In another thread, someone asked the question, "Can you set aside your own bias and free your minds to the truth about Jesus if there is any truth at all?"
It got me wondering if one can really be free of biases. It seems to me that if you tried to rid yourself of bias X you might swing too far toward bias Y. What are your thoughts on this?
So the question for debate is:
Can one be free of biases?
Bias free?
Moderator: Moderators
-
amortalman
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:35 am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
-
amortalman
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:35 am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Post #11
I'm certainly not going to disagree with you on the universal need for genuine love.2ndRateMind wrote:For me, this is the central message of the Gospels, and what Jesus lived and died for. All the rest is detail. As He put it*:amortalman wrote:
I agree, and that's certainly a laudable ideal, but totally unrealistic, as I'm sure you realize. But you've now defined sin as a lack of love. Maybe the one commandment should be Thou shalt love. In fact, I kind of like that, but that virtue isn't exclusive to the Bible.
If we were to just obey these two commandments, as Christians heart-struck by the holy spirit tend to do, then I think our selfish biases would all fade to nothing.Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Best wishes, 2RM
*Luke 10:27 KJV
But being a committed Christian, one whom you describe as heart-struck by the holy spirit, is no guarantee of being unbiased. I've known Christians like that who will vote for any political candidate who claims to be a Christian. This puts them squarely in the bias camp.
And I COULD disagree with you that love is the central message of the Gospels (but I would be veering too far from the subject of the OP). But you might want to use that statement for a new topic. It would be interesting to explore it.
-
2ndRateMind
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
- Location: Pilgrim on another way
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Post #12
That's good! The more love there is the world, the better all our lives will be.amortalman wrote:
I'm certainly not going to disagree with you on the universal need for genuine love.
I agree, there are some Christians who think they can be Christian without loving their neighbour, because they are in monogamous heterosexual relationships and honour their parents and do not covet their neighbour's ass, etc. But these are not the Christians I would describe as being heart-struck by the holy spirit. Christianity is not a destination, but a journey, and that of the soul shriving off its biases, and perhaps these loveless but righteous people will find the central core of the religion, eventually.amortalman wrote:
But being a committed Christian, one whom you describe as heart-struck by the holy spirit, is no guarantee of being unbiased. I've known Christians like that who will vote for any political candidate who claims to be a Christian. This puts them squarely in the bias camp.
As for voting for Christians, why; virtue is as virtue does. The love-driven virtue is the thing to look for in public servants, not their alleged affiliation to this religion, or that.
Best wishes, 2RM
Re: Bias free?
Post #13[Replying to post 1 by amortalman]
As I see it, you can't always be free of bias, but:
(1) you can be meaningfully free of bias on specific topics
and
(2) not being free of bias isn't always an undesirable thing
On (1): We're naturally subjective, so we have skewed "perspectives" that are a product of our individuality and never reflect the "full picture". How I interpret reality depends on my senses, my intelligence, my memories, my emotions, my values, etc. Another person would see a same reality and interpret it differently, because they are different.
Nevertheless we can also choose or try to be objective in a way other species can't. We can try to think of other people's thoughts, and our own thoughts, as the object of study. So that I look inside and I am aware that a thought is that, an interpretation of reality, and not reality itself. This awareness can remove subjectivity; generally, you see things more objectively the more you critically distance yourself from your own personality/subjectivity.
You will always be subjective, because you are a subject, but you will be less subjective and more objective. When people of different worldviews agree that a critical view is more objective, I'd say it likely is - different "perspectives" can be put together to make the 3D image.
For example, a husband is enraged that his wife cheated, and thinks it's "unreasonable". She on the other hand thinks she was justified because it was her only way to be happy after he denied her a divorce. Both are logically consistent positions, it is just that he values commitment over happiness, and she the opposite. Both as functional human adults, are equipped to understand this, and being aware could've made compromise possible and saved the marriage or just let them make better decisions about a life partner.
So in a way, I guess you could say our way to be objective is to be inter-subjective. The pitfall here is when people of similar worldviews or ideologies do it. Because in that case, being inter-subjective becomes the same perspective put over and over again, and adds no new information. When there is no information, the brain tries to fill it in with what it already knows - we need answers to survive, so we create them the best we can. This can create subjectivity with a (subjective) impression of being objective. These people (think of echo chambers) tend to speak about other people's ideas all the time, but they always do so from a very reductive point of view, in which they present versions of their positions and not their actual positions. Because they are doing it, they unconsciously project and claim that other people are doing it - they will never find someone they disagree with, who they think can "accurately" convey their own position. In essence, for them, everyone else is wrong and less intelligent: nobody could have the same information as they do and think differently, because the way they think is how to "think right", and any alternative is "thinking wrong".
On (2): being "neutral" between two points, like midway between A and B (eg a political centrist), is not necessarily the same as being objective. Objective is about reaching conclusions free of arbitrariness (like a judge); neutrality is about middle grounds (like a referee). You can be neutral and subjective, and you can be "biased" and objective: it depends on what A and B believe.
If everyone but a sectarian cult stopped existing, there would still be possible thinkable worldviews, and even though it wouldn't be "an extreme" anymore, you could have objective reasons to condemn it. It would still be a small perspective, arguably a bad one, whether its most "neutral" and "unbiased" thinkers are aware of it or not.
The conclusion I take from all that is that you can be more objective the more information you have; by talking to more people, and critically approaching other worldviews: being open to them. The more subjective you are -more emotional, hermetic, fundamentalist-, the less you see the "full picture" and the more you believe your limited information is the full picture. Likewise we tend to think of positions as points in a line, and judge the "center" by the "extremes". But what thoughts are possible and their content is always more relevant than which are actually occupied by thinkers - extremes change with time and neutrality isn't always objective and better.
As I see it, you can't always be free of bias, but:
(1) you can be meaningfully free of bias on specific topics
and
(2) not being free of bias isn't always an undesirable thing
On (1): We're naturally subjective, so we have skewed "perspectives" that are a product of our individuality and never reflect the "full picture". How I interpret reality depends on my senses, my intelligence, my memories, my emotions, my values, etc. Another person would see a same reality and interpret it differently, because they are different.
Nevertheless we can also choose or try to be objective in a way other species can't. We can try to think of other people's thoughts, and our own thoughts, as the object of study. So that I look inside and I am aware that a thought is that, an interpretation of reality, and not reality itself. This awareness can remove subjectivity; generally, you see things more objectively the more you critically distance yourself from your own personality/subjectivity.
You will always be subjective, because you are a subject, but you will be less subjective and more objective. When people of different worldviews agree that a critical view is more objective, I'd say it likely is - different "perspectives" can be put together to make the 3D image.
For example, a husband is enraged that his wife cheated, and thinks it's "unreasonable". She on the other hand thinks she was justified because it was her only way to be happy after he denied her a divorce. Both are logically consistent positions, it is just that he values commitment over happiness, and she the opposite. Both as functional human adults, are equipped to understand this, and being aware could've made compromise possible and saved the marriage or just let them make better decisions about a life partner.
So in a way, I guess you could say our way to be objective is to be inter-subjective. The pitfall here is when people of similar worldviews or ideologies do it. Because in that case, being inter-subjective becomes the same perspective put over and over again, and adds no new information. When there is no information, the brain tries to fill it in with what it already knows - we need answers to survive, so we create them the best we can. This can create subjectivity with a (subjective) impression of being objective. These people (think of echo chambers) tend to speak about other people's ideas all the time, but they always do so from a very reductive point of view, in which they present versions of their positions and not their actual positions. Because they are doing it, they unconsciously project and claim that other people are doing it - they will never find someone they disagree with, who they think can "accurately" convey their own position. In essence, for them, everyone else is wrong and less intelligent: nobody could have the same information as they do and think differently, because the way they think is how to "think right", and any alternative is "thinking wrong".
On (2): being "neutral" between two points, like midway between A and B (eg a political centrist), is not necessarily the same as being objective. Objective is about reaching conclusions free of arbitrariness (like a judge); neutrality is about middle grounds (like a referee). You can be neutral and subjective, and you can be "biased" and objective: it depends on what A and B believe.
If everyone but a sectarian cult stopped existing, there would still be possible thinkable worldviews, and even though it wouldn't be "an extreme" anymore, you could have objective reasons to condemn it. It would still be a small perspective, arguably a bad one, whether its most "neutral" and "unbiased" thinkers are aware of it or not.
The conclusion I take from all that is that you can be more objective the more information you have; by talking to more people, and critically approaching other worldviews: being open to them. The more subjective you are -more emotional, hermetic, fundamentalist-, the less you see the "full picture" and the more you believe your limited information is the full picture. Likewise we tend to think of positions as points in a line, and judge the "center" by the "extremes". But what thoughts are possible and their content is always more relevant than which are actually occupied by thinkers - extremes change with time and neutrality isn't always objective and better.
-
amortalman
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:35 am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Bias free?
Post #16[Replying to post 1 by amortalman]
Member DI points out;
[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]
The way in which it is bias is in that it's focus is only upon that which is evident. Thus, philosophy has no bearing on materialist world views - not to say that a materialist cannot enjoy the sojourn into philosophical discourse, but that they will always inevitably resort to the evident as their preferred position...bias.
No one is free from bias. That is the favored position one holds and argues from. It is true that we can exchange our favored position for another, but in doing so we are simply exchanging bias, rather than removing ourselves from its influence.
Evidence does not in any way release anyone from having bias.
Perhaps - as Member 2ndRateMind suggests in this post;
[Replying to post 4 by 2ndRateMind]
We could be free from a certain type of bias if we were not judgmental and influenced by whatever human institutions we prefer to support, be they political, cultural or religious...the Member refers to this as being 'free from sin' but whatever, it is feasible for an individual to be free from such things, but this in itself would only signify that anyone who is, has that particular bias, which of itself isn't a bad thing...so bias isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like all things, it is a tool and thus can be used appropriately or not.
I don't think so.Can one be free of biases?
Member DI points out;
[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]
...and I would say this too can be considered bias simply because it is.I would say yes, a person can be free of biases. All that is required is that they look at the actual evidence and accept where the evidence leads. If you follow where the evidence leads how could that be said to be biased?
The way in which it is bias is in that it's focus is only upon that which is evident. Thus, philosophy has no bearing on materialist world views - not to say that a materialist cannot enjoy the sojourn into philosophical discourse, but that they will always inevitably resort to the evident as their preferred position...bias.
No one is free from bias. That is the favored position one holds and argues from. It is true that we can exchange our favored position for another, but in doing so we are simply exchanging bias, rather than removing ourselves from its influence.
Evidence does not in any way release anyone from having bias.
Perhaps - as Member 2ndRateMind suggests in this post;
[Replying to post 4 by 2ndRateMind]
We could be free from a certain type of bias if we were not judgmental and influenced by whatever human institutions we prefer to support, be they political, cultural or religious...the Member refers to this as being 'free from sin' but whatever, it is feasible for an individual to be free from such things, but this in itself would only signify that anyone who is, has that particular bias, which of itself isn't a bad thing...so bias isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like all things, it is a tool and thus can be used appropriately or not.
-
amortalman
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:35 am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Bias free?
Post #17I actually thought Divine Insight's statement made a lot of sense. But then, I didn't take it as a foolproof way to eliminate all bias on any one subject. More of a way to mitigate a bias.William wrote: [Replying to post 1 by amortalman]
I don't think so.Can one be free of biases?
Member DI points out;
[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]
...and I would say this too can be considered bias simply because it is.I would say yes, a person can be free of biases. All that is required is that they look at the actual evidence and accept where the evidence leads. If you follow where the evidence leads how could that be said to be biased?
The way in which it is bias is in that it's focus is only upon that which is evident.
Not sure how philosophy fits into this picture. Maybe I just don't understand exactly what you're trying to say. Are you saying that since evidence isn't philosophy it can't be used to arrive at an unbiased position?Thus, philosophy has no bearing on materialist world views..... but that they will always inevitably resort to the evident as their preferred position...bias.
I still don't see where considering evidence is, within itself, biased. Maybe we're using two different definitions of bias. When I think of a biased view I think of one that is unreasoned and preconceived such as racial prejudice. If one doesn't apply that negative slant to the word then every opinion one ever has is biased and it becomes senseless.
So if no one is free of bias, and every opinion is biased I assume, how is it possible to be removed from its influence?No one is free from bias. That is the favored position one holds and argues from. It is true that we can exchange our favored position for another, but in doing so we are simply exchanging bias, rather than removing ourselves from its influence.
I think that in certain cases evidence would be very convincing in at least mitigating one's bias. I used to be biased against the old earth views of scientists. My bias developed from the teachings of evangelical Christianity. After a little study of geology and the evidence that overwhelmingly points to a very old earth my bias against it vanished. I suppose one could say I'm now biased against the young earth position but I think that would be a misapplication of the word. You simply can't label every conclusion as biased.Evidence does not in any way release anyone from having bias.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Bias free?
Post #18[Replying to post 17 by amortalman]
I think my understanding of the word is accurate.
I think lack of bias has more to do with remaining neutral.
I think my understanding of the word is accurate.
I think lack of bias has more to do with remaining neutral.
-
Complexity
- Student
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:10 pm
- Location: Oklahoma
Post #20
William wrote:
I might be off on a tangent. I don’t know what depth you meant; how far you equate neutrality to lack of bias; but the extreme of that idea hits home for me. I’ve been surrounded all my life by nice people who refuse to speak their minds, and they call that virtue. Modern society holds neutrality (tolerance, silence, approval, acceptance) to be a top virtue, if not the ultimate virtue. While it certainty can be virtuous, it also can be highly disrespectful and wrong. It depends on the situation. We could make a list of situations where it is wise to hold one’s tongue and ignore X. But when is it wise and dutiful to speak the hard things? It is dishonoring for friends and rivals alike to listen to me open my heart and mind; delivery the best I know on important issues; and then respond with a polite smile and switch subject to the latest sporting outcome. Certainly we all disagree about what is important, but when it happens on all touchy subjects, year after year, something is wrong. Yes, if I delivered an irrational or brutal rant, nobody would be obligated to respond to that. An obscure topic which is tedious and meaningless deserves little response. But for important issues, it is generally the duty of fair-minded truth seekers to engage calmly, constructively, and deeply. Far too many people never engage. Silence is born out bias, fear, etc. Fear is conquered by experience. I was extremely shy and insecure in my youth so I about fear of confrontation. Bias is conquered by owning it and wrestling against it. Neutrality often comes from the beliefs that a person is unworthy to deal with, the assumption that a person is unable to change; and/or that the subject is unworthy; or all of life is unworthy, meaningless, and hopeless. We need to honor our rivals with a listening ear, direct response to their argument, and make the assumption that they are worthy of debate, even worthy of risking an ugly confrontation. We should make the gracious assumption that even our most hard-headed rival might be swayed and soften. I certainly have changed greatly throughout my life, largely by debating rivals. And I surely haven’t reached the peak of mount-perfection and thus am looking to correct my beliefs as reason and conscience dictate. It is bias to believe & assume that people are hopelessly stuck in the ruts of their biases and are so despicable that they can’t be swayed even a little. It is easy to rest on a bed of simplistic platitudes, cute witty punch-lines, and cruel criticisms. We do need to be reductionists; reducing the infinitely complex into human bite-size pieces, but that is often taken to the extreme. There is need for times (cycles of) joint deep analysis, and then reduction into working conclusions. It is easy to write off our rivals; thinking they are weak-minded, depraved (evil), or lunatic. That is the very low road of bias. Give rivals a gracious assumption.
7homas Wrote:
I’ll use the conventional definition of bias as thoughts and feelings that are unfair, irrational, self-servicing, grossly critical & negative, etc.I think lack of bias has more to do with remaining neutral.
I might be off on a tangent. I don’t know what depth you meant; how far you equate neutrality to lack of bias; but the extreme of that idea hits home for me. I’ve been surrounded all my life by nice people who refuse to speak their minds, and they call that virtue. Modern society holds neutrality (tolerance, silence, approval, acceptance) to be a top virtue, if not the ultimate virtue. While it certainty can be virtuous, it also can be highly disrespectful and wrong. It depends on the situation. We could make a list of situations where it is wise to hold one’s tongue and ignore X. But when is it wise and dutiful to speak the hard things? It is dishonoring for friends and rivals alike to listen to me open my heart and mind; delivery the best I know on important issues; and then respond with a polite smile and switch subject to the latest sporting outcome. Certainly we all disagree about what is important, but when it happens on all touchy subjects, year after year, something is wrong. Yes, if I delivered an irrational or brutal rant, nobody would be obligated to respond to that. An obscure topic which is tedious and meaningless deserves little response. But for important issues, it is generally the duty of fair-minded truth seekers to engage calmly, constructively, and deeply. Far too many people never engage. Silence is born out bias, fear, etc. Fear is conquered by experience. I was extremely shy and insecure in my youth so I about fear of confrontation. Bias is conquered by owning it and wrestling against it. Neutrality often comes from the beliefs that a person is unworthy to deal with, the assumption that a person is unable to change; and/or that the subject is unworthy; or all of life is unworthy, meaningless, and hopeless. We need to honor our rivals with a listening ear, direct response to their argument, and make the assumption that they are worthy of debate, even worthy of risking an ugly confrontation. We should make the gracious assumption that even our most hard-headed rival might be swayed and soften. I certainly have changed greatly throughout my life, largely by debating rivals. And I surely haven’t reached the peak of mount-perfection and thus am looking to correct my beliefs as reason and conscience dictate. It is bias to believe & assume that people are hopelessly stuck in the ruts of their biases and are so despicable that they can’t be swayed even a little. It is easy to rest on a bed of simplistic platitudes, cute witty punch-lines, and cruel criticisms. We do need to be reductionists; reducing the infinitely complex into human bite-size pieces, but that is often taken to the extreme. There is need for times (cycles of) joint deep analysis, and then reduction into working conclusions. It is easy to write off our rivals; thinking they are weak-minded, depraved (evil), or lunatic. That is the very low road of bias. Give rivals a gracious assumption.
7homas Wrote:
That is an interesting thought. Obviously, there is bias rationality. Rationality is poorly done more often than well done. Rationality is king, but it is not the only game in town. Scientism takes rationality to an extreme, assuming that anything that can’t be lab tested and repeated is not worthy. That is a modern-day bias.What about rationality? Could that possibly be a bias?
