The Rabbit Hole of Confirmation Bias

Thrive and AI
Mar 11
2 min read

Why Intellectual Independence Is Becoming Rare

Over the past few years I’ve noticed a pattern that I can’t quite unsee. Confirmation bias has always existed. Human beings naturally gravitate toward the information that confirms what they already believe.

But lately I’ve noticed it showing up in a place where I didn’t expect to see it quite so strongly, with historians.

Not commentators. Not influencers. Historians.

Social media has changed their environment dramatically. Twenty years ago most historians reached the public through books, lectures, or the occasional documentary. Today many speak directly to very large audiences through newsletters, podcasts, interviews, and social platforms. In many ways that’s a positive development. People are clearly hungry for historical context.

But when a historian develops a large following, something subtle can begin to happen. The audience hasn’t gathered only because the historian is knowledgeable.

They’ve gathered because the interpretation resonates with what they already believe about the world.

Over time that dynamic can quietly narrow the lens. Certain parts of the story get emphasized because they confirm the narrative the audience expects. Other parts, the parts that complicate things, tend to fade into the background.

It may not even be intentional. I sometimes wonder if they are even aware.

History rarely moves in a straight line. At any given moment there are political pressures, economic forces, cultural tensions, and unintended consequences. Many threads unfold at the same time. When only one of those threads is highlighted, the explanation becomes simpler and easier to digest, but it also becomes less complete.

Which raises a question that I think we should probably be asking more often.

What is the role of a historian in this new environment? Do historians need to rethink how they are telling the story?

Because is it their story that matters… or is it the story itself?

Maintaining intellectual independence has never been easy, but it may be more important now than ever. It requires resisting the comfort of constant validation and allowing complexity to remain complexity. It also requires something that seems increasingly rare: restraint. Not every thought needs to be broadcast. Not every reaction needs to become a public declaration.

The ability to step outside the tribe, even one that agrees with us, may be one of the most valuable habits a person can cultivate.