Applying rigorous skepticism to evidence that challenges a preferred narrative while accepting supporting evidence uncritically. The standard of proof demanded shifts depending on which side of an argument the evidence falls on.
A political commentator demands peer-reviewed studies, large sample sizes, and replicated findings before accepting any research supporting a rival party's policy — but cites a single-source anecdote, an industry white paper, or a think-tank report as definitive proof when it supports their own position. The asymmetry is rarely announced; it's practiced invisibly.
We experience our own reasoning as consistent and fair. The asymmetry feels like rigorous skepticism on one side and reasonable acceptance on the other. Externally, it's a double standard. Internally, it feels like intellectual integrity. This is why it's so hard to catch in yourself.
Dramatically different evidentiary standards applied to claims depending on which side they support. Watch especially for "but that's just one study" applied to inconvenient findings and never applied to convenient ones.