# Ummm...What's a "Bias?"



## Cruentus (Jul 1, 2004)

One thing I notice as discussions flare up in here is that when someone presents a source that says something outside of ones worldview, often that person scoffs it off, saying, "Well...that's a biased perspective!"

The assertion seems to be that the information that they have is the "true" or "real" information, and that other stuff...well...is just "biased."

To me, this notion only illustrates utter ignorance. When I was in school (like, 6th grade) we learned that when you write a report of any kind, you have a "thesis," or a point your trying to assert. Heck...we even had "thesis statements" that we had to include in our outlines for our papers. Well...the fact is, every news story and documentary out there, regardless of the end of the political spectrum it is coming from, also has a "Thesis." So....all media and political works are "biased," including the one that comfortably fits your worldview, because they all assert some sort of thesis.

There is nothing wrong with this, just as long as the facts that back the thesis up are not fabricated. However, the expectation in this country seems to be that News stories and Documentaries are not supposed to have a thesis. So people aren't listening to stories with an alert ear, and finding out what the thesis of the story IS, so that they know what the assertion and facts are trying to support, so they can formulate their own viewpoint without having it be steered by the writer/narrator. 

This is part of the degeneration of critical thinking in this country, as people have become zombies to advertisements and media. People get a comfy worlview (usually very "mainstream" conservative or liberal, but both ends resulting in the idea of buying more stuff then your neighbors), so anything they hear that fits in with this worldview is thought to be unbiased and "fair and balanced," while other stuff is thought of to be "biased" (which translates to "untrue" in their minds) with little to no realization that all sides have a thesis that they are trying to assert. By this behavior, most people are easily steered by media and PR, allowing others to formulate their opinions.

Ignorance? Yes. Problem? Hell yes.

Thoughts?

 :idunno:


----------



## lvwhitebir (Jul 1, 2004)

I agree.  However, it's difficult if not impossible to gather the information yourself to form your own opinion.  We typically have to go through the media in order to learn anything.  You really have no choice but to adopt a stance according to some source of information.  So, everything has a bias because *everyone* has a bias.  We have a great difficulty determining the truth so we have to pick it from a point of view.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 1, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I agree.  However, it's difficult if not impossible to gather the information yourself to form your own opinion.  We typically have to go through the media in order to learn anything.  You really have no choice but to adopt a stance according to some source of information.  So, everything has a bias because *everyone* has a bias.  We have a great difficulty determining the truth so we have to pick it from a point of view.



Right...but I think the key is 1st recognizing that point of view, or thesis, which people often can't/won't do. Then, you get information from other sides, or other thesises, and then you look at the facts (raw info), different assertions (thesis), and you can critically come up with your own educated opinion. And...if you haven't had time to do at least SOME research on SOME different sides, then you can disclaim, "I haven't fully researched this, but...".

People don't do that. They hear things that fit "their" side, and take that for face value. Other things, they consider to be "biased" and untrue. Then...they stand behind that opinion as if their lives depend on it, despite any "new" research that comes to the table. I think that this is a mistake.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 1, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Right...but I think the key is 1st recognizing that point of view, or thesis, which people often can't/won't do. Then, you get information from other sides, or other thesises, and then you look at the facts (raw info), different assertions (thesis), and you can critically come up with your own educated opinion. And...if you haven't had time to do at least SOME research on SOME different sides, then you can disclaim, "I haven't fully researched this, but...".
> 
> People don't do that. They hear things that fit "their" side, and take that for face value. Other things, they consider to be "biased" and untrue. Then...they stand behind that opinion as if their lives depend on it, despite any "new" research that comes to the table. I think that this is a mistake.


I don't think that its fair to apply this to all people.  Not everybody is unwilling to hear and try to understand different points of view.  Don't try to paint me with your everybody brush.

Besides, that's just your opinion, and you're biased.....


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 1, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I don't think that its fair to apply this to all people.  Not everybody is unwilling to hear and try to understand different points of view.  Don't try to paint me with your everybody brush.
> 
> Besides, that's just your opinion, and you're biased.....



Am Not!

Bill O'Rielly


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 1, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I don't think that its fair to apply this to all people.  Not everybody is unwilling to hear and try to understand different points of view.  Don't try to paint me with your everybody brush.
> 
> Besides, that's just your opinion, and you're biased.....



Seriously...I don't mean EVERYONE does this...just lots of people!
 :uhyeah:


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 1, 2004)

A lot of people are too attatched to being right.  It's great to be passionate, and its important to be aware of where you stand on an issue, but the inability to realize that others may _never_ share your opinion, and continue hammering a subject in an attempt to validate your position, or prove that you are correct, I think, shows insecurity.  I'm not directing this at anyone, I'm just saying, that's what I figure.


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 1, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I don't think that its fair to apply this to all people. Not everybody is unwilling to hear and try to understand different points of view. Don't try to paint me with your everybody brush.
> 
> Besides, that's just your opinion, and you're biased.....


Good point Flat, also consider that on political/topical issues in general, not all 'thesis/opinions' are going to be equally 'valid' or substancial.  Personal experiences (first person information), training/education in the field of discussion and other factors can make a particular 'bias' more substantial than those of someone who hasn't done it.

That doesn't mean a lack of quality on a moral, emotional and principle level, just not as supported with details/first hand experience.  That is why topic experts in certain fields are considered 'technical experts' on films and such.  They know it better than others who don't have the training/experience/education.  A newbie to martial arts has every right to his 'bias' about the training and the art, but it isn't going to be as insightful or meaningful/substantial as those of a veteran artist.  The big thing is to recognize that opinions and bias should be open to evolution and change.

Everyone is going to form opinions/biases/thesis.  I think the point of problem is when other opinions are seen as personal attacks on the messenger instead of a counter point to a topic or a lack of respect for 'technical expert' opinions about a topic of discussion because of that 'personal attack/ego problem' perception.  

THere are many tacts of how to argue a point in discourse.  The informational/data approach is only one.  Emotional/philosophical, historical/tradition....all other forms of presentations that support a particular view that have an 'intrinsic' value, but can't stand on their own with out supporting details.  But, details can't stand on their own if they aren't organized/linked in a meaningful well constructed presentation.

The other thing to consider is that the primary sources for these opinions are not available to most of us (confidentiality, operational security...) because we don't see the actual documents, talk to the witnesses directly, do the observations and research.  The majority of what people are forming their opinions on are really secondary sources at best.  The other thing is that some of these secondary sources are going to be questionable and loaded with bias themselves....


----------



## Tgace (Jul 1, 2004)

To some extent I guess I do prejudge some peoples statements as biased. Just by looking at the thread titles here and who started them I can 99% of the time know what the opinion of the thread is going to be. I could also bet that if I started a thread with some sort of political agenda to it, I could accurately estimate what many of the long time posters here opinions will be. Very few people truly have an "open mind" and very few people truly change their opinions. They may alter them to accept/explain contradictory evidence or slightly temper their views, but very few ever "flip" sides.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 1, 2004)

Yeah, it all goes back to "cogito ergo sum", and even that presupposed the 'I'.


----------



## captnigh (Jul 1, 2004)

Don't you cut certain types of meat on a "bias"?  Like flank steak?

"Bias" is a word a lot of people use out of context.  Another word people do that with is "ironic".


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 1, 2004)

captnigh said:
			
		

> Don't you cut certain types of meat on a "bias"? Like flank steak?
> 
> "Bias" is a word a lot of people use out of context. Another word people do that with is "ironic".


Words like fair, equal, fact, truth.....all get over used or abused when the real meaning is "what I think" or "I am not getting what I want the way things are" ...can you tell I deal with High Schoolers all day


----------



## captnigh (Jul 1, 2004)

yeah.  I can hear the eternal echo of "that's not fair!" as I type this....


----------



## theletch1 (Jul 1, 2004)

My dad used to say that there were three sides to every story...My side, your side and the truth.  No two people are going to view any particular situation in the same light.  Even someone who believes that they are giving the "honest truth" are giving that truth based on their own past experiences, their own belief system and preconcieved notions.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 1, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> To some extent I guess I do prejudge some peoples statements as biased. Just by looking at the thread titles here and who started them I can 99% of the time know what the opinion of the thread is going to be. I could also bet that if I started a thread with some sort of political agenda to it, I could accurately estimate what many of the long time posters here opinions will be. Very few people truly have an "open mind" and very few people truly change their opinions. They may alter them to accept/explain contradictory evidence or slightly temper their views, but very few ever "flip" sides.



I agree. However, when you are able to think critically, sometimes you do "flip sides."

I went from being for national registries and some level of gun control to being very much against national registries and gun control when I got more information about the subject.

I guess, I am not afraid to admit it when I am wrong, as much as I hate to sometimes. Most people are very afraid to ever admit to being wrong, even when they clearly are. I see many other people as being big wossy babies who hold on to their little opinions like a security blanket.

That's just my take, anyhow.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 1, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I went from being for national registries and some level of gun control to being very much against national registries and gun control when I got more information about the subject.


 I had a very similar experience with gun control... it was one of the formative processes that helped me realized that I may not have been as "open minded" as I always gave myself credit for.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jul 1, 2004)

My understanding of socratic/platonic argumentation and debate (Socratic/Platonic, b/c there is some speculation that Plato fabricated much of his account of Socrates in order to make parallel points) is that:

A.  The truth is out there...
B.  We each possess a limited ability to percieve / concieve of the truth in an accurate form, innately...
C.  If we hash it out using the decorum of the well-formed argument, then we can potentially "discover" the "truth"...the semi-accurate pieces of the truth (little 'T') we each posses will be clarified to emerge into a newer, better Truth (big 'T').

Sophist = seeker/knower of truth/knowledge/wisdom?

Plato even allowed the character of the premier sophist of the day to almost argue Socrates to a draw...an acknowldegement that, even though he didn't agree with them on many levels, they were on to something, and some were good at it.

A true bias should only be a malleable coloring of perception, changeable by the presence of new information, begging the idea to change, evolve, and become more "true" than it was prior to the argument. Participants, ideally, are more committed to the discovery of the truth -- revealed through debate -- then they are in their own positions...the investment of self is identified with creating the truth in an act of dicsovery, rather than in ones own biases.

Chances are, most pontificates aren't even clear on their own hueristics, even as they accuse you of being immersed in yours.

BTW, I think Descartes (pronounced Desk-car-tea's?:uhyeah: ) meant to say (one of my favorites)..."Cogito, ergo CONsume...I think, therefore I drink."

Waiting for the Bigger T Truth to come along and pants our enitre system of governance via socialist republic,

Dr. Dave, closet anarchist (in the sense of self-rule, not chaotic mayhem).


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 1, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I agree. However, when you are able to think critically, sometimes you do "flip sides."


Critical thinking is just a way of systematically/scientific method type of  analyzing/evaluating information whether it is from/about conversation, people, literature, politics, religion....whatever.  It will not eliminate bias in and of itself.  It is only a system of mental 'construct' discipline.  People do it on an unconscious level all the time.  Identifying/organizing the process to enhance the conscious use of it doesn't mean that people will automatically use it for 'good'.  Like martial arts training as a systematic way of organizing and enhancing on 'natural motions' will not automatically make people apply it for only good, ethical purposes.

Hell, Hitler's "Mein Kompf" and other publications about anti-semitism was based on Darwinian evolutionary theory.  He abused the systematic study and 'construct' of people and life.

Being open to another's POV doesn't automatically mean 'conversion'  or 
agreement either.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 1, 2004)

theletch1 said:
			
		

> My dad used to say that there were three sides to every story...My side, your side and the truth.  No two people are going to view any particular situation in the same light.  Even someone who believes that they are giving the "honest truth" are giving that truth based on their own past experiences, their own belief system and preconcieved notions.



The fact is, that old cliche' has a lot of "truth" to it, in my opinion. (Boy was that last sentence ironic or what?  :rofl: )

Seriously, as dumb as this may sound, that old cliche' makes a lot of sense to me...and fits right into my semi-existensial world view, as well as my religious view. Not to turn it into a religious arguement, but just to explain: My personal belief in a God tells me that God creates reality and know's the "truth," yet we have our perceptions through which we see that "truth," which may or may not coincide to what God is intending or precieving, because our perceptions can be tainted by our conscience and unconscience. This is why 2 people can observe an event, but come up with entirely different opinions regarding it.

Forget about the God thing for now (again...don't want this to turn into a religious debate), but what we have here is "truth," and peoples perceptions. To understand where their perceptions are coming from, it is important to be able to extract their thesis, so that you can not only see the facts, but see the way in which they are being presented. By doing this, and by getting different takes, right or wrong, on a story, you can then critically formulate your view. If you cannot extract the thesis, then you are not able to think critically about a worldview or event.

And...I think that most people do not formulate their own opinions on matters. I think that the majority have a view that exists in their unconscience. This view is related to upbringing, environmental conditioning, and a little bit of other illogical factors (particularly ad nasueum... if you hear that "Kerry flip-flops and can't make decisions" enough times from the media, then you'll believe even if you have no evidence to substantiate the claim). They have this view in their unconscience that they have developed; so whenever they hear something that does not coincide with this view, they disagree without any basis, or doubt it, or sluff it off. If they hear something that does coincide with their unconscience, then they are willing to take it on face value without fact checking first.

I think this is a problem...and I think that Public Relation firms and political think tanks know how to very cleverly monopolize on this part of the human condition.

Man...this whole thread is ironic....don't you think?

Yours,

Alanis Morrisette


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 1, 2004)

I'm a firm believer that truth = perspective, and that when you change your perspective, you change your truth.

 Like Tulisan and PeachMonkey said, I too was a gun-hating citizen willing to blindly place my faith where it was often disappointed.  My perspective has also changed - and I'm not a "conservative."

 I understand the hints of context versus content more and more nowadays, and I think it's vital to remember this when we pepper others with our opinions (I am still learning too!)  This skill is growing for me, thanks in part to this discussion site.

 Peace, y'all, and HWARANG!!


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 1, 2004)

Oh...and do you know what I like to do for fun in arguements...

I like to use words like "fact" and "Truth" and "true," just because I know how badly it pisses the other side off.

 :rofl: 

Ehhh...I kill myself!

Geoffrey Fieger


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 1, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Peace, y'all, and HWARANG!!



Choong Moo!

ADMIRAL Yi Sun-Shin


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 1, 2004)

theletch1 said:
			
		

> My dad used to say that there were three sides to every story...My side, your side and the truth. No two people are going to view any particular situation in the same light. Even someone who believes that they are giving the "honest truth" are giving that truth based on their own past experiences, their own belief system and preconcieved notions.


So, is there no such thing as 'objective'? I believe there is. However, in certain arena's objectivity is more difficult to come by.

For instance: 
H20 - at sea level - become a solid - ice - at 0 degrees Centigrade (32 degrees farenheit). There is no way that my opinion can alter that piece of information. You can test it. And when it works, you can test it again. Every time you test this proposition, the results are going to be the same. 

There is also, 'Subjective' information. Information that can not be tested, or if it is tested it can not consistantly produce the same results. Our best knowledge, experience and reasoning can predict a reasonably accurate result, but not a specific result. For instance; On July 1st, I expect the tempurature in Nashua, NH to be between 80 and 83 degrees farenheit at 1:00 PM. With enough attempts, I can probably show this is likely to happen.

Then there is 'Opinion'. Where we impose our personal thoughts into a set of data. Where, for instance, I believe the United States is more than the sum of its individuals. We are a great nation because of the community we have built; caring for each other, allowing all members of the community to have the same opportunities and being responsible to each other.

The problem is, when we start confusing these types of information. If I present my opinion as subjective information, then I am introducing a 'Bias'.

If I am not mistake, it is the Philosophers in our society that best attempt to place our world in an Objective view point. To think about what the world would be like if *we* were not perceiving it.

As example (From the Non-Fiction Book I am reading); Bush will not allow Federal Funding for research and development of new stem cell lines because the creation of the stem cells destroys an embryo, which he states is precious and deserves our protection. The author asks, if these embryos are "precious and deserving of our protection, why is the government not working on legislation to prevent couples from destroying the remaining fertilized embryos after a successful IVF procedure? It was a very powerful arguement in objective thinking.

Subjectively ... Mike


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 1, 2004)

I'd agree with Mike on that...

Also, IMO, I would use the term "Biased" to describe someone who ignores/changes facts and or Evidence, to make his point...

For a Fictonal Example, Lets say President "Goober" vetos a gun controll bill, stating it violates constitutional rights.  But President "Goober" also approves a lot of anti-crime legislation.  

Then Filmmaker "Mike Miller" comes along and makes a movie about President "Goober" supporting crime because he vetoed that Gun Controll bill, and he protrays "Goober" as a crime loving, gang helping, guntoting anti-american leader, by showing things out of context and ignoring all of his anti-crime legislation...

THAT is Bias, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 1, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I'd agree with Mike on that...
> 
> Also, IMO, I would use the term "Biased" to describe someone who ignores/changes facts and or Evidence, to make his point...
> 
> ...



Very clever....  

Mike Hannity


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 1, 2004)

Techno -

 Well, crap, then we have to discuss hypocracy.  Bias towards guns, but biased against crime...gee, that sounds like a lot of martial artists I know (he he) and using that kind of example to make his point is misguided and keeps Moore from demonstrating some excellent points he has when you read other interviews, and lends bias to the movie.

 However, artistic license is all about bias, isn't it?  And when we try to lend more credibility toward a piece of art (heh - such as it is, heh) that it is due, then slam it because it's not factual or fair according to us, then we're biased, right?

 What were we talking about again?

  Hugs, Techno!!


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 1, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Techno -
> 
> Well, crap, then we have to discuss hipocracy.  I think your example of President Goober(face) demonstrates hipocracy on his part _based_ on personal and political bias.
> 
> ...



Hey... I wasn't saying anything about Moore...  I know he is a hotspot of debate, so I MIGHT have used the example of a filmmaker because people recognize that... but It was a purely fictional example.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 1, 2004)

He he he - you read and replied to my first point while I was trying to edit it...I thought it might be biased.

 HE HE HE HE HE


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 1, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Hey... I wasn't saying anything about Moore...  I know he is a hotspot of debate, so I MIGHT have used the example of a filmmaker because people recognize that... but It was a purely fictional example.



I was remote viewing your unconscience...

 %think%  

:rofl:

Yours,

Johnie Edwards


----------



## Tgace (Jul 1, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I agree. However, when you are able to think critically, sometimes you do "flip sides."
> 
> I went from being for national registries and some level of gun control to being very much against national registries and gun control when I got more information about the subject.
> 
> ...


Agreed, but that depends on if the other person truely believes hes "wrong" or "lost". Sometimes people assume they have "won" and the other person should just lie down. I have seen very few to nobody admit "loosing" in an arguement on either the internet or in person. Most people show up a few weeks or months later with a different opinion.


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 1, 2004)

If the point is that critical thinking skill is the 

"process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion"

to combat bias which is "preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment"

then it isn't the proper tool to consider.  Critical thinking is all about forming conclusions and opinions/answers for yourself.  The desire to try and form an 'unbiased' opinion is an ethical choice.

I think the tool to avoid allowing 'bias' is attitude, bearing and control (ABC's), 

Attitude:  Go into topic/discussion with the mentallity of first understanding and then consideration and finally respect so that you avoid judging the statement as you read it.  Ever notice how many people during a conversation (including me and anyone else here) doesn't really listen all the time, but spends their 'listening turn' to plan out your next response?

Bearing:  "Don't kill the messenger" by blasting the sender of the message no matter how much you disagree.  Make sure your replies/contributions are for the intent of discussion and not attacking/belittling the other person's character.

Control:  Don't respond or act based on vindictiveness, intimidation, fear or any other emotional motivation as the prime mover.  Respond on topic, about the topic and 'to the topic'.

Regardless of your opinion on R. Reagan, even his 'enemies' admitted that he knew how to keep an adversary from feeling like an enemy.  I think it is a good lesson to pick up.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 1, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Agreed, but that depends on if the other person truely believes hes "wrong" or "lost". Sometimes people assume they have "won" and the other person should just lie down. I have seen very few to nobody admit "loosing" in an arguement on either the internet or in person. Most people show up a few weeks or months later with a different opinion.



Holy crud....that is hilarious Tgace...because it's SOOO true!  :rofl:


----------



## Tgace (Jul 1, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Holy crud....that is hilarious Tgace...because it's SOOO true! :rofl:


Which is the only benefit to debating like we do here. We do have an influence on each other even if its only to force us to put our opinions down in type so we can better understand what it is we really believe.


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 1, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Which is the only benefit to debating like we do here. We do have an influence on each other even if its only to force us to put our opinions down in type so we can better understand what it is we really believe.


I tell my students all the time that writing is thinking in front of your eyes. 

Even the most adversarial debates here have been more effective in helping me clarify and articulate for myself what it really is that I value.  Thus applying my critical thinking process to create my 'answers/conclusions.'  The same process is appied to evaluating the validity and worth of the other opinions as they are presented - regardless of whether they are in agreement/disagreement with my opinion.

Thanks for the plug for education/literacy Tom. But watch it, education is the cure to crime...you might put yourself out of work.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 1, 2004)

Really, when you think about it, your opinion or position on most topics is forever evolving.  As we get older, and learn, and experience, we develop more context and move into different reference frames from which to formulate our opinions.  There is no "truth" or "now" that is absolute.  Just the path we walk through the great cosmic dance.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 1, 2004)

> There is no "truth" or "now" that is absolute. Just the path we walk through the great cosmic dance.



Oh, I'd say there most definately is.

Problem is, of course, that It can't really be expressed in words without creating paradox and contradiction. Guess that leaves most of us stuck with relative truth --- then again, not all relative "truths" are equally valid or substantial.

Laterz.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 1, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Oh, I'd say there most definately is.
> 
> Problem is, of course, that It can't really be expressed in words without creating paradox and contradiction. Guess that leaves most of us stuck with relative truth --- then again, not all relative "truths" are equally valid or substantial.
> 
> Laterz.


But those truths are very subjective, thus negating their absolutiveness (yes, I made that word up, but it works.)  What I mean is that they are not "transferrable" to my consciousness without being inherently changed.

I realize that that I should exclude mathematical truths from this discussion.  I can't question their validity.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 1, 2004)

*But those truths are very subjective, thus negating their absolutiveness (yes, I made that word up, but it works.) What I mean is that they are not "transferrable" to my consciousness without being inherently changed.* 

This might be a shock for a lot of the "objectivists" out there, but pretty much ALL "truths" are subjective to one degree or another --- or else we wouldn't be aware of them.

In any event, the "Absolute Truth" in the "Now" that I am referring to transcends the subject/object duality, anyway...

*I realize that that I should exclude mathematical truths from this discussion. I can't question their validity.*

This might be another shock, but "subjective" and "invalid" are not synonyms. Nor are "objective" and "valid".

Laterz.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 1, 2004)

How "Zen" of you.


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 1, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This might be another shock, but "subjective" and "invalid" are not synonyms. Nor are "objective" and "valid".
> 
> Laterz.


That's the point, subjectivity is what an opinion is because of all the influences on a person (emotion, maturity, intellect, experience, environment...).  This does not invalidate an opinion in and of itself.  My mother is as homespun a little Okinawan woman as you can find, but I value her subjectivity on the world and life in so many ways.  And there are tons of 'experts' out there with clinical data that I could care less about.

Sometimes, to me at least, objectivity is a lack of opinion or stance.  That is why I say that it isn't so much that we need to more versed in critical thinking to reduce 'bias' but good listeners/communicators/people...


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 2, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> One thing I notice as discussions flare up in here is that when someone presents a source that says something outside of ones worldview, often that person scoffs it off, saying, "Well...that's a biased perspective!"
> 
> The assertion seems to be that the information that they have is the "true" or "real" information, and that other stuff...well...is just "biased."
> 
> ...


So to what can we attribute this degeneration?  The degredation of the education system?  Our culture of convenience?


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 2, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> So to what can we attribute this degeneration? The degredation of the education system? Our culture of convenience?


I don't even know if there is a degeneration or just a constant.  That idea itself is a perfect case of Bias.  Just because it is noticed in the present doesn't mean that it hasn't always been there in some fashion.   Degeneration starting from what point in time/history?  From what point of widespread superior critical thought and unbias views?  I agree it would be nice if people in general were better thinkers and more compassionate, but I don't know if it is a downhill slide or just a pattern.

I agree that there is an increase in media influence, commercial influence on social values and other 'pop' power than before but that is due to technological pace.  

I read an essay by a 19th century author in a lit class that said essentially the same bias degeneration about their time period.  Relative to what we have now, it was laughable.  But, from the perspective of the time, it was understandable.  One of the benefits of the increase access and pace of technology is as a 'diversity' education tool.  Teachers are doing this all the time.  We have outlawed slavery, discrimination/segragation.... so the strength of bias has been reduced some.

I would still say that there is majority 'apathy' and that it is contributing to a lack of well rounded opinions and compassion/respect for other opinions as well.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 2, 2004)

I just think its human nature...if you look down through history, there have always been political divisions on issues and people sticking to their beliefs.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 2, 2004)

*Sometimes, to me at least, objectivity is a lack of opinion or stance. That is why I say that it isn't so much that we need to more versed in critical thinking to reduce 'bias' but good listeners/communicators/people...*

*sigh* This is really a problem more of semantics than anything else, but...

There is really no such thing as an "objective" position, opinion, or stance. Ideas are, by their very nature, subjective phenomena (I can't pin-down an idea or thought with any of my five senses). ALL ideas, opinions, and theories are --- without exception --- fully subjective structures.

Usually, when someone says "be objective", what they actually mean is "be rational" --- i.e., see it from my point-of-view, take the role of Other, adopt a third-person perspective. But, nonetheless, a third-person perspective is still a perspective. And, like all other perspectives, it is fully subjective (in the "proper" meaning of the word). No "objectivity" there.

But, as before, not all subjective views are equally valid or substantial. Still, people need to stop pretending their so-called "objective positions" are somehow "more than" subjectivity at work.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 2, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> But, as before, not all subjective views are equally valid or substantial. Still, people need to stop pretending their so-called "objective positions" are somehow "more than" subjectivity at work.



So, is there a way to judge which _subjective _ viewpoint is more correct?  Or closer to the _objective_?  When I argue a viewpoint, I attempt to draw from many sources and many observers rather then a few, but this kinda stinks of mob rule logic.  Any other methods?


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 2, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> *Sometimes, to me at least, objectivity is a lack of opinion or stance. That is why I say that it isn't so much that we need to more versed in critical thinking to reduce 'bias' but good listeners/communicators/people...*
> 
> *sigh* This is really a problem more of semantics than anything else, but...
> 
> ...


I have to agree with you on this one.  Semantics.  Much like the point about 'fair' and such other terms like 'truth' and 'fact' being misused for other meanings/intent.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 4, 2004)

Hrmmmmm....


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 4, 2004)

*So, is there a way to judge which subjective viewpoint is more correct? Or closer to the objective?*

Sure. But, again, "objective" and "more correct" are not necessarily synonyms (objectivity, for example, really only applies to representational truth --- i.e., "truth as correspondence").

*When I argue a viewpoint, I attempt to draw from many sources and many observers rather then a few, but this kinda stinks of mob rule logic. Any other methods?*

Depends. Different truths have different validity claims and different ways of satisfying those claims.

Phenomenology, for example, bases itself almost exclusively on first-person, subjective observations --- most of which would probably be looked down upon in the "natural sciences". Structuralism and semiotics tries to look at intersubjective structures (such as cultural values, linguistics, worldviews, and so on) underlying subjective intentionality. Both have different validity claims than representational, objective truths --- and different ways of satisfying these claims.

My personal view is that all these truths are correlative, complementary, and equally valid --- subjective (example: phenomenology and meditation), objective (example: experimental biology and physics), intersubjective (example: structuralism and hermeneutics), and interobjective (example: "system sciences").

Oh, and for those interested, this is basically what that "egocentric New Age pseudo-guru" Ken Wilber *chuckle* has to say about these kinds of things, too.

Laterz.


----------

