Okay, a better example. Someone gives you the suspicion that they are a far-righter. As a result, you construe everything they say in line with this assumption. *This* is an unnecessary level of abstraction - a layer of complexity you have added yourself. It makes you search.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @CarnunMP
Likewise, you can strip away the layer of "far-righter", as well as any other layers such as "Dentist", "brown person", "hipster", etc. You can even remove "human", because even that comes with baggage (though in practice it's usually not helpful to go beneath "primate").
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @CarnunMP
This is of course the best case scenario for having a bias. There are far worse -- and more common -- biases based on one's inherent prejudices such as political views. These apply an extra layer on almost everything you see, causing you to search for things that are not there.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Okay. But even here: either said someone is a far-righter, or they are not. (Forget whether the label is universally useful, for a second.) If they are, and if you know the far-right well, 'this person is a far-righter' will usefully explain much of what they say and do... (1/4)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CarnunMP @G_S_Bhogal
... and inform how you ought to deal with them. If they are not, it is likely that powering ahead under the assumption will lead you astray. But in *both* cases, critical reflection - far more 'What is a piece of evidence which would discredit my assumption?' than... (2/4)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CarnunMP @G_S_Bhogal
... 'How can I construe every next thing they say to fit with my assumption?' - points toward the truth (or, rather, away from falsehood). The 'layer' itself is neutral. That is, you're talking about (I hope) correcting for bias: not transcending it (which is impossible). (3/4)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CarnunMP @G_S_Bhogal
As for stripping away layers: I admit, 'deeper' layers can seem to be more explanatorially (again, sp?) rich. Certainly, it seems more often than not that explanations propagate 'up' more frequently than 'down'. But this, too, is (arguably) something of a mistake. ;) (4/4)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CarnunMP
Disagree. Far-right is a crude umbrella term for an abstract group. Most of the time, it's too general to be accurate for gauging individuals, even "far-right" ones. And, one can indeed transcend *many* biases by removing topmost layers of information (e.g racism, leftism).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @CarnunMP
And I think it is in fact those experiences we are most accustomed to that we are most susceptible to bias - we tend to always overlook the familiar.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
If this is true, why have we been most wrong for most of human history about that which is _outside_ of everyday experience? (E.g. the rest of the universe, the very big, the very small, etc.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Our models of the solar system are far less biased than our daily reads of the newspaper.
-
-
-
Replying to @CarnunMP
Because we on;y had our experience to measure the universe, back then. As soon as we transcended our reliance on our own experience, our biased model of the universe (geocentric) ended and a more accurate model took its place.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.