It’s another normal day. You’re scrolling through Twitter again, past status updates and event notifications. And there, amidst the content, is a Tweet from the President: “President Obama will go down as perhaps the worst president in the history of the United States!” (Trump).

​

Now, depending on whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or something else entirely, this post will either make you roll your eyes in disgust or nod your head in agreement. Either way, at its base level, it catches your attention and it makes you feel a certain way, regardless of your political position. This feeling will probably prompt you to either follow @realDonaldTrump or block him from your Twitter feed based on whether you agreed or disagreed with the Tweet (Swaim). Though we live in a time full of information and knowledge, we stick to what we already know.

​

And therein lies the problem. See, the content isn’t exclusively the issue in this scenario. Rather, this scene depicts a much larger dilemma within the Age of Information, one that severely impedes our ability to see past our preconceived notions of the world and of politics: that of confirmation bias (Hernandez and Preston).

​

Confirmation bias can be defined as the tendency to reinforce our beliefs and ideas by actively seeking out information that is already consistent with our attitudes (Seaman). This allows our brain to become ignorant of the information that goes against our world view; therefore, we begin to selectively notice and confirm information that only supports our beliefs (Giannelli).

​

This seems almost counterintuitive though. We’re just beginning the Age of Information. Technology, the Internet, and social media allows for an increase of information dissemination: everything we’ve ever wanted to know is right at our fingertips and on our screens. So why don’t we allow our opinions to be influenced by the millions of things circulating around us?

​

You see, everything about social media—our friends, our likes, even the ads tailored to our past searches—serve to support our already existing beliefs about politics. We befriend those who share our views, follow pages that reaffirm our ideas, and see ads that reflect our research.

​

This is inherently satisfying. As humans, we want to know that other people feel the same way we do (Dalton and Weldon). We want our opinions affirmed and our feelings justified. Social media caters to these very needs.

​

Everything we see on social media bolsters our preexisting notions of the world and humans are becoming obsessed with social media in all aspects of live. Indeed, people are increasingly using Twitter and other platforms as their primary source of news (Swaim). The very nature of social media is allowing us to see what we already believe in. When we do come across something different, however, the notion of confirmation bias has altered our behavior, making us ignore this different news or even block it from showing up on our feed again.

​

And changing our opinions take time and effort, something that many people find difficult (Herdandez and Preston). This is especially true in politics. Political analysts have noted an increase in extreme partisanship in American politics. Meaning, Americans increasingly adhere to strict belief systems: they are unwavering in their political stances (Dalton and Weldon).

​

Disputers of confirmation bias would argue that any exposure to different opinions would open our minds, regardless. However, a study conducted by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign noted that, when an opposing political issue was presented fluently and articulately, liberals and conservatives remain extremely partisan and consistent with their previously held beliefs (Hernandez and Preston). Social media content is presented as such: clear and concise. Therefore, one tweet or one article isn’t going to change our political affiliation.

​

Alternatively, the study also found that speech disfluency—i.e. speech that includes false starts, sentence fragments, non-sensical sounds, and filler words—actually served to alter opinions. This disfluency forced listeners to more critically analyze the arguments, rather than just listening to the cadence and delivery (Hernandez and Preston). And yet, politicians and political articles aren’t disfluent on social media. They are fully coherent sentences without pauses or breaks. Again, the structure of social media allows this.

​

So, everything we see on our feeds soothes our egos and reaffirms our beliefs. How social media works—the specially catered content and the fluent speech—makes confirmation bias a real threat. We can’t see past our opinions presented in the media and we can’t see other viewpoints because of it. Without open minds, the political climate in our world will continue to deteriorate. It’s time we recognize our confirmation bias so that next time we come across a Tweet we don’t agree with, we can at least acknowledge the opposing side.