Self-fulfilling prophecies and confirmation bias work together to construct images of the world that are simultaneously true and false. When we want something to be true, we only look for information that validates that belief. Our prior notion of something determines what we discover about it. For example, a researcher who is studying a political issue and has a liberal handle may look to sources such as the New York Times or New Republic. Their belief that guns are a bad thing or that gay marriage is a good thing is validated by their desire to see if their belief is true. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay However, looking at just a few biased sources of information is not entirely inaccurate. Assuming the information used is true, even information gleaned from a limited and incomplete range of sources is still valid. Whatever the New York Times says about abortion won't necessarily be a balanced opinion, but that doesn't make it wrong or false. Of course, basing a decision or argument on more information, rather than less, is always a good thing. However, no topic has ever had access to all the information that exists. There are no topics that truly encompass all the relevant information someone might need. Ergo, a lack of information is not an effective point to bring into a discussion; all topics lack information. Arguments based on distorted or incomplete information are in a strange state of half-truth. On the one hand, you won't find much discussion about gun control on the NRA website. On the other hand, assuming the NRA website doesn't actually lie, you won't get a facetious argument either. Personally I don't know exactly how to evaluate such arguments. They are particularly prevalent in politics, hence my choice of example. Politics, however, is notorious for nonsense. I'm actually currently reading a book about the Reagan administration. Part of the reason the administration succeeded in its goals was the use of bullshit arguments. Reagan had his core principles that he believed in and expected the results to be good, so he basically never wavered on his core principles. It was as if he realized that actually demonstrating his philosophy was a pointless activity. You could conjure up a crappy, self-fulfilling argument based on confirmation bias, so there was no need. This is like the 10 billionth essay I've written on this concept, but once again subjective and objective knowledge get confused.