I see it daily with most people I interact with in multiple, varied communities (and no, I don’t and refuse to use those platforms, because video content is shit).
They will not read two paragraphs of text. They will happily spend hours churning through junk short videos.
I get it. That’s still confirmation bias, because in comparison, the people that I’m around read often. Our individual experiences are not good ways to determine what people in general are doing.
The problem is that, for most people, it has. They’re not willing to read.
And that’s the claim I’m rejecting. I think it’s confirmation bias, not a fact that stems from evidence.
I see it daily with most people I interact with in multiple, varied communities (and no, I don’t and refuse to use those platforms, because video content is shit).
They will not read two paragraphs of text. They will happily spend hours churning through junk short videos.
I get it. That’s still confirmation bias, because in comparison, the people that I’m around read often. Our individual experiences are not good ways to determine what people in general are doing.
That’s not what confirmation bias means. Confirmation bias has absolutely nothing to do with sample size or what you’re exposed to.
It’s ignoring the evidence you see in order to prop up a pre-existing belief.