When somebody hears the word bias, he/she thinks usually of racial bias or, since the election of President Donald Trump, more so of news bias where the news organizations slant the coverage to one political point of view over another. Yet Wikipedia contains a list of 185 entries for bias. One example is the gambler’s fallacy which makes the Twin River roulette player think that if red has come up five times in a row that black most certainly will appear next. Oops! The odds are still 50/50.

In the September edition of The Atlantic, author Ben Yagoda, citing a trove of research, states that “confirmation bias” is the most pervasive and damaging bias. That’s the effect that leads us to look for evidence which confirms what we already think or suspect. When facts are produced, we self-select them to further confirm what we think and to discount or ignore any piece of evidence which supports an alternate view. (p. 75)

Confirmation bias plays out most blatantly in our current political divide. If the research is correct, the more blatant the rhetoric is about the “facts” the more folks swear by the accuracy of their viewpoint. Now, here’s the corker: The research seems to indicate that we are hard-wired to delude ourselves into thinking that our positions are absolutely the correct ones. It is very rare for someone to become unbiased about what they hold true. In fact, the article delimits the lengths to which folks will go to keep their opinion. In research studies folks who have statistics on their side will argue them as the basis for their positions, yet the same person will eschew this kind of study and resort to individual examples and anecdotes to counter the statistical fact they don’t want to embrace.

Given the “ear pollution” in our country, unity seems a long way off. I suppose one antidote is to try to actually listen to an opposing viewpoint and to parse it for any nuggets of truth. In fact, brain science seems to suggest that the only way to prove a proposition is to delve into what disproves our thesis since it is a logical fallacy to seek only examples that confirm it.

Take the “news bias” referenced above. If somebody thinks that news organizations pump out "fake news," the way to support or negate that position is to examine whether any news outlet acts like Joe Friday on Dragnet, i.e. “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.” If, on the other hand, somebody is appalled by the “fake news” epithet, then the person might want to analyze news sources to see if any are slanted. Only upon recognizing that there is some truth to either position will people move off dead center and stop the indulgence that they are right and others are wrong.

The end result here is that unless people try to understand the positions of one another the American "melting pot" will, indeed, melt. In the toxic environment of today’s verbiage, ignorance will reign supreme. The only antidote is for people of good will to “detoxify” by listening to and discerning the elements of truth in those who disagree with them. Can that happen? If it doesn’t, the United States and its principles will soon disappear.

Arlene Violet is an attorney and former Rhode Island Attorney General.