If you listen closely enough, you can hear it. It comes as a whimper, a mutter, a stutter, a fluttering tinge of insecurity. It's there, right on the tip of your tongue. You know what I'm talking about. You just don't want to admit it. So, who is he? Go on, tell me. I won't judge. I promise. But I want to know his name. What is it? Is it Donald Trump? Is it Barrack Obama? Is it Joe Biden? Is it Joe Manchin? Is it Mitch McConnell? Perhaps you like to live on the wild side, so you chose Ron DeSantis. Perhaps you like to live on the mild side, so you chose Kirsten Sinema. Perhaps you like to live on the child side, so you chose Rand Paul. It could be anyone really. But he's out there. You know, your daddy. Almost everyone needs a daddy when it comes to politics. Not your biological father, that's different. I'm talking about your dada, the one you cheer for on the television when he promises you he'll take care of you next time for the fifth time in one election cycle. Yeah, good old Pop never lets down. Well, he does, but the mythos of the all-protecting father is too alluring to simply discard. You know, like Tim Allen from Home Improvement or Uncle Phil from the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Whatever your pleasure. They come in all shapes, colors and sizes. Daddy knows best. My daddy told me that your political ideology is too stupid to be on the big boy news channels. My daddy knows better than your daddy. He makes more money! Daddy, daddy, daddy. Your superhero. Your knight in shining armor. Your Prince Charming. Your Superman. Your King Tut. Your daddy. Almost all of the great fictional characters in literature are daddies. Daddies rushing to the rescue of the dumb little children. Daddies racing against time to save the world from the crazy uncle. Daddies repairing broken down engines, and broken down toilets, and broken down lives in a vain attempt to save some broken down town. Daddy to the rescue! What's that in the sky? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's the individual you see as your personal protection from the world around you. They are your rock and they are going to fix it for you, whatever is broken today that is. Most have one. Few will admit it. It is the person who tells them what to think and how to react to those who challenge them. Daddy dearest. My daddy let's me have ice cream for dinner. He says I'm all grown up like his friends on the television, and this year for Christmas my daddy's buying two ponies, and one them will have a chocolate saddle. My daddy loves me oh so very much. He loves me more than other daddies love their children. The point is that everyone has their own, personal bias. This bias is individualistic and nature, and requires a deep analysis of a person's personality before you can even begin to decide the sources of this bias. This is not a communal or a cultural bias. This resides deep within the subconscious mind, causing otherwise rational individuals to either block out information that opposes the source or to utilize said information in such way that bolsters support of the source, hence reinforcing the bias. Yet there are people out there who believe that everyone thinks alike, that they are all swayed in the exact same ways by different sources. These same people believe that social media has torn the nation asunder, dividing us and causing us to be so polarized that there is not opportunity of solid, meaningful discussion. But what exactly are the links between social media usage and radicalization? Where is the proof for this claim? Is there any at all? Well, it turns out that no, there is not a whole lot of scientific proof for this claim. In fact, all real world data indicates not only that echo chambers do not exist, but that social media use exposes people to a rich variety of sources including print, radio, television, and advertising, as well as independent social media channels. Is not this democracy? Is not this freedom of the press? Why demonize it?