Confirmation bias: Silently destroying meritocracy, objectivity and fairness

THE varied public response to recent incidents ranging from the arrest of Ranil Wickremesinghe, former president and prominent politician of Sri Lanka to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, American right-wing political activist, evidence that our assessment of, and response to, events are primarily based on our like or dislike of the individual, or individuals, involved rather than on an objective and unemotional interpretation of the underlying facts.

- By Ronnie Peiris

By Ronnie Peiris

When we base our opinions and conclusions on our likes or dislikes of the individual rather than on the facts, we undermine the principles of fairness, justice, ethics, and integrity that underpin our society.

These responses are not a matter of momentary lapses in judgment. They are a fundamental corruption of our ethical framework. The shift from "what is right?" to "who is involved?" represents a dangerous regression that can lead to profound and lasting damage to our innate values and those values that were nurtured in us by our parents, teachers, spiritual leaders, and the generations before us. Till about 50 years ago, there was significant congruence in our interpretation of what was right and wrong.

My father was an example of one who expressed a straightforward binary assessment of an action, irrespective of who was involved. To him, there was a clear 'right' or 'wrong'; a 'black' or a 'white'. There were no greys or shades of grey. There were no fences to sit on. His views on a matter were based on his unbiased interpretation of facts, and such interpretation did not vary based on who was involved. Oft were the times when he found in favour of a third party over his immediate kith and kin. He had no qualms or hesitancy in telling his wife and/or his sons that they were wrong. Compare this with the current tendency of people protecting kith and kin even when they are blatantly at fault!