Confirmation: Bias

Somewhat by accident, I've unplugged myself from the world of proactive apostasy and former Jehovah's Witnesses. Facebook is a wonderful tool, but it sometimes presents dangers that outweigh the benefits by a healthy margin. While I admit to having my own concerns about Watchtower, it didn't truly take root until I discovered support groups established for those struggling with separating from the organization.

In that respect, it was extremely helpful. I admit that I didn't know how much I didn't know. As I've previously written, my exit from Watchtower was an unintentional fade born of general disinterest rather than any specific rift in philosophy. So the plethora of documented tom-foolery that Watchtower has been caught up in over the years was both shocking and glee inducing.

However, a theme started to develop.

There are certain examples of chicanery that were frequently repeated. While they may be the easiest examples to pick on because of just how far left of center they are, the arguments are about as flawed as they are frequently rehashed. Poster after poster all point and scream "a-HA!" as if some revelation has been had. Do these examples demand further scrutiny? Sure! Are the criticisms cited by the community logically sound? Hardly...

I pride myself on being open minded. I, above all else, seek truth. A fact is, or it isn't. There really isn't much in between. If that thing is to be called a fact, it has to be real, measurable, and verifiable. A lot of the arguments I allude to above contain none of those things. What they do contain is a lot of supposition to fill in the blanks where facts cannot be validated.

For example, Watchtower is known to have had Non-Government Organization association with the United Nations. That has been confirmed by both Watchtower and the UN. The standard argument of malfeasance centers on Watchtower's hasty withdrawal of its status following exposure in the UK media. While that is also true, apostates regularly claim that Watchtower was completely aware of a complicit support clause present in the NGO membership documents. This is based off of possible misinformation in a letter distributed by the UN regarding when that language appeared in the paperwork. I say 'possible' because I've been unable to independently confirm that the document in question contained the offensive language at the time the UN letter claims. There is simply no proof of it.

Even so, apostates readily claim that Watchtower was completely aware and only distanced themselves after being outed. Inductive reasoning like this is the enemy of truth. Likewise, apostates also claim that the reasons Watchtower claimed to have sought this status in the first place (to gain access to the UN Library) are invalid. They state over and over that such a card is not necessary and that Watchtower is lying about this. What cannot be disputed, since it appears in published UN policies, is that the library access is in fact restricted in such a way if one is attempting to visit the UN headquarters in New York. Is that not exactly where this access was being used?

Unfortunately, in many cases, the people who are disgruntled by Watchtower are looking for some validation of their concerns (and there are plenty of valid concerns). Inevitably, when they look for it, they will quickly and easily stumble across things like the above example. Though it is loaded with inaccuracies, this quasi-urban-legend provides confirmation bias.

The disaffected are hoping for proof that they are justified in their anger. Since this particular story is so often repeated in substantially the same form, it's convenient, if not lazy, to accept it as properly researched fact. It is anything but...

A minimum of effort will turn up all kinds of cracks in the argument. An argument that lacks originality and vetting. One just needs to put forth the effort, which just means that it's never going to get better. Among other things, I'm a realist.

But that brings me back around to my original purpose; pointing out the danger of confirmation bias. We've all come to some kind of conclusion about Watchtower. It's natural to cling to the information that proves out what we feel. Be that as it may, the constant barrage and reinforcement put in front of people simply looking for information bears a duty to accuracy. 

In my absence from social media and its regurgitation of only the juiciest gossip, I realized that my own hatred has died down. Don't mistake this for acceptance, or even tolerance, of Watchtower policy or practice. Quite the opposite. I've been able to take a dispassionate view and examine what really is true. The frenzied passions of the groups to which I belong(ed) often caught others in a tidal wave of ire.

The same can honestly be said of my days in Watchtower. The collective zeal of the congregation often kept me from having a dispassionate and balanced view of the world. I could not see things for what they were. I was only able to see them for the monstrous abominations that Witnesses believed all non-Witnesses to be. It wasn't until I unplugged myself from that incessant reinforcement that I was able to actually see the error in my judgement.

It's a mistake to arrive at judgement before all the facts can be known. Witnesses do it about the world. Ex-Witnesses do it with information that seems to be damaging to Watchtower. There is a persistent rush to judgement, or at least complicit ignorance of information that doesn't support group bias. If for no other reason than that, I'm glad I have stepped back from it.

It was hard for me to be in the congregation and accept confirmation bias an operating model. It's just as hard as an apostate. I'm only questing for truth. That deserves my full effort, I think.