Sheep to the slaughter
Psychology offers essential insights into how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to political issues, shedding light on the cognitive frameworks that shape our beliefs. Cognitive biases and logical fallacies—deeply ingrained mental shortcuts—play a significant role in how we process political information and make decisions. While these shortcuts help simplify complex information, they often distort judgment, leading to misinformed views and polarized opinions. Understanding the psychological mechanisms behind these biases allows us to examine why people frequently resist changing their beliefs, even when confronted with new and contradictory evidence.
A common critique in today’s polarized political climate revolves around the perception that college graduates, often associated with progressive movements, are "indoctrinated" by educational institutions and labeled as "snowflakes" for their perceived sensitivity to opposing views. However, the reality is more complex. People with less formal education are also susceptible to cognitive biases and logical fallacies, which can make them more vulnerable to misinformation and less open to alternative perspectives, sometimes reinforcing xenophobic, sexist, or speciesist ideas. This dynamic reveals how individuals across the political spectrum, regardless of education level, form and defend their beliefs and engage with opposing viewpoints, often influenced by deeply rooted psychological factors.
Cognitive biases are deviations from rational judgment, leading individuals to make decisions based on personal preferences, assumptions, or preconceptions rather than objective evidence. These mental shortcuts enable the brain to process information quickly, which can be useful in complex situations, but they often result in errors in judgment. Understanding specific biases, such as anchoring bias and confirmation bias, reveals how they play a central role in reinforcing personal beliefs and filtering out contradictory evidence. By examining these biases, people can gain insight into the psychological forces that drive polarized thinking and hinder open-mindedness in political discourse.
Anchoring bias arises when an individual places disproportionate importance on an initial piece of information—known as the "anchor"—when forming opinions or making decisions. This bias exerts a strong influence on beliefs and actions, often shaping a person’s worldview in ways that are resistant to change. For example, if a child is taught from an early age that there are only two genders—male and female—this binary notion becomes their anchor. As they grow, societal norms and media reinforce this binary perspective, embedding it deeper within their belief system. Later in life, when exposed to the concept of transgender identity, their anchored belief in a rigid gender binary may hinder their acceptance of gender as a spectrum. Even when presented with scientific evidence, such as studies showing that certain brain structures in transgender individuals align more closely with their identified gender, they may resist changing their view because of the strength of their initial anchor. This illustrates how anchoring bias can create resistance to more nuanced understandings, like those surrounding gender identity, that challenge early, ingrained beliefs.
Similarly, the belief that college students are "brainwashed liberals" can serve as an anchor, shaping how some perceive higher education and the political views of young adults. If a person grows up hearing on a certain news channel that universities are centers of liberal indoctrination, this perception becomes their initial framework for interpreting higher education. This view may be reinforced by selectively consuming media that portrays college campuses as overwhelmingly left-leaning and intolerant of conservative views. As a result, when encountering a young adult with progressive ideas, they may dismiss these ideas as mere "brainwashing" rather than recognizing them as the product of critical thinking or exposure to diverse perspectives. Even when faced with evidence that higher education fosters independent thought and embraces a variety of viewpoints, their anchoring bias may prevent them from seeing beyond their initial assumptions. This reliance on a fixed belief often oversimplifies the role of education, limiting their understanding of how informed opinions are formed.
Anchoring bias demonstrates how early exposure to certain ideas can create cognitive resistance when individuals encounter perspectives that don’t align with their foundational beliefs. These early anchors shape and constrain our ability to appreciate the complexity of nuanced, evolving issues, underscoring the profound impact of initial beliefs on our willingness to adapt. This cognitive limitation reveals how deeply rooted biases can hinder our acceptance of new perspectives, making it challenging to fully comprehend or embrace ideas that fall outside the framework established by early life experiences.
Confirmation bias is another potent cognitive bias that heavily influences political beliefs. It refers to the tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information that aligns with one’s preexisting views while disregarding or downplaying evidence that challenges them. In politics, this bias often drives people to favor news sources and perspectives that echo their views, creating echo chambers that validate their beliefs repeatedly.
An example of confirmation bias in the context of teachers discussing transgender issues in the classroom might involve parents or political groups who already believe that schools are advancing a particular political agenda. For instance, if these individuals suspect that teachers are “indoctrinating” students with progressive ideas on gender, they may focus on instances where a teacher introduces gender inclusivity or discusses transgender identities as confirmation of ideological “brainwashing.”
For example, if a teacher conducts a lesson on respecting diverse gender identities, those holding this belief might interpret the lesson as part of a larger agenda, reinforcing their preexisting bias. They may ignore or dismiss other parts of the curriculum that promote critical thinking, inclusive discussion, or even the presentation of diverse viewpoints, including conservative ones. Furthermore, they may overlook the fact that discussions on gender aim to foster respect and inclusivity for all students rather than push a specific ideology.
This confirmation bias prevents individuals from recognizing the educational value of teaching about diversity and inclusivity or from considering that these lessons aim to build understanding in a multicultural society. Instead, they zero in on information that confirms their concerns, contributing to a skewed perception of what is actually being taught in classrooms.
Even when presented with evidence to the contrary—such as reports from states and school districts with inclusive policies showing no increase in safety or disciplinary issues—these individuals may dismiss the information as biased or unreliable. This selective interpretation only reinforces their original stance, making them even more resistant to alternative viewpoints. Through this cycle, confirmation bias fosters polarized thinking by perpetuating existing narratives and shielding individuals from evidence that might encourage them to reconsider.
Similarly, the belief that colleges are merely “liberal think tanks” or centers of “brainwashing” is often sustained by confirmation bias. Those who hold this view may selectively focus on high-profile examples of professors or students expressing progressive views, interpreting these instances as proof that higher education is dominated by liberal ideologies. This narrow focus can lead them to overlook the intellectual diversity in academia, including conservative voices and the critical thinking skills emphasized in higher education.
When confronted with evidence to the contrary—such as the presence of conservative professors, politically diverse student organizations, or research showing that education fosters open debate rather than ideological conformity—those with entrenched biases may dismiss such information as rare or unrepresentative. Instead of considering the larger picture, they might label these counterexamples as outliers or unreliable, thereby reinforcing their initial beliefs. This confirmation bias not only distorts their perception of higher education but also limits their ability to engage with the complexities and multiple perspectives that define political discourse.
Alongside biases like confirmation bias and anchoring bias, illusory correlation further contributes to misinformed beliefs by creating perceived relationships between unrelated variables. Illusory correlation occurs when people falsely believe there is a connection between two factors, often because they focus on rare or emotionally charged events. In politics, this bias can lead individuals to associate a group (such as an ethnic minority or political faction) with negative behavior based on isolated incidents, rather than considering broader data that may reveal no such correlation.
A prominent example of illusory correlation is the mistaken belief that allowing transgender individuals to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity results in increased sexual assaults or public safety risks. This perception is often fueled by isolated or sensationalized media stories that highlight misconduct in bathrooms, even though such cases are rare and not representative of transgender individuals as a group. Despite evidence showing that inclusive bathroom policies do not correlate with increased safety risks—supported by studies and reports from states that have implemented such policies without seeing any rise in sexual violence—this misconception persists. People tend to focus on emotionally charged incidents, leading them to erroneously believe that transgender individuals pose a threat in these spaces, when in reality, transgender people themselves face heightened risks of harassment and violence in public bathrooms.
This is a textbook case where the perceived connection between transgender individuals and bathroom safety risks is exaggerated or invented based on rare, highly publicized incidents rather than factual evidence. Illusory correlation, in this context, reinforces harmful stereotypes and can drive support for discriminatory policies, such as bathroom bans targeting transgender individuals.
Similarly, illusory correlation can shape the belief that colleges "indoctrinate" students with liberal ideologies. When individuals encounter a college graduate expressing progressive views, they may mistakenly attribute these beliefs solely to the influence of a liberal educational environment. This assumption is often reinforced when people selectively focus on instances where progressive ideas are prominent on campus, overlooking the diversity of thought and critical discourse that academic institutions actually foster. Over time, this false association leads to the perception that attending college inherently drives individuals toward liberalism, even though higher education often encourages intellectual independence, exposure to multiple viewpoints, and critical thinking.
By promoting false connections, illusory correlation strengthens misconceptions and fuels polarized thinking, making it harder for individuals to engage with factual or nuanced information. Together with confirmation and anchoring biases, illusory correlation creates barriers to balanced political discussions and perpetuates mistrust of opposing viewpoints. Recognizing these biases is essential for fostering informed, open-minded engagement in our political discourse.
Cognitive biases—mental shortcuts that help us process information more efficiently—often lead to distorted judgments and misinterpretations. Logical fallacies, on the other hand, are reasoning errors that weaken arguments, making audiences more susceptible to misinformation. For a deeper exploration, see our post, The Anatomy of Thought. When cognitive biases and logical fallacies intersect, they can significantly skew public understanding of complex issues. Politicians frequently exploit this dynamic, using fallacies like the appeal to emotion to manipulate public sentiment on divisive topics such as transgender rights or immigration, swaying opinions and deepening ideological divides.
By tapping into emotions like fear, anger, or anxiety, politicians can divert attention from rational discourse and factual evidence. For instance, some may falsely portray transgender individuals as a threat to public safety by exaggerating or fabricating risks associated with inclusive bathroom policies. Although substantial evidence debunks these claims, the emotional weight of such arguments can overshadow rational analysis. Similarly, inflammatory rhetoric about immigrants “taking jobs” or contributing to crime fuels stereotypes that contradict data showing that immigrants contribute positively to economic growth and are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. These emotional appeals prey on cognitive biases like confirmation bias and the availability heuristic, which reinforce existing fears and misconceptions.
Logical fallacies also play a central role in shaping the false belief that colleges are indoctrinating students with liberal ideologies. Politicians and media outlets frequently use appeals to emotion, highlighting isolated instances of professors or students expressing strong liberal views as “proof” of widespread indoctrination. This emotionally charged framing stokes fear and resentment among those who worry about the erosion of traditional values, encouraging them to perceive higher education as a breeding ground for radicalism. Confirmation bias further strengthens this perception, as individuals focus on examples that validate their concerns while ignoring the intellectual diversity and debate present on most campuses.
In both cases, the combination of cognitive biases and logical fallacies creates a feedback loop in which emotionally charged, factually inaccurate narratives take hold and shape public opinion. This feedback loop often results in misinformed policies that fail to address the actual issues at hand, distorting the public's understanding of complex social topics.
Real-world discussions about racism illustrate how cognitive biases and logical fallacies can distort perspectives and entrench opposing viewpoints. For example, anchoring bias often shapes beliefs when a person’s first exposure to racism frames it as a historical issue resolved by the Civil Rights Movement. In states where Critical Race Theory is banned, students may lack exposure to the history of systemic racism, leading them to believe it either no longer exists or was never significant. This early anchoring causes many to dismiss ongoing racial inequalities as irrelevant or exaggerated, further stifling productive dialogue on contemporary forms of systemic discrimination.
Those who deny the existence of systemic racism frequently fall prey to confirmation bias, selectively consuming media, articles, or anecdotes that support the belief that racism is no longer a significant issue. This selective exposure reinforces their views, even when confronted with abundant evidence of racial disparities in housing, employment, education, and the criminal justice system.
Cognitive biases also make individuals more receptive to distorted narratives, such as the “Lost Cause” myth, which downplays the role of slavery in the Civil War, or “The Big Lie,” which promotes unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud, particularly in communities of color. Illusory correlations further exacerbate racial biases; for example, individuals might wrongly associate higher crime rates with specific racial groups, ignoring complex socioeconomic factors. Such false associations, often fueled by skewed media portrayals, reinforce harmful stereotypes and drive discriminatory attitudes.
Logical fallacies, such as ad hominem attacks, often derail meaningful discussions about racism. Rather than engaging with evidence or arguments, some may resort to attacking the character of those raising these issues, dismissing them as overly sensitive or “snowflakes.” These biases and fallacies perpetuate misconceptions, obstruct meaningful dialogue, and prevent the recognition of real societal challenges related to racism.
This dynamic underscores the importance of educating individuals on cognitive biases, logical reasoning, and critical thinking. An understanding of these cognitive tendencies helps people recognize how biases shape political views, reinforce preexisting beliefs, and hinder objective analysis. Colleges play a vital role in cultivating these skills, equipping individuals to analyze issues more rationally and engage in more informed, balanced political discourse.
These phenomena also contribute to the creation and reinforcement of echo chambers, where individuals are primarily exposed to information that aligns with their existing beliefs. In such environments, opposing perspectives are marginalized, intensifying political polarization. This dynamic fosters resistance to new, progressive policies or political ideas, as people become more entrenched in their views. When faced with uncertainty about the outcomes of proposed changes, individuals may prefer to maintain the status quo, even if it is flawed, thus impeding progress and the implementation of necessary reforms. Additionally, these biases exacerbate political polarization by promoting an us-versus-them mentality, making it difficult for people to view their political opponents as anything other than irrational or malicious. This entrenched polarization hampers constructive dialogue and reduces the likelihood of compromise, leading to legislative gridlock and ineffective governance. Moreover, these cognitive biases make individuals more susceptible to misinformation, particularly in the digital age, where repeated exposure to false or misleading information can significantly shape public opinion and influence political behavior, often resulting in the adoption of policies based on incorrect premises.
While these psychological phenomena are deeply rooted in human cognition, there are strategies to mitigate their impact on political perceptions and decision-making.
One effective approach is to enhance education systems and media literacy programs, emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and the objective evaluation of information. By teaching individuals to recognize cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and misinformation, we can empower them to make more informed political decisions. Additionally, exposure to diverse perspectives can help counteract the effects of confirmation bias and echo chambers. Encouraging dialogue between people with differing political views can challenge assumptions and foster a more nuanced understanding of complex issues. Cultivating open-mindedness and a willingness to consider alternative viewpoints can reduce the impact of naive realism and political polarization. Moreover, promoting empathy and understanding in political discourse can lead to more constructive conversations and effective problem-solving.
Media organizations also play a crucial role in combating misinformation and the illusory truth effect. By adhering to high journalistic standards and rigorous fact-checking practices, the media can help ensure that the public receives reliable and accurate information. Transparent reporting is essential in building trust and providing the public with the tools they need to navigate the complexities of political discourse.
Understanding the psychological phenomena that influence our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors is essential for protecting oneself against manipulation or "brainwashing." Studying these disciplines promotes critical thinking, self-awareness, and the ability to question and analyze information from multiple perspectives. By learning about cognitive biases, individuals become aware of the mental shortcuts that can lead to flawed thinking, enabling them to make more reasoned and informed decisions. Philosophy teaches people how to construct and deconstruct arguments, creating an environment where ideas are rigorously tested rather than passively accepted. Logic equips individuals with the tools to recognize fallacies and inconsistencies in reasoning, ensuring they can engage in sound, rational discourse. Together, these fields provide the intellectual foundation necessary to evaluate information independently, foster open-mindedness, and guard against manipulation, making individuals more resilient to ideological indoctrination and better prepared for the complexities of the real world.
Beyond theoretical knowledge, exposure to diverse academic environments plays a crucial role in broadening college students' worldviews. Engaging with professors and classmates from various socioeconomic backgrounds and cultures significantly deepens their understanding of global issues, fosters empathy, and cultivates open-mindedness. Interacting with individuals from different cultural backgrounds challenges students to question their assumptions, appreciate the richness of human diversity, and develop a more nuanced and informed outlook on the world. This holistic educational experience not only enhances academic growth but also equips students to navigate and contribute meaningfully to an increasingly interconnected and multicultural society.
Thus, rather than being vulnerable to indoctrination, it seems to reason that college graduates are more likely to develop the capacity to think independently and resist simplistic or manipulative rhetoric (that one might label as “brainwashing”) compared to the rest of the population.
To understand why some people perceive colleges as hubs of "liberal brainwashing," we need to consider whether it stems from the reality that reason, logic, research, data, and science may not align with the policies and ideologies favored by certain conservative politicians and their followers. If empirical evidence and scientific consensus contradict a particular worldview, then a calculated response might be to discredit the educators and scientists promoting critical thinking and fact-based knowledge that challenge those beliefs.
Undermining education serves as a tool for authoritarian leaders to erode critical thinking, spread propaganda, and maintain control.
Historically, authoritarian leaders have used similar tactics to consolidate power, manipulating education systems to suppress independent thought and enforce ideological conformity. For example, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime restructured the education system to spread their ideology, embedding ideas of Aryan superiority, militarism, and anti-Semitism into curricula while stifling academic freedom and critical inquiry. Joseph Stalin, too, saw intellectuals and academics as threats to his regime, controlling educational content to promote Marxist-Leninist ideology while actively discouraging independent thought, which could challenge state-driven narratives. During Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, traditional education was dismantled, universities were closed, and educators were persecuted, with schools reoriented to prioritize political indoctrination over academic learning, turning students into loyal followers rather than critical thinkers. Similarly, Saddam Hussein’s regime enforced strict control over education to secure unwavering loyalty to the Ba'ath Party, saturating the curriculum with Ba'athist ideology and harshly punishing dissenters, thus creating a society where critical analysis was discouraged.
These historical examples reveal how authoritarian leaders target educational institutions and intellectuals to create a society that favors propaganda over critical analysis, making populations easier to control. By eroding trust in educational systems and discrediting those who promote scientific reasoning and intellectual independence, leaders consolidate power through a populace less inclined to question state-driven narratives.
Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that college is indeed a tool for “brainwashing” students with liberal ideas. If that were the case, then how do we account for the fact that nearly half of the current members of Congress are Republicans, even though 95% of all members have a college degree, including 100% of senators from both parties? One might speculate that they went to different kinds of schools, but this doesn’t hold up to scrutiny either. About one-fifth of all members of Congress attended an Ivy League school—a group that includes prominent conservatives like Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Ted Cruz, as well as five of the six conservative Supreme Court justices. Additionally, more than half of Congress members attended a state school within the state they represent. For instance, Mitch McConnell graduated from the University of Kentucky, and Nikki Haley from Clemson University.
The assumption that some schools might lean more conservative or liberal doesn’t fully explain this either. While state schools are often perceived as more liberal, and Ivy League schools more conservative due to their tuition costs, status, and alumni base, congressional attendance patterns challenge this generalization. In fact, Republicans are statistically more likely to have attended a state school, while Democrats are more likely to have attended an Ivy League institution.
Certainly, one might argue, Republicans must avoid attending schools in ultra-progressive states like California, where the atmosphere could supposedly indoctrinate them with liberal ideas. Yet even this doesn’t hold up: prominent Republicans like Kevin McCarthy, Mitt Romney, Doug LaMalfa, Tom McClintock, John Duarte, David Valadao, Jay Obernolte, Young Kim, Ken Calvert, and Michelle Steel—all current Republican members of Congress—attended college in California. So, if we accept the “brainwashing” theory, we’d have to believe that these lawmakers, along with the 27.5 million Americans who voted Republican in the 2020 election and hold college degrees, somehow avoided this supposed indoctrination.
And, finally, one has to wonder—how exactly are these supposedly liberal professors who are allegedly “brainwashing” students benefiting from this system? What progressive policies are helping college professors, specifically? Are they reaping unusually high salaries? In reality, the median salary for college professors is $84,380 per year—not exorbitant by today’s standards, especially considering the cost of advanced degrees and often precarious job security in academia. Are they laundering money somehow? Through a pizza shop basement, perhaps? Are they receiving secret funding from institutions like “Big Woman,” “Big Black,” “Big Trans,” “Big Jew,” “Big Socialism,” “Big Vegan,” or “Big Climate” to promote specific narratives, win board seats, and pad their pockets?
What about power and influence? If professors truly held the power to indoctrinate students en masse, we would expect them to wield significant social or political sway. Yet, college professors typically hold far less public influence than, say, politicians, CEOs, or media moguls. Are they pushing a particular narrative or ideology with the zeal that, for instance, a politician might when promoting something like Christian nationalism?
The reality is that the majority of college professors are driven by a commitment to education, research, and critical inquiry, not by some hidden agenda to sway students toward a particular ideology. The idea of professors as powerful “ideological influencers” benefits those who aim to discredit critical thinking, science, and intellectual independence. But as for the professors themselves, the so-called “benefits” of this alleged brainwashing scheme seem largely imaginary.
If there were any truth to the idea of "liberal brainwashing" in colleges, then logically, college students and graduates would be among the first to seek further details and demand evidence, driven by a desire to understand and improve secondary education in America. Yet, those who have spent extensive time in college classrooms, agree that they have rarely, if ever, observed political talk or discussions of social issues outside of courses where these topics are directly relevant, such as political science, history, or philosophy. In these disciplines, debate and critical analysis are natural and necessary parts of the curriculum.
In reality, instructors seldom express personal opinions on societal issues, take explicit political stances, or make casual comments about political parties—whether leaning liberal or conservative. The notion of pervasive ideological influence lacks grounding, as instructors are typically more focused on developing students' analytical skills and fostering open discussions rather than promoting any particular viewpoint. In fact, evidence for the so-called “liberal brainwashing” is conspicuously absent, supported largely by the echo chamber of biased or illogical discourse from which these accusations often stem. Consequently, the perception of ideological indoctrination in higher education remains unsupported by the actual experiences of those within the system, suggesting that these claims are more rhetoric than reality.
The fall of America, if it were to parallel the Nazi regime's takeover of Germany or the communist takeovers in Russia, China, and Cuba, would likely involve a systematic discrediting of science and an insidious use of fear and ignorance to divide its people and incite internal dissent. In these historical examples, authoritarian regimes undermined scientific authority and promoted propaganda to control and manipulate public perception. By fostering an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, they successfully divided their populations, isolating and persecuting dissenters while consolidating power. Similarly, in America, a deliberate attack on scientific credibility and the spread of misinformation could fracture societal trust and unity, leading to polarization and internal conflict. This erosion of informed discourse and critical thinking, combined with the strategic use of fear to suppress opposition, could mirror the destructive paths taken by these totalitarian regimes, resulting in a profound destabilization of the nation's democratic foundations and social cohesion.
Over its history, America's rise to global power has been driven by a steadfast commitment to free thinking, equality, liberty, science, innovation, immigration, diversity, unity, and education. Free thinking and liberty fostered an environment where ideas could flourish, leading to revolutionary scientific discoveries and technological innovations. The principles of equality and individual rights provided a strong moral foundation, attracting immigrants from around the world who brought diverse talents and perspectives. This diversity enriched the nation's cultural and intellectual landscape, driving creativity and progress. Unity, despite differences, enabled collective action towards common goals, while investment in education ensured an informed and skilled populace capable of sustaining growth and innovation. Together, these elements created a dynamic and resilient society that continually adapted and excelled, securing America's position as a global leader committed to progress and human advancement.
While disagreement exists with the popular conservative narrative that secondary education serves as a conspiracy to indoctrinate students with liberal ideologies, there is alignment with the conservative call to restore the ideals that originally made America great. These values include free-thinking and open-mindedness, reason and logic, compassion and ethics, and a commitment to science and innovation. These principles have historically driven the country's progress and remain vital to its continued success.
We invite you to take a deeper dive into understanding the complexities of American history, political policy, human behavior, and societal issues—areas that demand not just surface-level knowledge but a thoughtful, open-minded approach. In a world where information is abundant and often conflicting, it’s essential to approach these topics with a willingness to question assumptions, challenge biases, and resist the allure of logical fallacies. By embracing thorough analysis and critical thinking, you can gain a richer, more balanced perspective on the issues that shape our society today, allowing for more informed and meaningful engagement with the world around us.
