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

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[captnigh]

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]

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]

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

 

[theletch1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!