Cherry Picking

So, here’s a little piece on cherry picking. Now, you might think of actual cherries on a sundae, but what I’m talking about is the way people sometimes pick only the evidence that suits them, especially in politics. For example, if you list all the wrongs done by one political side and ignore the other side’s faults entirely, that’s cherry picking.

It’s a slippery slope because it creates an echo chamber and confirmation bias, and it doesn’t lead to real, substantive debate. If we want meaningful discussions, we need to look at all sides of the argument and weigh the evidence fairly.

For a smart, substantive political debate, think of it like this: if you say cats eat more fish than dogs, a real debate means actually looking at how much fish both cats and dogs eat and comparing the numbers. It doesn’t mean just insisting one side is right without the full picture. That’s how we move beyond cherry picking and have constructive conversations.

So, here’s my question for you: what’s one area where you think we could all do a better job of looking at both sides more fairly in our own discussions? Feel free to share your thoughts!