It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Getting Past Your Biases

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

It seems a furrowed brain is a good thing though.




posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Strate8

Instincts lie, as do our senses. They tell us the world is flat and doesn't move.


Be skeptical of what they tell you. They are easily fooled.


I think you missed that I said humans are both thinkers and have animal instincts.

As thinkers humans have researched the world around them and came to the conclusion that the earth is round, rotates, orbits the sun (thus our 365 day calender) and moon orbits around the earth.

Instinct is the thing that tells you, hey watch out for this guy! Even if everything he is telling you sounds good in your ears. It is a survival mechanism, a warning system. Its job is to err on the side of safety. It is a good thing to listen to.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


We would be nowhere. And to be honest this beautiful planet may benefit from such a thing.


Sorry if I come off as harsh.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nothin

It seems a furrowed brain is a good thing though.



How is it best served?
With a créme-bias, et mushroom confirmation sauce?



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Strate8
Decent article except it throws in its own bias about climate chamge



"Some conservatives hate climate change because they are fans of free enterprise, and they hate the thought of big government," Professor Hornsey says.


"Hate climate change" that infers there is no scientific debate about the subject and conservatives only reason to be against government policy on climate change is economic and dislike of big government.

Also a bit undercuts believing in your own gut instincts and I disagree with that. We humans are both thinkers and have animal instincts. Your instincts help determine friend/foe, they are part of an animalistic survival instinct.

If you feel someone is lying to you or means you harm, trust that instinct.


If you stand back and look at the actual scientist debating in the relevant field of Climatology there are very few who disagree with AGW. There is not much true debate on the matter when you take in the numbers that disagree compared to the numbers that do not. You did not quote the next part of what the Professor Hornsey said.




"Some conservatives hate climate change because they are fans of free enterprise, and they hate the thought of big government," Professor Hornsey says.

"We know that statistically. We've seen the data that shows that's a big predictor of people rejecting climate change."


He doesn't in this article provide the data he is referencing admittedly but in the spirit of this sort of thinking, I guess it could be looked into.

Buy hey, maybe some bias is showing though in this article, I think the point of the article is that there is biases everywhere, everyone has them, the key is to recognise biases, both in others and yourself.
edit on 5-11-2018 by harold223 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: harold223

My point is not to debate climate change itself, it is that the author of the article chose that issue to use as an example.

If you look at it with critical eyes for tools of propaganda you find it in the article:
"Conservatives" and "Hate" used in the same sentence.

Did you pick up on that? It was no accident.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Strate8
a reply to: harold223

My point is not to debate climate change itself, it is that the author of the article chose that issue to use as an example.

If you look at it with critical eyes for tools of propaganda you find it in the article:
"Conservatives" and "Hate" used in the same sentence.

Did you pick up on that? It was no accident.


This is where it gets fascinating I guess. You perceived that, I did not, maybe that shows your bias and mine alike



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: harold223

Touché sir!!!



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nothin

Hope you don't think I'm John Lithgow.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Getting Past Biases ?




In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.

“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky.

“I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied.

“Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky.

“I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.

Minsky then shut his eyes.

“Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.

“So that the room will be empty.”

At that moment, Sussman was enlightened



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: harold223


This is where it gets fascinating I guess. You perceived that, I did not, maybe that shows your bias and mine alike.


I have to side with Slate8 on this. I don't think Slate8 is showing any bias; exactly the opposite. Lets take a look at that passage again:


"Some conservatives hate climate change because they are fans of free enterprise, and they hate the thought of big government," Professor Hornsey says. 


First, to "hate" something, one must actually believe it's a real thing, eh? So the good professor has shown his own bias -- that he "believes" in climate change and he therefore judges these "conservatives" in that confirmation bias... The inference is that everyone "knows" climate change is real, some people just "hate" it.

And no, consensus is not science. Science demands absolute replicability... In other words, anyone and everyone would get the exact same results in the exact same conditions every single time. Climate change "consensus" does not fit that bill.

Second, he uses his own confirmation bias to determine why they hate it. Folks who want small government almost invariably believe that government screws up everything and is screwing this up as well. There is no reasoning for why conservatives "hate" big government and how that factors into their reasoning and logic.

It's also possible to believe in climate change and not believe that the solutions offered are the proper solutions -- think carbon tax. Or that man is not the cause of the climate change, but that weather and climate changes as a natural part of creation.


"We know that statistically. We've seen the data that shows that's a big predictor of people rejecting climate change." 


Oddly enough, the professor now changes his position -- conservatives reject climate change... And by golly gee he KNOWS it because he's seen the data that predicts it.... At best, the data can show patterns and trends shared by political philosophies, but it cannot reveal all the whys and wherefore. As I noted above, the reasons why conservatives reject government and its "solutions" are much more complex -- whether one believes in manmade climate change or not.
----------

In the grand scheme of things, the professor was a perfect example of coming to conclusions based on his own confirmation bias.

How very ironic

edit on 5-11-2018 by Boadicea because: Formatting



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

We can pick the article further apart as well:



Amid all the stories about "fake news" and political interference, it's hard to know what to trust— and our biases can cloud our judgement.

It turns out we are prone to accepting or rejecting evidence based on our pre-existing beliefs, rather than the strength of the facts.


So the overriding goal of the article is to address the "fake news" issue and how we the ignorant/biased masses can weed through it all for the "facts."

Notice the usage of we and our? The writer is being inclusive, we are all in this together. We all have the same problem. We all need to address our biases and we need be more open to the other side of the argument.




We often believe things are worse than they really are, and we tend to engage only with the familiar sides of nuanced debates.


I would like to see data backing up the claim that we believe things are worse than they really are. I tend to think the opposite is true.

I tend to think the damage from Fukishima is worse than is being told and people would rather believe it is OK than that our ocean is getting poisoned for hundreds of years.

I tend to think human trafficking/modern day slavery is much more of a problem than people are comfortable admitting because I don't think the average person would be happy to sit by and do nothing, knowing the full extent of the problem and the lives it has destroyed.

I think there are hundreds examples where we like to think the problem is not nearly as bad as it is so that we can go about our daily lives blissfully ignorant




The good news is we're here to help.


Who is this we that is here to help us? Professor Hornsey & the University of Queensland or the news organization bringing this article to us? If they are biased like us, how can they be so assured they can help?




Expect to hear about lots of bad things — and not many good

Journalists focus on the extreme, the novel and the exciting. If a passenger plane crashes, you will hear about it, whether online, on TV, on the radio or in a newspaper.


True, but...

A plane crashing is just plain news. This article's goal is to address weeding through "fake news." Wouldn't it be far more fitting to bring up corruption of a public official that some news organizations cover while other news organizations ignore it or even defend the corrupt official?


And from the article, when in doubt:


If you suspect a story is sensationalist, or too good to be true, check to see if — or how — it's being covered by reputable media organisations.

Go to the gatekeepers of truth, MSM...



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I think we are all showing our bias, Slate, myself, Boadicea, Professor Hornsey and the author of the article. This year I have been reading some works by Thich Nhat Hahn, vietnamese Zen monk, and trying to understand the wisdom to be found in Buddhism. He speaks about "Views" and "Perception" and mentions that all "Views" are in effect wrong because they come from a "Point" and will change depending on ones "Point of view". He also speaks of "Perception". "Where there is perception, there is deception". I think if you take any body of text, different people will take different things away from it based on their point of views, which in turn is based on their experiences in life and how they perceive the world. Its all very subjective. Now having said all that, there is something to be said for statistics, they take some of the ambiguity out of things and this article mentioned although did not provide certain statistics. I guess the point is, if we are serious about understanding something, be it a news article, or a scientific paper, we should be researching for ourselves, the information that has been presented and trying to understand the "Point of view" of the source.

Is there Bias in this article, certainly, Professor Hornsey of the University of Queensland probably has a left wing Bias, a lot of Professors in Australia do as they receive a lot of government funding and thus, are likely to be inclined to be supporters of big government. Does the author have Bias, almost certainly, if he works for the ABC, the Australian Broadcast Commission, the Australian State owned broadcaster then he is essentially a public servant and would likely also to be a supporter of big government. The point of all this is to better recognise our own Biases, as well as the Biases that may be apparent in what we are reading or hearing. You will find Bias in pretty much everything presented by a human, just try to recognise it for what it is. Easier said than done, especially admitting our own Biases.

Good discussion all



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Strate8

Excellent points and very well said -- bravo!

The only thing I can expand on in terms of the inclusive "we" is that it also invokes the human desire to belong... to be popular... to be part of the cool crowd 😎

But isn't it great that "our" kindred spirits are here to "help" us? They'll tell us who to believe and trust!!!


Go to the gatekeepers of truth, MSM...


That was downright cringeworthy, eh?

One of the best things my daddy taught me was to never get all my information in one place.... and to never confuse facts and opinions.



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: harold223


...all "Views" are in effect wrong because they come from a "Point" and will change depending on ones "Point of view". He also speaks of "Perception". 


I would posit that more often than not there is truth in all perspectives, but not necessarily the whole truth.

There is an old parable about the three blind men who came upon an elephant in the road. Each explored and examined the elephant with their hands -- one the head, one the belly, and one the rear. Each one later described what they found, each describing something different. All were correct, but none had the whole truth.

The problem is when folks believe that they alone have the whole truth and the only truth based upon their perspective alone... And, of course, when folks mistake opinions for truth.



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: harold223

Oddly, I've noticed with quite a few studies that scientists do the exact same thing when creating their methodology.



It's the other way around: we often start with a belief and arrange the evidence to fit. "Rather than behaving like scientists, we behave like lawyers. We have an outcome that we're trying to prosecute," Professor Hornsey says.


I believe we all have unconscious and conscious biases that we seem to cling to for security and comfort. It seems very difficult for us to face our fears and step out of our comfort zone.



6. Perform Research To Get A Handle On Fears The mental trick I use is to do the research on what it is you want to do. If you want to skydive, research the topic and the best skydive schools around. Also, get out and watch and talk to others who are doing what you aspire to accomplish. Research breeds knowledge, and knowledge breeds confidence. - Linda Zander, Super Sized Success


www.forbes.com...

I will add that when you do research, research three studies that are repeatable and research peer reviews where the methodology is being questioned, this way you can form your own truth.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join