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

[Flatlander]

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:

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

 

[loki09789]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

Hrmmmmm....

 

[heretic888]

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.