Confirmation Bias in the Debate on Gambling - Essay Example

Gambling can be easily defined as either assuming risk or playing a game for money or property. Those who purchase stocks, or invest money are playing the financial game to generate a return on money and are generally reasonable people who understand the risks inherent. So the assumption of the argument that gambling is irrational is a clear case of confirmation bias based solely on the individual’s view of gambling. This, of course, does not mean the entire Yes argument has confirmation bias; it does, however, show that the argument for the Yes column based on one's state of mind may in fact have confirmation bias.

Continuing on to the No column we see that the argument again approaches the psychological aspects involved. However, instead of simply making a statement of fact or opinion the argument outlines why the psychological aspects exist.

The argument includes the following, “Some argue that gambling offers psychological benefits. The psychological benefits may include:

1. A feeling of control (which some describe as God-like).
2. Confidence extends from feelings of executive control in decision-making.
3. Benefits in the ability to psychoanalyze other people’s thoughts, and place moneyed interests and incentives behind the results of such psycho-analysis.
4. The release from daily tension.” (Debatepedia).

There are other areas approached and all are cited or linked to other sources for support. While this section shows a decided lack of confirmation bias it should be noted that the No side does not in fact address or counter the Yes side but simply offers an argument that explains the initial question.

 The citations for the No sideshow that the desire of those arguing the No side was based on research and an attempt to decide the truth. The citations used went back to publications by noteworthy news organizations such as PBS. This article in turn cited various studies and research that had been submitted on the subject. On the Yes side of the argument, there were no citations supporting the argument, making the argument itself a personal one that while it may have had a basis in truth lacked the support necessary to prove that.

As a result of these observations, it would be my conclusion that the No side is much more trustworthy given the nature of the argument and the lack of spurious claims without supporting evidence. The validity of each argument is something that could not be properly verified without additional research and or tests to generate support for either argument. Regardless it is my opinion that the No side supported itself to a much higher degree and would be the less likely candidate for confirmation bias.