Bias is more about leaning a particular way on an issue, a bias is something you develop over time based on many different experiences.

Consistency is a bit different, though it can probably be considered a “subset” or contributon to bias. It is a deeply ingrained pyschological effect that makes an individual want to act and speak consistently with with acts, decisions and thoughts you’ve previously taken, especially if you’ve already made those public. It’s a more of a hidden filter to influences the perception of the facts that lead to a bias.

@ Andrew – Interesting, part of the whole consistency principal is about who deeply committed you were to your position, too. And, as I mentioned, it influences everyone to a different degree.

@ Katinka – no doubt, time can help us evolve from a position, especialy because the faurther away we get from an initial act or though, the less we tend to feel he need to stay consistent

@ Shelley – Yup, you touched on another fundamental principal of belief, repetition breeds belief, regardless of whether the original event had any basis in fact

@ Deb – It is tough to disagree, but it’s also a little tough to stomach for folks (like me) who consider themselves able to be fair and objective. So, I get arguing that the principal doesn’t apply to “me,” but simple arguing it doesn’t always make it so.

@ Lindon – No doubt, the effect extends way beyond politics in blogging, social media, and pretty much every aspect of our lives. It’s actually a fundamental element of persuasion and can be tapped “for good or for evil.”

Influence has been one of the most influential books I’ve read in years, on the way I think, write and market.

I see a lot of this happening with those who meet at conferences and favour the mediocre content of their friends than the brilliant content of someone they have never met.

Actually half way through the book, loved the section on Reciprocity and see that working all the time in social media marketing.

Is that not how positive reinforcement works?

I saw the debates with two friends that had clear (and opposite) party affiliations and both seemed to believe that in presentation it was a draw. There were differences on who won once we got down to the specifics of issues (each believed their candidate won because they had already decided that the fundamental message of their candidate was the right one and therefore always correctly argued)

As an independent I found the entire event, and each of their-and the pundits-opinions, spectacular in their collective assumptions on that note.

Hmmmm….

Interesting thing for me to think on for a few days-