Belief overkill

This effect is related to selective exposure, myside bias, belief bias, and confirmation bias, and concerns a confusing of considerations related to some belief such that what should be independent decisions about various relevant considerations become interlocked and fall domino-style one way or another – this is particularly pertinent to controversial issues and people’s responses to them.

A rational decision about an issue, especially one which is controversial or is seen as important, would involve weighing arguments carefully and in an objective way, taking account of the relative strengths of the arguments, yet often people seem to have no difficulty in determining that all of the good arguments are on one side, even when it seems clear in a particular case that the competing arguments are closely-matched.

For example, it is unusual to find someone arguing in favour of capital punishment because they have evaluated it to be an effective deterrent while articulating a vehement moral dislike of the practice, or the reverse. What are logically-independent, but related factors are very frequently ‘lined-up’ and are not permitted to be in what people would usually perceive as conflict – this is belief overkill. (see also: misplaced consistency)

One can have a very ‘animated’ discussion when one attempts to point out the independence of such elements.

See Carroll on selective thinking.

(see also: cognitive bias, Neutral-evidence principle, Subjective Validation)