Confirmation bias, or the silent distortion of legal and political reasoning
Of the many challenges facing contemporary democracies, one of the most subtle and least understood comes not from corruption or ignorance, but from the way we think. Confirmation bias, that mental reflex that leads us to favor ideas and data that confirm our beliefs, while ignoring those that contradict them, poses a silent threat to both legal reasoning and political debate.
This phenomenon, studied by Peter Wason in cognitive psychology in the 1960s, is both universal and deeply human. We are all inclined, to a greater or lesser degree, to confirm what we already believe to be true. However, when this mechanism is transferred to areas where neutrality and objectivity are core values – such as justice or politics – its effects can be harmful.
In the legal arena, confirmation bias can erode the essence of the principle of neutrality. The judicial judge may, without realizing it, direct his analysis toward what supports his initial hypothesis. Thus, the criminal investigation risks becoming a search for confirmations, rather than facts. The human mind, instead of acting like a scale, acts like a magnet that only attracts arguments related to its position.
Comparative law shows many cases in which errors of judgment are explained more by this bias than by the bad faith of the actors. In the context of high media or social pressure, the risk is exacerbated: the need to “provide quick answers” or meet public expectations can lead to legal reasoning becoming a narrative of justification rather than an exercise of objectivity. In other words, confirmation bias will turn a judge into a defender of his or her own ideas rather than an arbitrator between truth and reasonable doubt.
In the political sphere, too, this bias has increased weight. In the age of social networks and algorithms that amplify what each user wants to hear, public debate has fragmented into a multitude of information bubbles. Each sector feeds on its own sources, reaffirms its certainty and rejects any evidence that questions its narrative. The result is that citizens become increasingly less willing to engage in dialogue and more likely to endorse their own biases.
Confirmation bias explains, in part, why the same facts are interpreted in opposite ways depending on the political color of the observer. A judicial ruling, an economic measure, or an institutional conflict is not analyzed from its content, but from its relevance to the issue itself. Objectivity gives way to ideological opportunism, and the public space turns into an arena of mutual assertions where dissent is tinged with suspicion.
Overcoming this bias is not an easy task. It is not a matter of eliminating it – because it is inherent in our nature – but of recognizing and disciplining it. In the legal field, this requires strengthening the ethical and argumentative training of legal professionals, as well as fostering an institutional culture where reasonable dissent is seen as a virtue rather than an obstacle. Professional self-criticism, analysis from different doctrinal perspectives, and review of precedents from a comparative perspective are exercises that help neutralize the confirmatory tendency.
In politics, the antidote is critical thinking and pluralistic deliberation. Leaders must resist the temptation of quick applause and be encouraged to confront diverse ideas, not just predictable opponents. Citizens, for their part, must assume that a change of opinion in the face of new evidence is not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of maturity.
There are many examples in Argentina and the world. In our country, stubbornness has become a virtue. Not being stubborn about honest behavior or core values. Any criticism of certain public policies is considered a vile attack that only comes from ignorance or bad faith. Congress itself, when it attempts to legislate without a “mandate” from the executive branch, or when, within its constitutional prerogatives, insists on a law to which it objects, is described as “eliminationist,” a new term coined by Kirchner’s pseudo-intellectuals and now used by those who are supposedly its opposite.
The official most inclined to dialogue with other political forces, Guillermo Francos, was replaced by Manuel Adorni, a presidential spokesman who is always prone to deception directed at those who think differently and who ends his tweets with the word “end,” implicitly indicating that he has spoken a transcendent truth that has been cemented in marble for posterity. The “end” closes the dialogue, eliminates nuances, and closes off the path to enriching observations. What’s worse is that it tightens the knot and leaves critics in a difficult position, because it is inappropriate to evaluate the positive content that many of the current government’s initiatives may have.
The polls’ message would be incomprehensible if they were a blank check rather than a forceful rejection of Kirchner’s doctrine, one of whose best-known practices is precisely confirmation bias.
The 21st century confronts us with a paradox: we have access to more information than ever before, but at the same time we live more strongly in our convictions. Confirmation bias, amplified by algorithms and the desire to belong, threatens to undermine legal thinking and public conversation.
Realizing it does not exempt us from falling into it, but it puts us in a more aware, more responsible and, above all, more humane position. Because, ultimately, the truth, whether in law or politics, does not belong to those who shout the loudest, but to those who dare to hear even what they do not want to hear.
Jorge R. Enriquez is a former national representative – president of the Just Causa Civic Association, and a member of the Republican Professors
