The way that Elizabeth Bennet is tricked by Wickham is so important because it's confirmation bias and we are all so susceptible to it. Of course Elizabeth ate up everything negative Wickham said about Darcy with a spoon, it's what she already thought! Wickham checked first. Once he knew Elizabeth hated Darcy, he fed her ego by letting her know that not only was she right, but she was special and smart for seeing through Darcy's wealth and status.
"The world is blinded by his fortune and consequence, or frightened by his high and imposing manners, and sees him only as he chooses to be seen." - Wickham, Ch 16
The world is blind, but not Elizabeth! Not with her supreme powers of perception and character reading. She sees the "real" Darcy...
And then of course, the best warning Elizabeth gets about Wickham (and I'll admit it's not a great one) is from Caroline Bingley, a woman she detests (I cut out the snobbery around it):
"Let me recommend you, however, as a friend, not to give implicit confidence to all his assertions; for, as to Mr. Darcy’s using him ill, it is perfectly false: for, on the contrary, he has been always remarkably kind to him, though George Wickham has treated Mr. Darcy in a most infamous manner. I do not know the particulars, but I know very well that Mr. Darcy is not in the least to blame; that he cannot bear to hear George Wickham mentioned..." Caroline Bingley, Ch 18
Elizabeth's judgment isn't perfect, it's highly subject to bias. Jane Austen's understanding of the human condition was amazing. She set Elizabeth's deception up in such an accurate way it could be in a modern social psychology textbook. Of course she believed Wickham; of course she discounted Caroline, it's human nature.
There were no recorded burials between 1614 and 1617. Historians have yet to reach a consensus on why, but either nobody died in civilizations that bury their dead; or nobody in those civilizations got a proper burial. We cannot be certain which because the only 1614-1617 volume of burial listings was checked out of the library in 1618 and never returned.
Look, at the end of the day it's actually very easy to come up with a conspiracy theory. The human brain is wired to find patterns, and we're really good at linking things together even when they're not linked. Loathe as I am to mention the guy, Milo Rossi's April Fool's Atlantis video really demonstrated perfectly how you can find patterns if you're looking for patterns, as shown by him and his friend going on a wild drunken deep dive to "prove" Atlantis is in Iowa. I myself have a whole fictional timeline for the fictional Atlantis in the Marvel universe being related to the Philistines. I don't actually believe Atlantis was ever a real place, but it's easy to find "clues" in everything if you're looking for them. Over Thanksgiving I came up with a "conspiracy theory" that JFK was killed by the turkey industry. It can be fun and entertaining to try and connect dots that aren't actually there. But that doesn't actually reveal anything of substance or truth besides the fact that humans are really good at finding patterns, and where no patterns exist, our mind will readily invent them. It's related to the tendency to see faces where faces do not exist. But conspiracy theories are dangerous when they're taken seriously, and often the conspiracy theories that are taken seriously are those that invoke xenophobic and prejudiced canards and stereotypes. Just because you were able to connect things doesn't mean those connections are at all rooted in reality.
Confirmation Bias - (also known as confirmatory bias or the “myside bias,”) the tendency of people to seek out information that supports something they already believe.
This type of bias affects our critical thinking, causing people to remember the hits and forget the misses—a flaw in human reasoning.
People will often cue into things that matter to them (the things that support their own beliefs) and dismiss the things that don’t.
This can lead to the ostrich effect, where a subject has overconfidence in their own opinions, and “buries their head in the sand” to avoid contradictory evidence that may disprove their original point of view.
Examples of Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias affects everyone in ways big and small, from their own opinions to how they read and understand the news. Some examples of confirmation biases:
Personal interpretations. People with a pre-existing notion in their head about a certain idea are not reliable eyewitnesses. For example, a person who thinks all children annoy and misbehave will see a child acting out and use this to reaffirm their opinion, whereas someone who loves children will look at a child and see someone who just wants love and attention. Both opinions are shaped by the inherent opinion towards children in general, which shapes how they view a situation.
Social interactions. Some people get antsy when they send a text and don’t receive a reply back. They start to invent stories in their head as to why their friend or loved one may not be answering. The longer the silence continues, the more affirmed the person feels—having their insecurities confirmed by a lack of response, rather than assuming the person is just busy at the moment.
Scientific research. Bias plagues the research community. Scientists who work for years on a hypothesis or lengthy research question may tend to only look at the positive outcomes that support their thesis, and ignore the parts of the results that don’t necessarily contribute to its success.
Media. News outlets employ plenty of writers and researchers with their own preconceptions. Some of these people write (or influence the writers) with biased information, leading to sensational or attention-grabbing new headlines that are often seen by those whose views they already align with. People might see a headline that expresses their own opinion, and take it to be a true statement, validating their own beliefs.
How to Reduce Confirmation Bias
Biases influence all human decision-making, so it’s important to be aware of how these preconceived notions can influence our behavior and choices. Here are a few tips on how to reduce confirmation bias:
Allow yourself to be wrong. If you want to get closer to objective truths, you have to be able to admit you were wrong, especially in the face of new data. If you can’t admit defeat, it makes you incapable of making new discoveries in this world. You can avoid biases by being aware of your belief systems, whether your belief is for a religion, a political ideology, a cultural worldview, or something else. Be open to disconfirmation, and allow yourself to be wrong.
Test your hypothesis. We’re typically more aware of our assumptions than of our biases, but like biases, assumptions often keep us from thinking clearly. Before Einstein came up with his general theory of relativity, the common assumption was that the universe was static—neither expanding nor contracting. Einstein’s equations allowed for a dynamic universe, but his idea was rejected outright. Later on, Edwin Hubble would show that the universe is expanding. It’s risky to presume that your assumptions are correct. Always test your hypotheses. You can do this by searching out disconfirming evidence of your theories, and forming factually-supported arguments with new evidence that can further prove your point.
Beware of repetition. Political and religious tenets often get repeated—for emphasis, for intensity, for effect. This tactic is actually a form of brainwashing wherein you begin to think that something is true simply because you’ve heard it so many times. It is one of many weaknesses in the human sensory system. It’s also how dictatorships and cults operate. Listen for repetition and be especially skeptical of what powerful people tell you again and again and again.
'Horoscopes aren't real' until I started doing What Vampire: The Masquerade Clan Are You tests and I'm like oh my god literally me at the results
I am no better than an astrology girl
You naturally look for proof of what you already believe.
Your mind is wired to reinforce what feels familiar.
In psychology, this is known as confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in ways that confirm pre-existing beliefs or assumptions. It is a cognitive bias that causes people to overlook or dismiss contradictory evidence, reinforcing viewpoints that may not be accurate.
This phenomenon was described by Francis Bacon in 1620, when he noted that once the human mind settles on a belief, it “draws everything else also to support and agree with it.”
If you are constantly looking for proof of something, you are reinforcing that belief.
If you keep finding proof that something is not working, that is the belief you are strengthening.
If you keep looking for proof that something can work out, you are building that belief instead.
You are investing in it.
What you repeatedly search for becomes easier for your mind to recognize, prioritize, and validate.
Be selective.
Be mindful of what you go looking for.
Pay attention to the patterns you are reinforcing internally.
I really wish more people on the left/blue side of things in the US would start verifying things before sharing. There is twisted information on both sides, and I'm seeing so many people doing the exact same thing we like to crucify the right for - sharing/reposting/amplifying something just because it alines with our beliefs/fears/narrative. Without fact checking or independent verification.
Search engines are free.
Idc how much you trust the source - even trusted, reliable sources can be wrong sometimes. Verify it for yourself.
I'm not saying they're necessarily willfully lying to us. There is so much information coming at all of us at such an incredible rate that it is easy to misunderstand, misinterpret, misread, take something out of context or simply get swept up in the emotion of it all and forget to fact check.
Also, we're only human. Those of us with a working moral compass, a heart and more than two functioning brain cells are quite rightly terrified/experiencing a rollercoaster of emotions. It is easy to get caught up in that to the point that it takes over. Stop. Take a deep breath. Back away from the social media and go look it up with a proper search engine. Sometimes you might be pleasantly surprised.
This entire situation is exhausting enough without repeated facepalms from seeing people I know and love on the left spreading misinformation simply because it is plausible and/or aligns with the narrative they want.
I keep saying this: people don’t look at images, they look at labels.
Some guy on X posted a Claude Monet painting and wrote:
“I made this with AI in the style of Monet. Please explain in detail why it’s worse than a real Monet.”
Predictably, the comments became a live dissection of a hallucination that existed only in their heads.
“Looks like a first-year art student, no coherence in the elements.”
“You can tell the AI doesn’t understand reflections in water.”
“Too flat, no depth at all.”
“No composition, the eye has nothing to latch onto.”
“Soulless fake.”
“You can immediately see this wasn’t painted by a human.”
Every cliché from the “Why AI art is bad actually” starter pack showed up on command.
Same painting, same pixels — only the label changed. And that was enough to turn an acknowledged masterpiece into “low-effort neural trash”.
The funniest part isn’t even the hypocrisy. It’s the confidence.
People weren’t hesitantly guessing. They were teaching. Explaining to the poor ignorant OP — in long, didactic threads — how “real art” works. How light behaves. How composition should be built. While talking about Claude. Fucking. Monet.
And when it turned out to be an actual Monet? Delete comments. Quietly disappear. No “maybe I don’t see what I think I see”. No “maybe my ‘AI has no soul’ detector is just me role‑playing an expert in public”. Just a clean slate and the same people will show up tomorrow under a new post, explaining again how they can “immediately tell”.
The moral panic around AI art loves one comforting fantasy:
“Humans can sense the soul. AI can’t.”
Really? Can they?
Because in this little experiment, humans looked straight at Monet and confidently diagnosed “soulless AI slop”. Not because of what was on the canvas — because of what was in the caption.
How is that different from a model hallucinating an answer and then stubbornly doubling down on it?
The network gets a text prompt and fabricates details to fit it.
The crowd gets a social prompt (“this is AI”) and fabricates defects to fit that.
Everyone is terrified that AI can’t “truly understand” images.
Meanwhile, humans are out here failing a basic Turing test for art — and then congratulating themselves on their superior sensitivity.
The scary part isn’t that machines might start faking humanity.
The scary part is how much of humanity turns out to be a very cheap imitation, the moment you hide the museum label.
