Reasoning: How Cherry-Picking Shapes Arguments and Distorts Truth
The Ubiquity of Selective Evidence in Human Thought
Author’s Preface
We come to common specious argument. We assert that the leader of the opposition—the party we don’t like—is a bad person. And then we select evidence, carefully curating only those details that confirm this assertion. A member of his own party, naturally, insists that he is a good person and produces equally selective evidence to support that claim. So who’s right? How do we know?
At this point, it’s all interpretation—highly selective use of evidence. But what does that tell us about reasoning? Here, we see how evidence is shaped to fit a predetermined conclusion. It’s almost definitional. A “bad person” must, by definition, do bad things, so we identify bad things and assert that this person has done them. Conversely, if we like the person, we assert that they have done good things, and by definition, those good things indicate they are a good person.
So now we have a matter of definitions, but that leads to a deeper problem—what does it mean to understand a word? Understanding itself is a mystery. We can say pragmatically that we struggle with it, that people misunderstand constantly, but what does it really mean to understand? We can defer that problem for now.
The case of good and bad persons is a textbook example of biased and selective evidence production. The inference, given the evidence, is straightforward—it follows from the definitions we impose. A + B + C equals D, not mathematically, but in terms of constructed meaning. A, B, and C are the evidence; D is the conclusion. The structure holds even when the evidence is skewed. Perhaps we could call this argument by definition—a form of inference that relies on the selective application of predefined terms.
And yet, this type of reasoning is routine. Every day, a politician is smeared by opponents and glorified by supporters, and both cases rely on selective presentation. Does an objective reality underlie it? Perhaps. Even if the evidence is entirely accurate, it remains subject to interpretation, filtered through a lens of bias. And this is not some rare, aberrant mode of thinking. It is the default. I see it daily.
I suppose it could be classified as an informal fallacy, though I don’t know if it’s formally recognized as one. Cherry-picking comes to mind, though that term has always struck me as more colloquial than technical. We talk about confirmation and disconfirmation bias, but in practice, what we really do is cherry-pick. We find what fits, discard what doesn’t, and build our conclusions from fragments of a larger whole—sometimes knowingly, sometimes not.
Introduction: The Hidden Hand of Cherry-Picking
In nearly every debate, whether political, philosophical, or personal, a familiar pattern emerges: each side marshals a list of carefully selected facts to support their conclusion while conveniently ignoring or dismissing inconvenient counterpoints. This pervasive phenomenon is known as cherry-picking—the selective use of evidence to support a predetermined conclusion.
Cherry-picking is not just a rhetorical trick; it is an intrinsic feature of human reasoning, closely tied to confirmation bias and disconfirmation bias. It is how people defend their deeply held worldviews, construct persuasive arguments, and dismiss inconvenient truths. At its core, it is an act of framing—where reality is curated rather than examined holistically. This essay explores the mechanisms, implications, and consequences of cherry-picking, demonstrating how it shapes discourse, distorts truth, and reinforces division.
I. The Structure of Cherry-Picking: How It Works
Cherry-picking follows a predictable structure in argumentation:
The Conclusion Comes First
Instead of following evidence to a logical conclusion, the conclusion is predetermined.
The thinker already “knows” what is true and simply seeks support for that position.
Selective Evidence Collection
Facts, data, or anecdotes that support the conclusion are emphasized.
Contradictory evidence is ignored, dismissed, or undermined.
Inference by Definition
Terms are defined in a way that ensures the argument aligns with the desired outcome.
For example, a "bad person" is one who does "bad things"—then, only bad actions are listed to prove the person is bad.
The Illusion of Rigor
The argument appears well-supported because it presents “evidence.”
However, it is not the presence of evidence that matters, but its completeness and balance.
II. Cherry-Picking and Bias: Why We Do It
Cherry-picking is not just a rhetorical device; it is a natural consequence of cognitive bias.
Confirmation Bias
People unconsciously seek and prioritize information that confirms their existing beliefs.
Conflicting data is either ignored or rationalized away.
Disconfirmation Bias
Evidence that contradicts one’s beliefs is subjected to far greater scrutiny than supporting evidence.
The opposing argument is examined for flaws, while one’s own argument is accepted uncritically.
Cognitive Ease
Evaluating all evidence objectively is mentally exhausting.
Cherry-picking provides a shortcut to persuasive reasoning without deep intellectual effort.
Emotional Investment
Beliefs are often tied to identity, politics, morality, and personal values.
Accepting contradictory evidence may feel like a personal attack or a threat to one’s worldview.
III. Political Cherry-Picking: The Case of the Good and Bad Person
Political discourse provides the clearest example of cherry-picking in action. Consider the portrayal of a political leader:
Opponents:
“The leader is a bad person because they enacted Policy X, made Statement Y, and engaged in Action Z.”
All chosen examples are negative; positive actions are ignored.
Supporters:
“The leader is a good person because they enacted Policy A, made Statement B, and engaged in Action C.”
Only positive actions are emphasized; negative actions are omitted.
The argument is not about fact, but about selection. The leader has done both good and bad things, but each side curates their evidence to reach a conclusion predetermined by their bias.
This form of reasoning is not unique to politics—it is found in media narratives, historical interpretations, and moral debates.
IV. The Definitional Trap: When Arguments Are True by Design
A subtler form of cherry-picking occurs when arguments are true by definition rather than by genuine inference.
For example:
Bad People Do Bad Things
A “bad person” is defined as someone who does “bad things.”
A list of negative actions is presented as evidence.
The conclusion that they are bad was built into the definition from the start.
Good People Do Good Things
A “good person” is defined by their good deeds.
Negative actions are excluded from consideration.
These arguments feel logically sound because they follow a structured inference pattern—but the reasoning is circular and based on framing, not objective evaluation.
V. The Consequences of Cherry-Picking
Polarization and Echo Chambers
Cherry-picking reinforces ideological divides.
People only encounter evidence that supports their existing beliefs.
Society becomes fragmented, as each side believes they are entirely correct.
The Illusion of Objectivity
Selective evidence can create the false appearance of a rigorous argument.
Persuasive rhetoric often disguises deeply flawed reasoning.
Erosion of Critical Thinking
People become accustomed to confirmation rather than investigation.
The ability to analyze all sides of an issue deteriorates.
VI. How to Recognize and Resist Cherry-Picking
Cherry-picking is so ingrained in discourse that it often goes unnoticed. However, recognizing it is the first step toward intellectual rigor.
Ask: What’s Missing?
What evidence has been excluded?
Are there counterexamples that contradict the conclusion?
Consider Alternative Interpretations
Can the same facts be framed differently?
Would a neutral observer reach the same conclusion?
Identify the Order of Reasoning
Did the conclusion come before the evidence was selected?
Was the definition constructed to guarantee the conclusion?
Seek Discomfort
Actively engage with opposing views.
Treat contrary evidence as an opportunity to refine, not just defend, beliefs.
Conclusion: Understanding the Power of Selective Reasoning
Cherry-picking is not just a flaw in reasoning—it is how human reasoning naturally operates. It is easy, persuasive, and emotionally satisfying, which is why it pervades everyday discourse.
Yet, intellectual honesty demands more than assembling convenient facts—it requires a willingness to examine the full picture, including inconvenient truths.
Recognizing cherry-picking is the first step toward better reasoning, sharper critical thinking, and a more nuanced understanding of reality. If we truly value truth, we must move beyond selective evidence and toward genuine inquiry.