Assignment Overview
Purpose
This assessment provides you with the opportunity to put some of your critical thinking skills into practise in the production of argumentative essays, whose topics, furthermore, relate to some of the issues covered in class.
Task details
Write two 900 (+/-10%) word essays, addressing each of the following questions:
- Essay question 1: Explain what confirmation bias is and discuss how biological evolution may have led it to evolve as a common feature of human reasoning.
- Essay question 2: Why might the use of internet search engines be thought to exacerbate confirmation bias in human reasoning? To what extent are these concerns well-founded?
Instructions
You are expected to reference your essays appropriately. Note that your essay isn’t assessed on the number of references. However, it’s expected that you to give due credit to your sources and discuss any work mentioned in class that is relevant to the claims that you make.
Resources and readings relevant to the assessment are provided below.
Please Find Essay questions 1 & 2 with resources that must be read and cited from.
Essay question 1
- Required: The enigma of reason (Mercier & Sperber, 2017), Chs 11 & 12: You should use this resource as the point of departure for your discussion. It provides an accessible presentation of Mercier and Sperber’s claim that confirmation bias (‘myside bias’ in their terminology) may have evolved to perform various social functions.
- The enduring enigma of reason (Novaes, 2018): A review of Mercier and Sperber’s book, in which their claims about the evolution of confirmation bias are criticised.
- The argumentative ape (Jones, 2012, pp. 32–36): Pop science coverage of Mercier and Sperber’s views on argumentation.
- Why do humans’ reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory (Mercier & Sperber, 2011, pp. 57–74): A somewhat detailed (and for some of you, perhaps, demanding) scholarly presentation of Mercier and Sperber’s claim that reasoning evolved primarily as a means of persuasion.
- What is the function of confirmation bias? (Peters, 2022, pp. 1351–1376): An article that helpfully reviews some of the literature on confirmation bias and proposes a novel take on the question, which we did not discuss in class. Feel free to stop before Section 4, where this novel view is outlined.
- How and why we reason | Hugo Mercier | TEDxGhentSalon (TEDxTalks, 2015): You may also be interested in watching Mercier explaining his views in this video [15.03 min.].
- What is the function of reasoning? On Mercier and Sperber’s argumentative and justificatory theories (Dogramaci, 2020): A easy-to-read philosophical critique of M & S’s claims about the evolutionary function of reasoning and confirmation bias. Dogramaci questions whether it is actually evolutionarily beneficial for individuals to convince others to share their beliefs (as opposed to, say, convincing them of truths), and argues that M & S fail to adequately support this crucial claim.
- Can confirmation bias improve group learning? (Gabriel & O’Connor, 2023): A computational modeling study that provides qualified support for M & S’s division of labour argument. The authors show that moderate levels of confirmation bias can enhance group problem-solving by promoting exploration of diverse solutions and preventing premature convergence on suboptimal answers. However, they also demonstrate that strong confirmation bias leads to polarization and harms collective performance, suggesting important limitations to the evolutionary benefits claimed by M & S. (Warning: maybe a bit too technical for most of you!)
- Confirmation bias without rhyme or reason (Michel & Peters, 2020): If M & S are right about their claim that confirmation bias evolved for argumentation, it should only appear in reasoning, not in other cognitive domains. Michel and Peters, however, present evidence that confirmation bias exists in perception and perceptual confidence, including in non-human animals.
- Mandevillian intelligence (Smart, 2018): A review article proposing that individual cognitive shortcomings, including confirmation bias, can produce collective benefits—what Smart calls “Mandevillian intelligence” after Bernard Mandeville’s idea that private vices can yield public benefits. The article examines evidence from computer simulations and empirical studies showing how cognitive limitations like confirmation bias, dogmatism, and restricted memory can enhance group-level problem-solving, lending support to the cognitive division of labour aspect of M & S’s account.
Essay question 2
- Required: ‘Introduction’ from The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You (Pariser, 2011): You should use this resource as the point of departure for your discussion. Pariser’s extremely polemic book, in which he argues that we should be worried about the potential for search engine use to exacerbate confirmation bias. Take this with a pinch of salt!
- ‘Googling’ (Gunn & Lynch, pp. 41–53) in Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology (Coady & Chase, 2019): A philosophical survey of some issues relating to search engine use. Note that this article is way broader in scope than the specific question I posed, so be selective if you draw from it!
- A virtue epistemology of the internet: Search engines, intellectual virtues and education (Heersmink, 2018, pp. 1–12): An article by my former colleague Richard Heersmink, in which he argues that the key to guard against the potential issues associated with search engine use is the development of ‘epistemic virtues’.
- Identifying and mitigating online bias in information search (Kim, 2021): A helpful pop science discussion of some of the relevant issues.
- Evaluating Google as an epistemic tool (Simpson, 2012, pp 426–445): A nice little philosophical discussion of the potential perils associated with search engine use, including those associated with personalisation. One key focus of the article is the social responsibility of search engine companies, such as Google.
- Beware online “filter bubbles” | Eli Pariser (TED, 2011): You may also be interested in watching Pariser explaining his views in this TED talk video [9.04 min.].
Summary of Assessment Requirements
The assessment aimed to evaluate the student’s ability to apply critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills in the context of contemporary issues related to human cognition and technology. Students were required to write two argumentative essays of approximately 900 words each (+/-10%), demonstrating an understanding of the concept of confirmation bias and its implications for human reasoning and information processing.
Assessment Purpose
The purpose was to help students:
- Practise critical thinking and academic writing through argumentative essays.
- Engage with key philosophical and psychological texts discussed in class.
- Demonstrate understanding of how biases influence human reasoning and how technology can amplify these biases.
Assessment Tasks
Essay Question 1:
Explain what confirmation bias is and discuss how biological evolution may have led it to evolve as a common feature of human reasoning.
Students were expected to:
- Define confirmation bias with reference to relevant theories.
- Examine the evolutionary explanations for the bias, particularly from Mercier and Sperber’s Argumentative Theory of Reasoning.
- Critically analyse supporting and opposing views from prescribed readings, including Novaes (2018), Dogramaci (2020), and Gabriel & O’Connor (2023).
- Evaluate the idea that confirmation bias might have adaptive social functions in group reasoning contexts.
Essay Question 2:
Why might the use of internet search engines be thought to exacerbate confirmation bias in human reasoning? To what extent are these concerns well-founded?
Students were expected to:
- Discuss the impact of digital information systems—particularly search engines—on human reasoning.
- Refer to Eli Pariser’s concept of the “filter bubble” and related philosophical discussions by Heersmink (2018) and Simpson (2012).
- Critically evaluate the extent of the problem and explore possible epistemic and ethical solutions to online bias.
- Demonstrate balanced reasoning by considering both the risks and potential benefits of internet-based information retrieval.
Referencing Requirements
- Essays had to be properly referenced using academic conventions.
- The emphasis was on quality of engagement with sources rather than quantity.
- Students were required to cite at least the core readings listed under each essay question.
Step-by-Step Mentorship and Guidance Process
The academic mentor guided the student through a structured and reflective process, focusing on comprehension, research, writing, and refinement.
Step 1: Understanding the Task and Deconstructing the Questions
The mentor began by helping the student interpret each essay question carefully, breaking them down into core themes and analytical requirements:
- For Essay 1: Understanding what confirmation bias is, exploring why it might have evolved, and how scholars differ in interpreting its evolutionary purpose.
- For Essay 2: Investigating how search engines contribute to confirmation bias and evaluating whether the concerns are empirically or philosophically justified.
The mentor emphasized the difference between description and analysis, encouraging the student to go beyond summarizing sources to developing a reasoned argument.
