an example for the eight theories, however, I chose to look at the recent capitol riot as a good example. A specific article with good information on the situation is  NPR's article from February 2nd. This situation is a very relevant way to look at how free speech shapes the country. It shows participation in self government, regular people getting involved and showing their political opinions. It's also an example of individual self-fulfillment, creating two distinct groups that people can identify with. However, I think this is the biggest negative of free speech right now. Your political opinions are a part of who you are but most people think it is the most important part and will actively argue with anyone who does not agree with them. The same goes for the theory on promoting tolerance, today free speech does nothing for that. Free speech only incites violence and intolerance now. Although it is obviously still an important freedom, there needs to be some changes as a society for it to be effective and beneficial again. People have to learn as a whole that just because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they are wrong, just different. However, this change will be very difficult to enact. Highlighting differences of opinions and fighting over them has become so engrained in our every day life that I don't know if it will ever change. The best way for free speech to be as effective as it can is to emphasize promoting tolerance among the public. 

The Anti-War Sentiment

Today, the only opinions heard are the ones who yell the loudest. Due to this, the voices that refuse to yell don't get heard. There are plenty of people who have an antiwar sentiment but we never seem to hear about them. Two very big antiwar voices are The American Conservative and Antiwar.com. 

The American Conservative

My first thoughts on this website were that the articles were too opinionated. You can not expect respect as a journalist if every article written is extremely biased. I looked at an article from December 11,2020, as one specific example. The author chose words like; annoyed, exploiting, and "to torch the neocons for hypocrisy". If an article is too biased and opinionated, especially if their sentiment is not appreciated by a majority of people, it will not get read. People will not read an article if it sounds like a whiny teenager complaining, rather than actual reporting. 

Antiwar.com

The first thing to say about this site is the layout of it. Just opening the site, I felt I couldn't trust what they have to say. Their website is disorganized, full of links, and seems undeveloped. First impressions are the most important thing when trying to convince someone that you are right. The undeveloped look of their website, would lead  many people to not trust what they have to say. This hurts anything they say, because everyone will overlook them. The first step to getting your voice heard is to make sure that people respect you, regardless of your opinion. If the organization can't be bothered to organize their website, why should we bother listening to their thoughts on war?

The Big Picture

The main reason that antiwar voices are not heard is because they do not represent themselves well. If you are going to argue against the majority of people, you must do it respectfully and show that you are worth listening to. Instead, the antiwar sentiment solely argues in extremely biased articles that anyone can tell is not worth reading. Personally, I will not listen to someone whining about their opinion if they are too biased about it. If someone can't step back and write an unbiased article, even if they are opinionated on the subject, they are not a true journalist. 

Six Clauses of The First Amendment

 The First Amendment guarantees citizens six freedoms. The first is known as the Establishment Clause, which guarantees freedom from government established religions. The next is known as the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees the freedom to practice religion without governmental interference. The last four are pretty well know;  freedom of speech, petition, peaceful assembly, and press. These are a part of everyone's daily life here in America. They're even more common now, as these freedoms are argued in the news almost every day. 

Today's Example

A very prevalent example of this is the Trump impeachment trial currently happening. A good article to learn more about this is NPR's article on February 9. The big debate that the senate must decide first is whether they can legally impeach someone who is no longer in office. After they decide that, they must debate whether Trump's speech was incitement. The only way to prove that it was incitement would be to prove that his speech directly caused the violence that occurred on Capitol Hill. His speech is protected under the first amendment's freedom of speech unless it was likely to cause violence. If his speech is proven to have caused imminent lawless behavior, then his first amendment right will not apply. However, there is really no way to prove that that would happen. The same theory applies to every citizen in America, you can say what you want except for in a few specific situations. If the senate somehow manages to allow the impeachment trial to occur, the constitutionality of incitement will be heavily debated among every person in the country, most importantly the Supreme Court justices. If it does get to The Supreme Court, it could affect the freedom of speech for everyone, not just the President.