Professor Chris Freiman Highlights "Conclusion-Driven" Nature of Political Arguments, Echoing Psychological Research on Motivated Reasoning

Williamsburg, VA – Professor Chris Freiman, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at William & Mary and a scholar specializing in democratic theory and distributive justice, recently articulated a critical observation regarding the mechanics of political discourse. In a widely shared social media post, Freiman asserted that political arguments are predominantly "conclusion driven," suggesting that partisans often begin with a desired outcome—typically affirming their own side and denigrating the opposition—and subsequently construct justifications to support these pre-determined conclusions.

"An obvious point, but the key to understanding political arguments is realizing that they’re almost all conclusion driven. Partisans start with their preferred conclusion (namely, their side is good and the other side is bad) and then (typically non-consciously) manufacture whatever rationalizations they can to reach that conclusion. And it doesn’t matter if the conclusion is inconsistent with other commitments they profess to have because consistency isn’t the point—“winning” is," Freiman stated in his tweet.

This perspective aligns closely with the psychological phenomenon known as motivated reasoning. Research in political psychology defines motivated reasoning as the tendency for individuals to process information in a biased manner, driven by emotional, social, or ideological motivations rather than an objective assessment of facts. This often involves selectively accepting information that supports existing beliefs while rejecting or rationalizing away contradictory evidence.

Experts in the field, such as Ziva Kunda, have distinguished between "accuracy-oriented" reasoning, which aims for objective truth, and "goal-oriented" reasoning, which seeks to maintain current beliefs or desired conclusions. Freiman's observation points directly to the latter, where the motivation is not to achieve an accurate understanding but to "win" the argument, regardless of logical consistency or factual evidence. This process is often unconscious, leading individuals to genuinely believe their manufactured rationalizations.

The implications of such conclusion-driven political arguments are significant, contributing to increased political polarization and the spread of misinformation. Studies show that individuals, particularly those with strong existing political beliefs, are more prone to confirmation bias—seeking out information that confirms their views—and disconfirmation bias—spending more time and effort counter-arguing information that challenges them. This can lead to an "affective tipping point," where new information, even if contradictory, further entrenches pre-existing beliefs.

While motivated reasoning is a universal cognitive distortion, its impact is particularly pronounced in ideologically charged areas like politics. It highlights the challenge in fostering constructive dialogue and evidence-based policy-making when the primary goal for many participants is not truth-seeking but partisan victory. Understanding this underlying psychological mechanism is crucial for navigating and potentially mitigating the divisive nature of contemporary political debates.