|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 10, 2017 3:42:13 GMT
Sometimes there is information gap and we usually develop perspectives based on some of our personal biases. It has happened to me in a lot of things and there might still be a number of things in which I may be biased but I may not feel so. Is there any way to discover our own biases? Remember that we usually interact more with people who are like minded and trust their judgements more than we trust judgements of people that we don't know. But the thing is that the people we depend on may carry similar biases that we carry. So I am not sure the method of depending on people we deem non-biased to remove our biases always works.
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Aug 10, 2017 5:38:05 GMT
De-moralize diversity.
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
De-emphasize empathy.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
Prioritize intention.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.
Be open about the science of human nature.
Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Aug 10, 2017 14:27:08 GMT
By simply not listening.🙋
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 10, 2017 14:40:48 GMT
By simply not listening.🙋 Not listening to my self? |
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Aug 10, 2017 14:58:48 GMT
By simply not listening.🙋 Not listening to my self? Retreat into bliss. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Aug 10, 2017 15:00:04 GMT
i document the world as it unfolds. and truth is the batter and bias the mold.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 10, 2017 15:05:06 GMT
Although I think that developing a perspective based on our personal biases can be a good thing, it doesn't need to involve the judgment of others.
I think it's a mistake to think that someone else's opinion is even a judgment on another person. That other person probably isn't that important
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 15:07:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 10, 2017 20:18:11 GMT
Sometimes there is information gap and we usually develop perspectives based on some of our personal biases. It has happened to me in a lot of things and there might still be a number of things in which I may be biased but I may not feel so. Is there any way to discover our own biases? Remember that we usually interact more with people who are like minded and trust their judgements more than we trust judgements of people that we don't know. But the thing is that the people we depend on may carry similar biases that we carry. So I am not sure the method of depending on people we deem non-biased to remove our biases always works. Don't form a perspective until the information gap is filled? After my cancer was put into remission by advances in medical science, unlike my relatives who died of it, my 'faith' in any god was gone, but replaced by science. Science hasn't answered all the questions yet, but scientists are fairly reliable in stating that fact, and when new information comes to light, it is examined and fills some of the information gap. I was diagnosed in 1989, and my husband encouraged me to choose the harsh protocol of chemo, telling me that even if I had a recurrence, science might have advanced yet again and I would live longer. And, sure enough, I have been seeing ads recently for a new drug that prolongs the quality of life in people whose cancer has become metastatic. I haven't needed that drug yet, but may someday, or something else that hasn't been discovered yet. I know I have put this into medical context and that may not have been what you had in mind, but I think it is a good parallel, withholding perspective (I'm gonna die) until more information is available (but not yet). |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Aug 11, 2017 5:10:55 GMT
Sometimes there is information gap and we usually develop perspectives based on some of our personal biases. It has happened to me in a lot of things and there might still be a number of things in which I may be biased but I may not feel so. Is there any way to discover our own biases? Remember that we usually interact more with people who are like minded and trust their judgements more than we trust judgements of people that we don't know. But the thing is that the people we depend on may carry similar biases that we carry. So I am not sure the method of depending on people we deem non-biased to remove our biases always works. Don't form a perspective until the information gap is filled? After my cancer was put into remission by advances in medical science, unlike my relatives who died of it, my 'faith' in any god was gone, but replaced by science. Science hasn't answered all the questions yet, but scientists are fairly reliable in stating that fact, and when new information comes to light, it is examined and fills some of the information gap. I was diagnosed in 1989, and my husband encouraged me to choose the harsh protocol of chemo, telling me that even if I had a recurrence, science might have advanced yet again and I would live longer. And, sure enough, I have been seeing ads recently for a new drug that prolongs the quality of life in people whose cancer has become metastatic. I haven't needed that drug yet, but may someday, or something else that hasn't been discovered yet. I know I have put this into medical context and that may not have been what you had in mind, but I think it is a good parallel, withholding perspective (I'm gonna die) until more information is available (but not yet). But "science" (or scientists) may have been what caused your cancer in the first place. Cancer is a lifestyle disease, and scientists have given out a lot of really bad information especially in regard to diet over the last half century. Holding resentment/bigotry toward religion is one thing. Putting your faith in science instead, treating science as a surrogate religion, that's just a transfer of bias, from something benign to something malignant. "More ministers smoke Camels than any other cigarette"? You'd have been behind the curve a century ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 11, 2017 8:12:16 GMT
Don't form a perspective until the information gap is filled? After my cancer was put into remission by advances in medical science, unlike my relatives who died of it, my 'faith' in any god was gone, but replaced by science. Science hasn't answered all the questions yet, but scientists are fairly reliable in stating that fact, and when new information comes to light, it is examined and fills some of the information gap. I was diagnosed in 1989, and my husband encouraged me to choose the harsh protocol of chemo, telling me that even if I had a recurrence, science might have advanced yet again and I would live longer. And, sure enough, I have been seeing ads recently for a new drug that prolongs the quality of life in people whose cancer has become metastatic. I haven't needed that drug yet, but may someday, or something else that hasn't been discovered yet. I know I have put this into medical context and that may not have been what you had in mind, but I think it is a good parallel, withholding perspective (I'm gonna die) until more information is available (but not yet). But "science" (or scientists) may have been what caused your cancer in the first place. Cancer is a lifestyle disease, and scientists have given out a lot of really bad information especially in regard to diet over the last half century. Holding resentment/bigotry toward religion is one thing. Putting your faith in science instead, treating science as a surrogate religion, that's just a transfer of bias, from something benign to something malignant. "More ministers smoke Camels than any other cigarette"? You'd have been behind the curve a century ago. Those weren't scientists, though, the people who wanted you to smoke - were they? And while the link between smoking and lung cancer wasn't established until the '30s-'40s, smoking was a suspected culprit at least as early as the '20s, possibly earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 11, 2017 11:26:13 GMT
You can't put a check on your personal biases. Any belief you have amounts to a bias. The belief that you should put a check on your personal biases is a bias, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 12, 2017 12:57:11 GMT
Sometimes there is information gap and we usually develop perspectives based on some of our personal biases. It has happened to me in a lot of things and there might still be a number of things in which I may be biased but I may not feel so. Is there any way to discover our own biases? Remember that we usually interact more with people who are like minded and trust their judgements more than we trust judgements of people that we don't know. But the thing is that the people we depend on may carry similar biases that we carry. So I am not sure the method of depending on people we deem non-biased to remove our biases always works. Don't form a perspective until the information gap is filled? After my cancer was put into remission by advances in medical science, unlike my relatives who died of it, my 'faith' in any god was gone, but replaced by science. Science hasn't answered all the questions yet, but scientists are fairly reliable in stating that fact, and when new information comes to light, it is examined and fills some of the information gap. I was diagnosed in 1989, and my husband encouraged me to choose the harsh protocol of chemo, telling me that even if I had a recurrence, science might have advanced yet again and I would live longer. And, sure enough, I have been seeing ads recently for a new drug that prolongs the quality of life in people whose cancer has become metastatic. I haven't needed that drug yet, but may someday, or something else that hasn't been discovered yet. I know I have put this into medical context and that may not have been what you had in mind, but I think it is a good parallel, withholding perspective (I'm gonna die) until more information is available (but not yet). Thanks for your views, Rachel. Actually, I don't knowingly form a perspective when I know that there is an information gap. But our subconscious mind usually does form perspectives even in lack of knowledge. It is not that bad if we don't form a very strong perspective or start acting on our perspectives but as you said it is better if we don't form a perspective at all when we don't have a full info on anything. But attribution bias is something that all of us suffer from to small degree or large. I think one way of dealing with it is to interact with straightforward people who tell you about yourself more plainly. It is good to know that you are doing well in spite of tackling one of the worst diseases that have ever touched humanity. Hope you keep doing well. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 12, 2017 13:01:45 GMT
Although I think that developing a perspective based on our personal biases can be a good thing, it doesn't need to involve the judgment of others. I think it's a mistake to think that someone else's opinion is even a judgment on another person. That other person probably isn't that important In certain situations forming biases based on personal biases can be a good thing. I do agree with that. That could be especially true in leadership and governance. Someone's opinion can be worse than judgement on others if a person's opinion leads to certain consequences on someone else. You can't put a check on your personal biases. Any belief you have amounts to a bias. The belief that you should put a check on your personal biases is a bias, too. I do agree with the first two sentences of your post. But please elaborate on the third one. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 12, 2017 13:04:26 GMT
Sometimes there is information gap and we usually develop perspectives based on some of our personal biases. It has happened to me in a lot of things and there might still be a number of things in which I may be biased but I may not feel so. Is there any way to discover our own biases? Remember that we usually interact more with people who are like minded and trust their judgements more than we trust judgements of people that we don't know. But the thing is that the people we depend on may carry similar biases that we carry. So I am not sure the method of depending on people we deem non-biased to remove our biases always works. My opinion: We are all biased. Humans can't be objective. Therefore, it is futile to pretend to be unbiased, and also futile to try to be unbiased. All you can do is listen to different narratives and see how you reconcile them with your version of reality. And the result will be biased as well. Whenever someone pretends to be objective, or have facts or reality on their side, I know I don't have to take them too seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 12, 2017 14:34:51 GMT
Sometimes there is information gap and we usually develop perspectives based on some of our personal biases. It has happened to me in a lot of things and there might still be a number of things in which I may be biased but I may not feel so. Is there any way to discover our own biases? Remember that we usually interact more with people who are like minded and trust their judgements more than we trust judgements of people that we don't know. But the thing is that the people we depend on may carry similar biases that we carry. So I am not sure the method of depending on people we deem non-biased to remove our biases always works. My opinion: We are all biased. Humans can't be objective. Therefore, it is futile to pretend to be unbiased, and also futile to try to be unbiased. All you can do is listen to different narratives and see how you reconcile them with your version of reality. And the result will be biased as well. Whenever someone pretends to be objective, or have facts or reality on their side, I know I don't have to take them too seriously. Close, but no trophy. Some people are so extremely biased as to be lost to all truth. Others are less biased and can be shown their mistakes. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 12, 2017 15:54:08 GMT
Although I think that developing a perspective based on our personal biases can be a good thing, it doesn't need to involve the judgment of others. I think it's a mistake to think that someone else's opinion is even a judgment on another person. That other person probably isn't that important In certain situations forming biases based on personal biases can be a good thing. I do agree with that. That could be especially true in leadership and governance. Someone's opinion can be worse than judgement on others if a person's opinion leads to certain consequences on someone else. You can't put a check on your personal biases. Any belief you have amounts to a bias. The belief that you should put a check on your personal biases is a bias, too. I do agree with the first two sentences of your post. But please elaborate on the third one. The idea is that every belief, every view you have is a bias. It's a selection you're making out of a number of incompatible alternatives, biasing you on favor of that selection and against other possible selections. That includes the belief that it's better to not have various biases than to have biases. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 12, 2017 16:35:44 GMT
But "science" (or scientists) may have been what caused your cancer in the first place. Cancer is a lifestyle disease, and scientists have given out a lot of really bad information especially in regard to diet over the last half century. Holding resentment/bigotry toward religion is one thing. Putting your faith in science instead, treating science as a surrogate religion, that's just a transfer of bias, from something benign to something malignant. "More ministers smoke Camels than any other cigarette"? You'd have been behind the curve a century ago. Those weren't scientists, though, the people who wanted you to smoke - were they? And while the link between smoking and lung cancer wasn't established until the '30s-'40s, smoking was a suspected culprit at least as early as the '20s, possibly earlier. Thanks, Karl, for pointing out that true science didn't ask us to smoke, it was people who wanted to make money. And, to the other poster, my cancer was not a lifestyle issue, it was a genetic issue. Most of the women on that side of my family had breast cancer. Mine may have had some environmental (diet) triggers, since I was diagnosed at age 35. But advances in medical science are the reason I am alive today. I didn't use science as a substitute religion, I chose FACTS over BLIND FAITH. And the scientific community is always striving to prove more, and more accurately. I question my doctors, and ask about new developments and how they were verified. Knowledge is power. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 14, 2017 12:28:35 GMT
tpfkar Always reexamine looking for them, and anything else that doesn't hold together, both in the face of new evidence and just in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 14, 2017 16:57:37 GMT
tpfkar Always reexamine looking for them, and anything else that doesn't hold together, both in the face of new evidence and just in general. Yes, that's one way of reducing the bias if not totally eliminating. At one point of time I was a sternly anti-Muslim person and would try to turn the subject to Islam/Muslims in order to bash them. In last 4 years or so I have reexamined my situation. There was one incident in India when a Hindu mob killed a Muslim man for keeping beef. I think that was ultimate blow to my conscience as I was always quick to lash out against Muslims but found it exceedingly difficult to come to terms with non-Muslims showing behaviour that I despise. Since past year I think I have never tried to turn the conversation to Muslims/Islam or bash them for sake of bashing. |
|
