His model of rhetoric suggests that the authority of a respected figure (eg. ethos) can override either pathos or logos (emotion and logic respectively), but not both at once. In political terms, this means that candidates have to prove their point emotionally and logically to have the best chance at changing your mind (or at least overriding ethos.)
It kinda sucks that we live in a hyper-emotional and hyper-informed election cycle, but this is the logical conclusion of two competitors dueling with rhetoric alone.
When so much emphasis is put on Federal elections, this bias contributes to the divisiveness.
The bias is just how people behave. There is a tried-and-true framework for undermining those biases and even dialectic processes by which one can be proven logically superior to the other. We watch debates, read op-eds and encourage discussions of policy so that these entrenched beliefs are challenged - a free country has no obligation to brainwash it's citizens, even for a good cause.
> Simply put, (...) Once you commit to a decision (...) you are less likely to change your mind, (...).
And so I'm not sure the video was about this specifically. To me, it was more about how narrative and tribalism easily overpower critical thinking in general. Being decided and then unwilling to change your mind is one thing, but as the video details, the issue discussed actually exhibits itself with open minded people more.
The Vote is part of the physical manifestation of that. It deepens the identity. It deepens the bias.
Isn't it kind of the definition of bias?