$30.00
Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: bias blind spot and reasonableness rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
There seems to be some interest in bias, which truth be told is one of the reasons why I like to come here so I can see it in action.

First thing that should be mentioned is almost everyone thinks that they are less biased and more reasonable then everyone else. This is called Bias Blind Spot
Quote:
The bias blind spot is the cognitive bias of recognizing the impact of biases on the judgement of others, while failing to see the impact of biases on one's own judgment
Quote:
Most people appear to exhibit the bias blind spot. In a sample of more than 600 residents of the United States, more than 85% believed they were less biased than the average American. Only one participant believed that he or she was more biased than the average American.
Quote:
everyone seems to think they are less biased than other people, regardless of their actual decision making ability.

Bias is an interesting thing. While we may inhabit the same universe we all experience it in different ways. There is just no way that the brain can process the actual universe so it has to be interpreted. It is important to realize that the universe you experience is not the actual universe, it is your interpretation of the universe. Because there is too much to process the brain has to choose what to process and what to ignore. This is one of the first aspects of bias.

You probably think you are unbiased because you feel you use evidence and facts to come to your conclusions while everyone else seems to ignore what to you is obvious evidence.

There is an interesting book about this called Stumbling on Happiness
Quote:
The Brain and the eye may have a contractual relationship in which the brain has agreed to believe what the eye sees, but in return the eye has agreed to look for what the brain wants.

Basically we focus on evidence we want to see and ignore or reject evidence we don't. In one experiment
Quote:
Volunteers were told they were taking a test on social sensitivity and split into two groups those who were told they did well and those who were told they did poorly.
“They were then asked to asses two scientific reports- one that suggested the test was valid and one that suggested it was not.
Volunteers who had performed well on the test believed that the studies in the validating report used sounder scientific methods than did the studies in the invalidating report, but volunteers who performed poorly on the test believed precisely the opposite.”
Stumbling on Happiness p. 186

The fact is we typically decide what the conclusions should be and then weight the evidence in ways to come up with the conclusions we want.
Quote:
It would be unfair for teachers to give the students they like easier tests than those they dislike…
And yet, this is just the sort of uneven treatment most of us give to facts that confirm and disconfirm our favored conclusions.
We ask whether facts allow us to believe our favored conclusions and whether they compel us to believe our disfavored conclusions.

Stumbling on Happiness p. 184-185, 187


While we often sound incredulous that other people don't see what seems to us the obvious truth of things we in many ways inhabit different worlds with our brains picking and choosing what is important evidence and what is not.

Sometimes we call each other dishonest because of their obvious bias, but for me there has to be a pretty high standard for me to believe someone is being dishonest. Most people believe that they came to their conclusions honestly and through consideration of the evidence even if it is highly biased cherry picking of evidence (which they are usually unaware of).


11 
 Thumb up
1.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
bjlillo wrote:
Thank God this doesn't apply to me. You people are a mess though.

Well, I'm biased against the biased, but then again, I'm biased against people who say they're biased against the biased, so I guess I have a bias, but again, I'm biased in favor of myself, so ....

What was the question again?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Quote:
Bias is an interesting thing. While we may inhabit the same universe we all experience it in different ways. There is just no way that the brain can process the actual universe so it has to be interpreted. It is important to realize that the universe you experience is not the actual universe, it is your interpretation of the universe. Because there is too much to process the brain has to choose what to process and what to ignore. This is one of the first aspects of bias.

You probably think you are unbiased because you feel you use evidence and facts to come to your conclusions while everyone else seems to ignore what to you is obvious evidence.


Yeah, sort of. If there is a shooting, like for example the Michael Brown shooting, then there is no way to reinterpret the reality that he got shot. So you end up with people selectively ignoring or focusing on just the aspects (or imagined aspects) that they want to believe. That's more ideological than biased. And there is nothing wrong with being ideological either. But ideology or bias aside, when something didn't happen, really didn't happen (hands up!) yet the biased person insists or pretends it did, then you have bias that is poisonous.

Sometimes whole groups of people who are like minded use their collective bias in order to confuse the issue or outright lie to others because they want others to believe untruths - here's an example from yesterday:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-perc...

Politco is ranked by the WP as being left-leaning to the same degree that they rank MSNBC. And even though the blurb informs it's readers that the study was conducted by a conservative outlet they still didn't refute it. This is a case where bias is used to lie, obfuscate or hide certain realities that if shown the light of day would cause even the biased person to question at least some of what they believed. Truth is, nobody that I know who is voting Hillary is going to change their vote - for any reason. None. I mean video could surface of her using a strap on to anally ravage Andrew Weiner and they'd still tell you that Trump saying "grab her by the pussy" disqualifies him while chiding you for your bigotry against mature women having lawful sex.

Scientists -- who I understand are NEVER biased -- have long told us that our own shit doesn't stink because, as the OP points out, there is way to much information for the brain to process so it self edits. It's true, usually a person is unaware of their own odor and acutely aware of any strong odor in other people. Which is not saying that you don't smell to high heaven (you probably do) but that you don't care or can't care because your brain won't allow you to. Mostly that's kind of true but I feel like I totally know when I float an SBD that can burn the eyelashes off anyone within 10 feet.

So yeah, most people, when it comes to opinion, are unaware or unconcerned that they are biased. In this specific election I have been told outright more than a dozen times that Trump is so awful a person for general reasons that even if they had proof before their eyes that Hillary was an actual felon, they'd vote for her.

It's highly unlikely there can be any value in discussing politics with a person that would cheerfully vote for a criminal, for whatever reason. So usually I just drop one of those massive SBD's into their space and walk away silently, and quickly.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
DWTripp wrote:
Scientists -- who I understand are NEVER biased -- have long told us that our own shit doesn't stink because, as the OP points out, there is way to much information for the brain to process so it self edits. It's true, usually a person is unaware of their own odor and acutely aware of any strong odor in other people. Which is not saying that you don't smell to high heaven (you probably do) but that you don't care or can't care because your brain won't allow you to. Mostly that's kind of true but I feel like I totally know when I float an SBD that can burn the eyelashes off anyone within 10 feet.

laughlaughlaugh
Post of the day
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Quote:
Bias is an interesting thing. While we may inhabit the same universe we all experience it in different ways. There is just no way that the brain can process the actual universe so it has to be interpreted. It is important to realize that the universe you experience is not the actual universe, it is your interpretation of the universe. Because there is too much to process the brain has to choose what to process and what to ignore. This is one of the first aspects of bias.

You probably think you are unbiased because you feel you use evidence and facts to come to your conclusions while everyone else seems to ignore what to you is obvious evidence.


Yeah, sort of. If there is a shooting, like for example the Michael Brown shooting, then there is no way to reinterpret the reality that he got shot. So you end up with people selectively ignoring or focusing on just the aspects (or imagined aspects) that they want to believe. That's more ideological than biased. And there is nothing wrong with being ideological either. But ideology or bias aside, when something didn't happen, really didn't happen (hands up!) yet the biased person insists or pretends it did, then you have bias that is poisonous.

Sometimes whole groups of people who are like minded use their collective bias in order to confuse the issue or outright lie to others because they want others to believe untruths - here's an example from yesterday:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-perc...

Politco is ranked by the WP as being left-leaning to the same degree that they rank MSNBC. And even though the blurb informs it's readers that the study was conducted by a conservative outlet they still didn't refute it. This is a case where bias is used to lie, obfuscate or hide certain realities that if shown the light of day would cause even the biased person to question at least some of what they believed. Truth is, nobody that I know who is voting Hillary is going to change their vote - for any reason. None. I mean video could surface of her using a strap on to anally ravage Andrew Weiner and they'd still tell you that Trump saying "grab her by the pussy" disqualifies him while chiding you for your bigotry against mature women having lawful sex.

Scientists -- who I understand are NEVER biased -- have long told us that our own shit doesn't stink because, as the OP points out, there is way to much information for the brain to process so it self edits. It's true, usually a person is unaware of their own odor and acutely aware of any strong odor in other people. Which is not saying that you don't smell to high heaven (you probably do) but that you don't care or can't care because your brain won't allow you to. Mostly that's kind of true but I feel like I totally know when I float an SBD that can burn the eyelashes off anyone within 10 feet.

So yeah, most people, when it comes to opinion, are unaware or unconcerned that they are biased. In this specific election I have been told outright more than a dozen times that Trump is so awful a person for general reasons that even if they had proof before their eyes that Hillary was an actual felon, they'd vote for her.

It's highly unlikely there can be any value in discussing politics with a person that would cheerfully vote for a criminal, for whatever reason. So usually I just drop one of those massive SBD's into their space and walk away silently, and quickly.

While I agree with the overall point of your post (that people are biased without knowing it and that sometimes its not on what happened but on aspects of it) it is also another interesting example of bias blind spot. It is way easier to see bias in others or in other groups then in yourself and your group. All of your examples of bias come from groups that you do not identify with, such as leftists, Hillary voters, etc. Doing so is easy, comes naturally and without any effort.

The real trick is trying to spot it in ourselves.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
jeff brown wrote:

While I agree with the overall point of your post (that people are biased without knowing it and that sometimes its not on what happened but on aspects of it) it is also another interesting example of bias blind spot. It is way easier to see bias in others or in other groups then in yourself and your group. All of your examples of bias come from groups that you do not identify with, such as leftists, Hillary voters, etc. Doing so is easy, comes naturally and without any effort.

The real trick is trying to spot it in ourselves.


I used Michael Brown because no amount of bias one way or the other changes the reality - he was shot because he was trying to kill a cop. Plus, it's a huge deal around the world and the media along with a sizable chunk of America haters, cop haters and just haters in general could care about the facts of the matter.

I am not biased on Michael Brown. Not even a little. But some people are, mainly those on the liberal spectrum, which makes it a good example.

I don't think bias matters one bit until it gets destructive to the social order, the common good, the nation or even the local game group. I like what I like and there are plenty of people who see that as biased instead of what it is - I like what I like. Certain things please me, others don't. Bias, the bad sort, typically shows up in struggles over politics, race, ethnicity, and so forth. Which makes it potentially more harmful if the biases being pushed by the so-called power in the game is a lie. I used the Politico article as a reference for how a collective of Big Media Big Journalism outlets all primarily in the bag for Hillary are attempting to sway the public's vote by injecting a huge amount of anti-Trump bias into the public consciousness.

If you can find a suitable comparative example of how a biased group with a known power deferential is obfuscating Trump's past faults in order to swing votes to him them I'm all for it. Some things aren't clearly politically biased but are framed in such a way that those who are political try and use them to score political points. The pipeline story in South Dakota is one example. Oil isn't ideological, nor is money. No truer examples of money being without bias exists than with our two presidential choices. So the South Dakota story isn't about ideology but some biased people want it to be. Just like the Michael Brown shooting wasn't biased but because some people who work for the Ferguson police are biased the whole thing becomes a world-wide attack on everything from police to guns to conservatives.

To me that's poisonous.

So really, people's biases don't make one bit of difference in the day to day world, for me anyway. But collective bias that is organized and used to obfuscate facts or skew perceptions, that's a real issue. No doubt if 90% of the Big Journalism players were Trump supporters they'd try to downsell his shitty side and upsell Hillary's. But they aren't and that is no excuse for what the media is doing.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
jeff brown wrote:

While I agree with the overall point of your post (that people are biased without knowing it and that sometimes its not on what happened but on aspects of it) it is also another interesting example of bias blind spot. It is way easier to see bias in others or in other groups then in yourself and your group. All of your examples of bias come from groups that you do not identify with, such as leftists, Hillary voters, etc. Doing so is easy, comes naturally and without any effort.

The real trick is trying to spot it in ourselves.


I used Michael Brown because no amount of bias one way or the other changes the reality - he was shot because he was trying to kill a cop. Plus, it's a huge deal around the world and the media along with a sizable chunk of America haters, cop haters and just haters in general could care about the facts of the matter.

I am not biased on Michael Brown. Not even a little. But some people are, mainly those on the liberal spectrum, which makes it a good example.

I don't think bias matters one bit until it gets destructive to the social order, the common good, the nation or even the local game group. I like what I like and there are plenty of people who see that as biased instead of what it is - I like what I like. Certain things please me, others don't. Bias, the bad sort, typically shows up in struggles over politics, race, ethnicity, and so forth. Which makes it potentially more harmful if the biases being pushed by the so-called power in the game is a lie. I used the Politico article as a reference for how a collective of Big Media Big Journalism outlets all primarily in the bag for Hillary are attempting to sway the public's vote by injecting a huge amount of anti-Trump bias into the public consciousness.

If you can find a suitable comparative example of how a biased group with a known power deferential is obfuscating Trump's past faults in order to swing votes to him them I'm all for it. Some things aren't clearly politically biased but are framed in such a way that those who are political try and use them to score political points. The pipeline story in South Dakota is one example. Oil isn't ideological, nor is money. No truer examples of money being without bias exists than with our two presidential choices. So the South Dakota story isn't about ideology but some biased people want it to be. Just like the Michael Brown shooting wasn't biased but because some people who work for the Ferguson police are biased the whole thing becomes a world-wide attack on everything from police to guns to conservatives.

To me that's poisonous.

So really, people's biases don't make one bit of difference in the day to day world, for me anyway. But collective bias that is organized and used to obfuscate facts or skew perceptions, that's a real issue. No doubt if 90% of the Big Journalism players were Trump supporters they'd try to downsell his shitty side and upsell Hillary's. But they aren't and that is no excuse for what the media is doing.


So...

your bias is the non poisonous okay bias that is really just preferences and not bias.

The only real examples of poisonous bias that you metion are:

Journalism's bias against Trump (because the are liberals)
Liberals and their bias against guns, and police by using the Michael Brown shooting (which you are not biased at all about)
other people's bias against oil pipelines (probably liberals)

Yes this is a perfect example of Bias Blind Spot- a complete unawareness of your own bias with a heightened awareness to your political opponents bias.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
"32 inches of Plexi....for your pleasure"
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:


I used Michael Brown because no amount of bias one way or the other changes the reality - he was shot because he was trying to kill a cop. Plus, it's a huge deal around the world and the media along with a sizable chunk of America haters, cop haters and just haters in general could care about the facts of the matter.


Exactly, we should have let the process work it out. The justice department said the officer was not guilty of any wrong doing.

So we should accept that. Right?

We should accept when an officiating body deems the lack of wrong doing, therefore, no crime has been committed. Right?
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
jeff brown wrote:

Yes this is a perfect example of Bias Blind Spot- a complete unawareness of your own bias with a heightened awareness to your political opponents bias.


I think it's actually a perfect example of your preferences and proves nothing about me. I'm a conservative. That's my ideology and I tend to be more forgiving of conservatives in general and less willing to take attacks on them as reality based until I see data. You're a liberal so I'm pretty sure you feel more comfortable with those politicians who speak to your preferences. But I'm not so unrelentingly unaware of humanity that I would cover for true outrages like Hastert or a few others I could think of.

I mentioned, clearly I might add, that if conservatives ruled the media and press to the extent that liberals do (an overwhelming 95%) that they would no doubt collectively do what they could to cover their favored politicians and be less forgiving of liberals. Yet you choose to just and out and out accuse me of unawareness. Which I find highly amusing. So go forth and list your own examples of how power-wielding conservatives who are biased have collectively tried to skew public perception of important issues like race relations, presidential candidate suitability and even such. Do you really care about some blgger with a following of 1100 people? I don't. I'm looking for bias that like Ferguson is piped into the brains of literally hundreds of millions of people, or media coverage so weighted to the right, as in the article I linked, that it's difficult for the average person to make the time to seek out less biased coverage.

Go ahead.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
DWTripp wrote:


I used Michael Brown because no amount of bias one way or the other changes the reality - he was shot because he was trying to kill a cop. Plus, it's a huge deal around the world and the media along with a sizable chunk of America haters, cop haters and just haters in general could care about the facts of the matter.


Exactly, we should have let the process work it out. The justice department said the officer was not guilty of any wrong doing.

So we should accept that. Right?

We should accept when an officiating body deems the lack of wrong doing, therefore, no crime has been committed. Right?


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
jeff brown wrote:

Yes this is a perfect example of Bias Blind Spot- a complete unawareness of your own bias with a heightened awareness to your political opponents bias.


I think it's actually a perfect example of your preferences and proves nothing about me. I'm a conservative. That's my ideology and I tend to be more forgiving of conservatives in general and less willing to take attacks on them as reality based until I see data.


Now we're getting somewhere. This is what I mean. We tend to accept information that aligns with our beliefs unquestioningly (even if its from questionable sources) but if something contradicts it we want hard data, and then usually we will have arguments against the hard data and how it doesn't really show what it purports to.

Now the real question is are you aware that Republicans are as biased as Democrats, and that this bias can be just as poisonous as bias from the Democrats?

Quote:
You're a liberal so I'm pretty sure you feel more comfortable with those politicians who speak to your preferences.


I've never been called a liberal before but I guess I can see how I would appear that way from your perspective. I'm sure that most of my liberal friends would consider me a conservative.

Honestly I'm really not interested in getting into yet another Republican vs. Democratic debate. What I am interested in is that both sides (and those of us in the middle) often accuse each other of bias but are unable to see it in themselves.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I consume a wide variety of news sources to fight bias.

However, being biased can give you a certain emotional resolve.

I've allowed myself to be more biased in the Trump/Clinton election. It's not difficult- he's a sexist lying overly emotional tool and she's a highly over prepared robotic woman.

I've built quite an infobubble on YouTube.

Facts still matter but as Jeff says, the weighting of facts matter. So two people with the same facts can still come to opposite conclusions.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
jeff brown wrote:

Now we're getting somewhere. This is what I mean. We tend to accept information that aligns with our beliefs unquestioningly (even if its from questionable sources) but if something contradicts it we want hard data, and then usually we will have arguments against the hard data and how it doesn't really show what it purports to.


No, we aren't. This isn't a lesson and you aren't a teacher. I don't accept anything unquestionably and never said I did. In fact I clearly stated that I would likely be more forgiving of a person who shared a common ideology with me. Only in the mind of the heavily biased can that be construed to mean "accepting information unquestioningly" I want hard data on everything of importance and could give a shit about stuff that doesn't matter. I think if this was a debate class you'd be getting a D, at best.

Quote:
Now the real question is are you aware that Republicans are as biased as Democrats, and that this bias can be just as poisonous as bias from the Democrats?


Okay, now this is the third time I've asked you to provide any reference for a conservative power group that is acting in the way that the liberally biased American and world media is currently acting. It's as if you get to that part of my response and it's just blank. On top of which, for the 3rd time, I wholeheartedly believe that if the media and Big Journalism was conservative to the extent that the current Establishment is liberal then they'd do the same thing. That's human nature, not politics or ideology.

Bias, if it's actually to be reviled or scorned, has to have a power component. Unions took care of the power-bias of corporate rule over workers and now the Unions have the power differential and are abusing the constituency. You haven't provided a single topical example of any conservative bias that comes with the required power component to make it matter or to consider it corrosive or bad.

I think this is a mountain-molehill thing. Everybody already knows everybody likes what they like and some people are just miffed that not everyone thinks like them. So they write articles and books chiding the unwashed for not being as aware as them, the people smart enough to write books chiding the unwashed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
jeff brown wrote:

While I agree with the overall point of your post (that people are biased without knowing it and that sometimes its not on what happened but on aspects of it) it is also another interesting example of bias blind spot. It is way easier to see bias in others or in other groups then in yourself and your group. All of your examples of bias come from groups that you do not identify with, such as leftists, Hillary voters, etc. Doing so is easy, comes naturally and without any effort.

The real trick is trying to spot it in ourselves.


I used Michael Brown because no amount of bias one way or the other changes the reality - he was shot because he was trying to kill a cop. Plus, it's a huge deal around the world and the media along with a sizable chunk of America haters, cop haters and just haters in general could care about the facts of the matter.

I am not biased on Michael Brown. Not even a little. But some people are, mainly those on the liberal spectrum, which makes it a good example.

I don't think bias matters one bit until it gets destructive to the social order, the common good, the nation or even the local game group. I like what I like and there are plenty of people who see that as biased instead of what it is - I like what I like. Certain things please me, others don't. Bias, the bad sort, typically shows up in struggles over politics, race, ethnicity, and so forth. Which makes it potentially more harmful if the biases being pushed by the so-called power in the game is a lie. I used the Politico article as a reference for how a collective of Big Media Big Journalism outlets all primarily in the bag for Hillary are attempting to sway the public's vote by injecting a huge amount of anti-Trump bias into the public consciousness.

If you can find a suitable comparative example of how a biased group with a known power deferential is obfuscating Trump's past faults in order to swing votes to him them I'm all for it. Some things aren't clearly politically biased but are framed in such a way that those who are political try and use them to score political points. The pipeline story in South Dakota is one example. Oil isn't ideological, nor is money. No truer examples of money being without bias exists than with our two presidential choices. So the South Dakota story isn't about ideology but some biased people want it to be. Just like the Michael Brown shooting wasn't biased but because some people who work for the Ferguson police are biased the whole thing becomes a world-wide attack on everything from police to guns to conservatives.

To me that's poisonous.

So really, people's biases don't make one bit of difference in the day to day world, for me anyway. But collective bias that is organized and used to obfuscate facts or skew perceptions, that's a real issue. No doubt if 90% of the Big Journalism players were Trump supporters they'd try to downsell his shitty side and upsell Hillary's. But they aren't and that is no excuse for what the media is doing.


It's a slippery concept. Most of us can readily agree that bias includes the selective viewing and deployment of facts to reinforce our existing notions. Of course, there is more to it than that. The weight we give to facts includes our assessment of the credibility of the source of those facts (also subject to bias) and to our individual value sets which, by any valid measure, are not homogenous. You self describe as a conservative and admit to giving some greater leeway to conservative political figures. That "may be" acceptable as mechanism for selecting what you see as valuable political philosophies over and above the absolute character of the individual politician. The same could easily be said of those holding their noses while voting for Clinton.

It's easy to cry bias and dismiss the opinions of those you view as biased rather than to engage in the actual policies. We see this in both parties repeatedly. Much hay was made out of Bernie Sanders being a socialist (and there may even have been some discomfort about his Jewish faith). Even you engage in repeated labeling here calling people out as libtards or some such. Even if you are correct about the existence of a "bias" it doesn't allow for the possibility that "biased" people can still do good jobs or that the actual weight of their bias is nominal.

After all, who is the media today? Cable news, Local affiliates, the tattered remains of the nations newspapers, radio personalities, bloggers, hackers, and so on comprise the current "totality" of the media with a massive disgorgement of material both disciplined and otherwise and all across the ideological spectrum. Considering the way in which the GOP (clearly a biased organization by any standard) is splitting on Trumps nomination should be at least some evidence that the problem with the campaign isn't merely some manifestation of reporting bias.

As to the Michael Brown phenomena, you are both correct and off target at the same time. If you are considering ONLY the Michael Brown shooting in a vacuum, it is accurate to say that accounts of the event appear to have been in error and that reaction to the particular event overstated. However, when viewed in the larger context of police shootings of unarmed black suspects, the "hands up" gesture can be viewed more as a metaphor for the current paradigm of such shootings. It is very possible to win the argument about Brown while losing sight of the issue which drives the actual heat of the reaction.

You say that neither oil nor money are ideological which is certainly a truism. However, the manner of acquisition and use of both commodities brings many ideological considerations to the fore. Not only that, the ideologies themselves are constantly shifting. During Reagans era, the labor union dominated Democratic party was resisting liberalizing trade policy. Now you have the Clinton Democratic party resisting the Trumpian move to restore trade protections. What exactly is the bias here? IT's grossly simplistic to claim that only one party somehow favors big business while the other favors working class Americans. It is entirely possible to attempt to serve the interests of both by supporting free trade (which promotes efficient allocation of labor and resources) while simultaneously promoting demand side economic policy (like with minimum wages and retraining for dislocated workers). Having an opinion on this isn't necessarily evidence of bias. Prioritizing the candidate who you think will best promote such policy is pretty much in keeping with your statement about setting the issues above the individual.

You may disagree but, there is plenty of room for people to make their own judgement about which candidate will best serve the realization of their priorities.



4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
jeff brown wrote:

Now we're getting somewhere. This is what I mean. We tend to accept information that aligns with our beliefs unquestioningly (even if its from questionable sources) but if something contradicts it we want hard data, and then usually we will have arguments against the hard data and how it doesn't really show what it purports to.


No, we aren't. This isn't a lesson and you aren't a teacher. I don't accept anything unquestionably and never said I did. In fact I clearly stated that I would likely be more forgiving of a person who shared a common ideology with me. Only in the mind of the heavily biased can that be construed to mean "accepting information unquestioningly" I want hard data on everything of importance and could give a shit about stuff that doesn't matter. I think if this was a debate class you'd be getting a D, at best.

Quote:
Now the real question is are you aware that Republicans are as biased as Democrats, and that this bias can be just as poisonous as bias from the Democrats?


Okay, now this is the third time I've asked you to provide any reference for a conservative power group that is acting in the way that the liberally biased American and world media is currently acting. It's as if you get to that part of my response and it's just blank. On top of which, for the 3rd time, I wholeheartedly believe that if the media and Big Journalism was conservative to the extent that the current Establishment is liberal then they'd do the same thing. That's human nature, not politics or ideology.

Bias, if it's actually to be reviled or scorned, has to have a power component. Unions took care of the power-bias of corporate rule over workers and now the Unions have the power differential and are abusing the constituency. You haven't provided a single topical example of any conservative bias that comes with the required power component to make it matter or to consider it corrosive or bad.

I think this is a mountain-molehill thing. Everybody already knows everybody likes what they like and some people are just miffed that not everyone thinks like them. So they write articles and books chiding the unwashed for not being as aware as them, the people smart enough to write books chiding the unwashed.

I apologize if my tone was annoying. I can see that it would be. I'm not trying to win a debate, I'm trying to have an interesting discussion. You are correct that you didn't say accept information unquestioningly, and I didn't mean to say that you did. I did mean to say that most of us do that without even realizing it.

As far as your example that you are looking for, The reason why I am not providing one is because I am not interested in turning this into a Democratic vs. Republican debate which is where that road would lead and that isn't very interesting to me since their are eleventy billion other threads on that.

Whether it is a mountain or molehill thing could be perceived either way. I find it interesting to study such things. You obviously do not. I'm okay with that.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Rulesjd wrote:

It's a slippery concept. Most of us can readily agree that bias includes the selective viewing and deployment of facts to reinforce our existing notions. Of course, there is more to it than that. The weight we give to facts includes our assessment of the credibility of the source of those facts (also subject to bias) and to our individual value sets which, by any valid measure, are not homogenous. You self describe as a conservative and admit to giving some greater leeway to conservative political figures. That "may be" acceptable as mechanism for selecting what you see as valuable political philosophies over and above the absolute character of the individual politician. The same could easily be said of those holding their noses while voting for Clinton.

It's easy to cry bias and dismiss the opinions of those you view as biased rather than to engage in the actual policies. We see this in both parties repeatedly. Much hay was made out of Bernie Sanders being a socialist (and there may even have been some discomfort about his Jewish faith). Even you engage in repeated labeling here calling people out as libtards or some such. Even if you are correct about the existence of a "bias" it doesn't allow for the possibility that "biased" people can still do good jobs or that the actual weight of their bias is nominal.

After all, who is the media today? Cable news, Local affiliates, the tattered remains of the nations newspapers, radio personalities, bloggers, hackers, and so on comprise the current "totality" of the media with a massive disgorgement of material both disciplined and otherwise and all across the ideological spectrum. Considering the way in which the GOP (clearly a biased organization by any standard) is splitting on Trumps nomination should be at least some evidence that the problem with the campaign isn't merely some manifestation of reporting bias.

As to the Michael Brown phenomena, you are both correct and off target at the same time. If you are considering ONLY the Michael Brown shooting in a vacuum, it is accurate to say that accounts of the event appear to have been in error and that reaction to the particular event overstated. However, when viewed in the larger context of police shootings of unarmed black suspects, the "hands up" gesture can be viewed more as a metaphor for the current paradigm of such shootings. It is very possible to win the argument about Brown while losing sight of the issue which drives the actual heat of the reaction.

You say that neither oil nor money are ideological which is certainly a truism. However, the manner of acquisition and use of both commodities brings many ideological considerations to the fore. Not only that, the ideologies themselves are constantly shifting. During Reagan's era, the labor union dominated Democratic party was resisting liberalizing trade policy. Now you have the Clinton Democratic party resisting the Trumpian move to restore trade protections. What exactly is the bias here? IT's grossly simplistic to claim that only one party somehow favors big business while the other favors working class Americans. It is entirely possible to attempt to serve the interests of both by supporting free trade (which promotes efficient allocation of labor and resources) while simultaneously promoting demand side economic policy (like with minimum wages and retraining for dislocated workers). Having an opinion on this isn't necessarily evidence of bias. Prioritizing the candidate who you think will best promote such policy is pretty much in keeping with your statement about setting the issues above the individual.

You may disagree but, there is plenty of room for people to make their own judgement about which candidate will best serve the realization of their priorities.



First off, calling Libtards Libtards is not biased, it's just me stating what ought to be obvious to anyone. Including Libtards.

I think of the subject as malleable rather than solid. The so-called truth is malleable based upon who has the power I was mentioning to Jeff. Bias is pretty normal and not at all a bad thing. It's a close cousin to preference which is why i believe people often accuse others of bias when all they're doing is exercising their right to have a preference. The whole "white people can't corn-row their hair thing" is an example. If you like that look then does it matter what color your skin is? No, to the white girl getting corn-rowed, but yes to the black person who is biased against white girls getting corn-rowed.

Overall, it doesn't matter unless the biased group has the power to construct social order or social contracts exclusively to benefit other member of their bias group. Power is everything. Back in the 1850's we had an administration with a power component that was openly hostile to the abolitionists and who viewed the acquisition of Cuba and other territories as vital in preserving slavery. They were heavily biased and fought hard to keep the institution of slavery intact. And they had power. We almost went back to war with England over that and instead had a civil war that unbalanced the bias and led to a 100 year march towards dismantling the power that was biased towards slavery and open racism.

That's what I mean when I think about the power component. It has to have teeth. The biased group has to have the means or power to hurt their opponents through deception or other devious means. So Ferguson and Brown work well for me because despite public opinion (created largely as a direct policy of the liberal biased media), more black people are not killed by cops than whites, not even when accounting for the demographics of the nation. But that doesn't matter because the internet and the airwaves have been pumping out the same divisive message for several decades now.

It's not biased to get to the core of an issue. But if you do get the data and it conflicts with what a biased power group wants people to believe than I assure you you will be called biased, racist and every foul name in the book. Overall I don't think it matters one whit which person gets elected but since I'm against crime I would vastly prefer an orange real estate magnate to a felon who just keeps slipping the noose. I won't vote for either because I reserve the right to disapprove even if I have a preference for one bad result over another bad result.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
jeff brown wrote:

I apologize if my tone was annoying. I can see that it would be. I'm not trying to win a debate, I'm trying to have an interesting discussion. You are correct that you didn't say accept information unquestioningly, and I didn't mean to say that you did. I did mean to say that most of us do that without even realizing it.

As far as your example that you are looking for, The reason why I am not providing one is because I am not interested in turning this into a Democratic vs. Republican debate which is where that road would lead and that isn't very interesting to me since their are eleventy billion other threads on that.

Whether it is a mountain or molehill thing could be perceived either way. I find it interesting to study such things. You obviously do not. I'm okay with that.


Okay. Not really annoying, just what I think of as typical RSP know-best attitude.

So you're not wanting to turn it into a discussion of two biased political parties? I call BS on that. I mean it'd be fun to just talk about bias without having to ever mention what people are biased about. But that ain't gonna happen. I don't think you can find an example because I can't. And I was kind of hoping you could come up with a counter to the popular bias (supported by facts I might add) that the media that has actual power is horribly tilted to the left and very, very pro Clinton and anti Trump.

I do think personal preference is often wrongly perceived as bias and I think making a deal out of that is only marginally interesting. I do think when you add power, real power, the power to shape perceptions and to influence votes and even shopping choices, then it's very interesting.

Back in the early 80's there was a group called BADD (Bothered About D&D) who claimed RPG's were evil and that some kids (the one movie Tom Hanks starred in) died because of D&D. That was heavily biased, not factual and got lots of coverage on CNN and regular news. It was pretty awesome and since I had a new game store I actually called the local BADD people and, as an anonymous tipster, told them about Dark Horse Games and recommended they picket my store. Of course they didn't know it was my store but hell, can you imagine the amount of people who would discover Boise had a game store if I got picketed?

Unfortunately no new people were sacrificed or died in tunnels and the group died off in the media to be replaced by Reagan giving the USSR a huge wedgie. I ended up buying some radio time, which worked out pretty well.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
jeff brown wrote:

I apologize if my tone was annoying. I can see that it would be. I'm not trying to win a debate, I'm trying to have an interesting discussion. You are correct that you didn't say accept information unquestioningly, and I didn't mean to say that you did. I did mean to say that most of us do that without even realizing it.

As far as your example that you are looking for, The reason why I am not providing one is because I am not interested in turning this into a Democratic vs. Republican debate which is where that road would lead and that isn't very interesting to me since their are eleventy billion other threads on that.

Whether it is a mountain or molehill thing could be perceived either way. I find it interesting to study such things. You obviously do not. I'm okay with that.


Okay. Not really annoying, just what I think of as typical RSP know-best attitude.

So you're not wanting to turn it into a discussion of two biased political parties? I call BS on that. I mean it'd be fun to just talk about bias without having to ever mention what people are biased about. But that ain't gonna happen. I don't think you can find an example because I can't. And I was kind of hoping you could come up with a counter to the popular bias (supported by facts I might add) that the media that has actual power is horribly tilted to the left and very, very pro Clinton and anti Trump.

I do think personal preference is often wrongly perceived as bias and I think making a deal out of that is only marginally interesting. I do think when you add power, real power, the power to shape perceptions and to influence votes and even shopping choices, then it's very interesting.

Back in the early 80's there was a group called BADD (Bothered About D&D) who claimed RPG's were evil and that some kids (the one movie Tom Hanks starred in) died because of D&D. That was heavily biased, not factual and got lots of coverage on CNN and regular news. It was pretty awesome and since I had a new game store I actually called the local BADD people and, as an anonymous tipster, told them about Dark Horse Games and recommended they picket my store. Of course they didn't know it was my store but hell, can you imagine the amount of people who would discover Boise had a game store if I got picketed?

Unfortunately no new people were sacrificed or died in tunnels and the group died off in the media to be replaced by Reagan giving the USSR a huge wedgie. I ended up buying some radio time, which worked out pretty well.



I agree that it may be impossible to not end up talking about Democrats and Republicans if we are talking about bias. Probably wishful thinking on my part that we don't end up having the same conversation as all the other Trump vs. Clinton threads.

The DnD thing is interesting to me though. Especially since at the moment(as I type this) I am now chaperoning the school DnD club and my daughter is currently running one of the campaigns.

When I was growing up I remember being warned by people at church (I'm mormon as you probably already know) that DnD was evil and could lead to people being killed and such. When I was first asked to chaperone for the DnD kids I admit I was a little wary and wondering what it would be like. The biases I was brought up with definitely had an effect I did say yes however. After watching the kids play a few times I realized it was harmless fun, and eventually encouraged my daughter to join the club as it aligns with her interests.

It brings up an interesting question, is the bias against it primarily religious in nature or were there other reasons as well?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:



First off, calling Libtards Libtards is not biased, it's just me stating what ought to be obvious to anyone. Including Libtards.

I think of the subject as malleable rather than solid. The so-called truth is malleable based upon who has the power I was mentioning to Jeff. Bias is pretty normal and not at all a bad thing. It's a close cousin to preference which is why i believe people often accuse others of bias when all they're doing is exercising their right to have a preference. The whole "white people can't corn-row their hair thing" is an example. If you like that look then does it matter what color your skin is? No, to the white girl getting corn-rowed, but yes to the black person who is biased against white girls getting corn-rowed.

Overall, it doesn't matter unless the biased group has the power to construct social order or social contracts exclusively to benefit other member of their bias group. Power is everything. Back in the 1850's we had an administration with a power component that was openly hostile to the abolitionists and who viewed the acquisition of Cuba and other territories as vital in preserving slavery. They were heavily biased and fought hard to keep the institution of slavery intact. And they had power. We almost went back to war with England over that and instead had a civil war that unbalanced the bias and led to a 100 year march towards dismantling the power that was biased towards slavery and open racism.

That's what I mean when I think about the power component. It has to have teeth. The biased group has to have the means or power to hurt their opponents through deception or other devious means. So Ferguson and Brown work well for me because despite public opinion (created largely as a direct policy of the liberal biased media), more black people are not killed by cops than whites, not even when accounting for the demographics of the nation. But that doesn't matter because the internet and the airwaves have been pumping out the same divisive message for several decades now.

It's not biased to get to the core of an issue. But if you do get the data and it conflicts with what a biased power group wants people to believe than I assure you you will be called biased, racist and every foul name in the book. Overall I don't think it matters one whit which person gets elected but since I'm against crime I would vastly prefer an orange real estate magnate to a felon who just keeps slipping the noose. I won't vote for either because I reserve the right to disapprove even if I have a preference for one bad result over another bad result.


What is obvious is your penchant for applying a demeaning and pointless label to a group of people with whom you disagree. It says very little about them but certainly calls into question the credibility of whatever you are writing in the same post/thread.

I get your point about political power tied to bias. However, power isn't static nor uniform. Power exists in the newsroom, the ballot box, the police force, the county school board, the corporate board room, the pulpit, the court bench and so on. Obama may have been in the White House for 7+ years but, many of those years have seen the GOP dominate the House of Representatives and many, if not most, of the State Houses in the US. We've had tension for a long time and the more subtle forms of power have had plenty of opportunity to shape where we are today.

My contention is that "bias" is more than just preference. Bias is the unwillingness to examine alternate points of view, new information or just simply the evidence of some experiments that have gone awry. Lot's of very wise and intelligent people have opinions that differ from mine and I'm fine with that. In fact, I'm more than happy to alter my opinions and have over time. Evident bias just isn't very persuasive.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Georg von Lemberg
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
First off, calling Libtards Libtards is not biased, it's just me stating what ought to be obvious to anyone. Including Libtards.


I'm as guilty as the next guy in calling Libtards "Libtards" but surely you have to see that this is a bias and not very conducive to a real conversation with anyone who is even slightly to the left of you politically.

DWTripp wrote:
I think of the subject as malleable rather than solid. The so-called truth is malleable based upon who has the power I was mentioning to Jeff. Bias is pretty normal and not at all a bad thing. It's a close cousin to preference which is why i believe people often accuse others of bias when all they're doing is exercising their right to have a preference. The whole "white people can't corn-row their hair thing" is an example. If you like that look then does it matter what color your skin is? No, to the white girl getting corn-rowed, but yes to the black person who is biased against white girls getting corn-rowed.


Maybe the black person was helpfully pointing out the obvious: white people look retarded in corn-rows. If you are white and you corn-row your hair you are essentially signalling to other people one of two things. A. I am part of the 1% and I can do anything I want and you can't fucking stop me, or B. I gave up on life in 10th grade and you can't fucking stop me. Please note, the person described in point A is not a loser, the person described in point B most certainly is.

DWTripp wrote:
That's what I mean when I think about the power component. It has to have teeth. The biased group has to have the means or power to hurt their opponents through deception or other devious means. So Ferguson and Brown work well for me because despite public opinion (created largely as a direct policy of the liberal biased media), more black people are not killed by cops than whites, not even when accounting for the demographics of the nation. But that doesn't matter because the internet and the airwaves have been pumping out the same divisive message for several decades now.


For many of us the issue is not really whether black people really are treated worse by police (yes, Tripp, they most certainly are) the real issue is that our police forces are very militarized, they have an "us vs. them mentality", and whether they are executing more white people or black people is not the issue. The issue is that they often get away with executing someone without the scrutiny that would be applied if they were civilians. Police, due to the fact that they are armed and empowered to use weapons on behalf of the citizenry, should be held to a much higher standard than mere civilians.

DWTripp wrote:
It's not biased to get to the core of an issue. But if you do get the data and it conflicts with what a biased power group wants people to believe than I assure you you will be called biased, racist and every foul name in the book. Overall I don't think it matters one whit which person gets elected but since I'm against crime I would vastly prefer an orange real estate magnate to a felon who just keeps slipping the noose. I won't vote for either because I reserve the right to disapprove even if I have a preference for one bad result over another bad result.


There is very much disagreement over what is effective crime fighting strategy. The "war on drugs" for example has been fought for decades and has been a failure. Getting "hard on crime" sounds good, but is not necessarily the right answer (I am a fan of the death penalty by the way for major crimes like repeat murders/rapes). Most petty criminals would benefit from a softer sentence than a harsher one. On the other hand, we don't do nearly enough to prosecute white collar crime (not talking about the secretary embezzelling from her boss, but rather the banker who knowingly defrauds the entire economy in the name of profit.

In any case, I doubt very much that the orange haired real estate magnate would be able to do anything effective in the fight against crime based on what he has said thus far.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
gvonl wrote:



Maybe the black person was helpfully pointing out the obvious: white people look retarded in corn-rows. If you are white and you corn-row your hair you are essentially signalling to other people one of two things. A. I am part of the 1% and I can do anything I want and you can't fucking stop me, or B. I gave up on life in 10th grade and you can't fucking stop me. Please note, the person described in point A is not a loser, the person described in point B most certainly is.


I'm totally going to fisk you dude. Plus, I have no idea who you are but you get bonus points for calling people Libtards. I think black people look stupid in corn rows. I really do. But in this modern world of ours that is incorrectly deemed racist. Because any negative description of a black person doing things the black "community" have deigned to be their own special culture is now racist. It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't racist, the electronic social order that now rules language demands it be so. Preference is now bias, bias is now racist.

Just to clarify - I think white people, brown people, red people, yellow people, mocha people and Canadian hued people also look like idiots in corn rows. It's a preference and I say fuck that black person who thinks they own something that any moron with hair can own. Dipshits.

As for the 10th grade thing, I never even finished the 10th grade. But I did pretty fucking good economically, business-wise and in my personal life having decided at Christmas break during 10th grade that it'd be bitchin' to walk around Europe before Uncle Sam tracked me down to send me to SE Asia to become a doper with a gun and a hunting license.


Quote:
For many of us the issue is not really whether black people really are treated worse by police (yes, Tripp, they most certainly are) the real issue is that our police forces are very militarized, they have an "us vs. them mentality", and whether they are executing more white people or black people is not the issue. The issue is that they often get away with executing someone without the scrutiny that would be applied if they were civilians. Police, due to the fact that they are armed and empowered to use weapons on behalf of the citizenry, should be held to a much higher standard than mere civilians.


Weird paragraph. Sounds like you're smart enough to have done your own studying on the narrative that BLM has purloined from the 90's activists who purloined it from the 70's activists, etc. Black people are often treated worse (definitions of that vary) but it's white people who get executed in numbers beyond their race's percentage of population. I think it very much is about a mentality that some, just a few, departments have and I think executing white guys in bigger numbers is a big deal. The narrative that sells soap on college campus and puts dollars in the Blacktivist's pocket is the lie that police are singling blacks out to kill.

Here's a side effect of this recent militarization mentality - cops are killing dogs in record numbers also. Which while it doesn't piss me off as much as them killing a human with no scrutiny. Most humans that get shot by cops are bad people doing bad things. Dogs are not bad and that just infuriates me. Our local PD's don't shoot people very often but they keep killing dogs and I'm starting to hit my boiling point.


Quote:
In any case, I doubt very much that the orange haired real estate magnate would be able to do anything effective in the fight against crime based on what he has said thus far.


Well, whoever takes the helm it's not their job to "fight crime" and my immeasurably sage opinion is that a policy of leaving local PD'd the hell alone except for egregious violations of human rights would probably drop the crime rate further than it has already dropped. Not sure about Canada but here in your big brother's yard crime has been dropping for decades. So unless you see any crime at all as a failure of a political party then I think we're doing okay if we can get the cops out of those fucking military vehicles and tell them to quit shooting Fido in the face.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.