You may be biased and not even know it

[TheNewTeddy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/political-bias-affects-brain-activity-study-finds/

In short, those who seem to ignore facts (there are many right on this forum) actually do, but are unaware that they are, because they've been brainwashed.

[Canuckistani]

Everybody is biased. Often there aren't facts available in these types discussions, often only opinions dressed up as facts. Or facts that have more than one equally valid interpretation. This ain't rocket science.

The trick is to recognize your biases and at least try to maintain an open mind. For instance I'm against the high levels of immigration we currently have. I don't think either side has proven that they are a positive or a negative. I think we should try to cut back and see how that works out, others think the status quo is just dandy, and some think we should double immigration. No way to really prove with is the correct path, and each path can have more than one branch.

[TheNewTeddy]

I have a few biases myself, most of which I'm quite willing to look past, but a few I am not. However this is one or two issues, compared to the multitude of issues that many posters are seemingly quite willingly blind to.

[socialist]

i find those who are biased dont have a strong knowledge of history or politics. these kinds of people are easily swayed by the snake oil salesman. the bob their heads up and down and pretend they understand. i see through all the bias and not too many people can fool me anymore.

[Argus]

i find those who are biased dont have a strong knowledge of history or politics. these kinds of people are easily swayed by the snake oil salesman. the bob their heads up and down and pretend they understand. i see through all the bias and not too many people can fool me anymore.

You are the figment of someone's cliche'd imagination.

[Moonlight Graham]

From the OP article:

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

"None of the [brain] circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

...

"The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen said.

This is so true in my observations. The results of this study are almost self-evident, but it's interesting to have scientific evidence so back up my hypothesis. As I said myself in my old profile signature, "political partisanship is a disease of the intellect".

Everyone is biased, but some are moreso than others. And being too strongly loyal to a political party and/or or candidate is extremely dangerous. People I know who are enthusiastic supporters of one party, wearing their logo'd t-shirts etc., are completely illogical. Supporting a political party isn't like supporting a sports team, but some act like it. Being a diehard partisan supporter, through good and bad times (supporting/dfending even bad deeds!) is dangerous. As the OP study shows, you start to ignore facts when they don't match with the stances of your fav party/politician. Similar to Bible literalists who ignore science when it counters their belief that the Bible is fact. It's illogical, anti-intellectual. It makes you stupid.

Keep as open mind as possible & you'll be more often correct.

[Canuckistani]

Often someone's biases will push you into being more biased yourself. I'm not for any political party, tho I skew left on many issues. But if someone is rabidly CPC, where they can do no wrong, I guess I could fall into being rabidly anti-CPC, evne tho there are things I actually agree with them on - to a point.

[Moonlight Graham]

But if someone is rabidly CPC, where they can do no wrong, I guess I could fall into being rabidly anti-CPC, evne tho there are things I actually agree with them on - to a point.

good point

[TimG]

What this discussion ignores the fact that we only have one box to check on a ballot and that box cannot possibly reflect the complexity of issues. This means people have to choose candidates based on a 'best fit' with their opinions even if they are actually opposed to many of the things that their 'best fit' supports.

What this also does create a odd psychological effect because once someone has decided what their best fit is they don't want their 'worse fits' to be elected so they get sucked into defending or at least minimizing the failures of their 'best fit' in public debates.

The difference between a blind partisan and an informed voter is the informed voter knows they defending things they don't support only because the alternatives are worse where as the blind partisan changes their beliefs to match what their 'best fit' does/says.

That said, even blind partisans will change allegiances if a better fit appears because the number of things that they oppose reaches some critical mass with their current choice. The only trouble is once they switch they become a blind partisan for the new choice.

Edited July 3, 2012 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Also very good points, Tim.

[eyeball]

What this discussion ignores the fact that we only have one box to check on a ballot and that box cannot possibly reflect the complexity of issues.

Yes, your post underscores the paucity of viewpoints that result from having only one box to check but that said, if I was a betting man I'd have assumed you'd be amongst the first to resist any sort of electoral reforms that might change that. I have to allow for the possibility my own biases are making this assumption and look forward to seeing what your reply is.

[TimG]

if I was a betting man I'd have assumed you'd be amongst the first to resist any sort of electoral reforms that might change that.

I am. We vote because we need a peaceful way to decide who should be in charge. We need a system that allows the people who are elected to actually be in charge during their appointed term. If they fail badly they will not be re-elected. My post only highlights the consequences of the system - it was not a condemnation of it. Edited July 3, 2012 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

Some good points being made here, interesting discussion.

We're born to be biased because it saves our bacon in threatening situations, so we have to guard against it because it can actually create a threat where there was none. Education and discussions such as this one are the way to do that. Some multiculturalism is also good here, but overdone it can cause it's own problems - creating ethnic enclaves for instance and people not mingling with others. It's one reason I think our massive immigration has been too much, because we get enough people of a specific group who then clump together instead of feeling any pressure to assimilate. Of course that's a bias right there, because as people rightfully point out, their kids often do mix and assimilate. OTOH, other times they don't.

[eyeball]

My post only highlights the consequences of the system - it was not a condemnation of it.

Did you feel the rewarding rush that the subjects in the study reported when you didn't condemn the consequences you highlighted? It seems to me you've just epitomized the study's findings with this last post.

[Moonlight Graham]

We're born to be biased because it saves our bacon in threatening situations, so we have to guard against it because it can actually create a threat where there was none.

Since all people have had different experiences throughout life, all humans are inherently biased. It's inescapable.

[TimG]

Since all people have had different experiences throughout life, all humans are inherently biased. It's inescapable.

This issue really becomes a problem when it comes to interpreting scientific evidence since most people (including most scientists) cannot separate opinion from independently verifiable facts.

[Guest American Woman]

Since all people have had different experiences throughout life, all humans are inherently biased. It's inescapable.

Bias indicates unfairness and unwarranted feelings/judgment/opinions. Why do you think all humans are biased because they have had different life experiences - and that it's inescapable? I personally don't believe that everyone is biased.

[TimG]

I personally don't believe that everyone is biased.

There are two types of people: those that are biased and aware of their bias and those that are biased but fool themselves into believing they are not biased.

[Melanie_]

Everyone has biases. They are preferences for one thing over another, generally based on what is familiar, or “known”, to us. These preferences may not be reasonable, as we generalize what we “know” to situations where the knowledge doesn’t really apply. So a fair person will try to be aware of what biases they carry, and think critically about how they apply their knowledge.

[Guest American Woman]

Everyone has biases.

That's your (biased ) opinion. No more, no less. There's no proof that everyone is biased.

They are preferences for one thing over another, generally based on what is familiar, or “known”, to us.

A "preference" and a "bias" are two different things.

These preferences may not be reasonable, as we generalize what we “know” to situations where the knowledge doesn’t really apply. So a fair person will try to be aware of what biases they carry, and think critically about how they apply their knowledge.

If they think critically about how they apply their knowledge, they aren't biased.

[cybercoma]

There are two types of people: those that are biased and aware of their bias and those that are biased but fool themselves into believing they are not biased.

It depends how you're defining bias. Those that hold onto illogical conclusions that don't follow from premises, simply because they favour those conclusions, are logically biased. Everyone has biases in terms of preferences for things. I'm biased towards vanilla ice cream, but that's meaningless. There is no logical conclusion to say that vanilla ice cream is a rational choice. The problem in political discourse are the former biases where people hold onto political views contrary to evidence that points to a different conclusion.

[GostHacked]

That's your (biased ) opinion. No more, no less. There's no proof that everyone is biased.

Is that your biased view on this?

Everyone is biased in some way. Everyone. I am biased in many ways. It just takes some recognition of what your biases are.

A "preference" and a "bias" are two different things.

They are different sure. I do have some preferences and I do have biases.

If they think critically about how they apply their knowledge, they aren't biased.

Even then people can still be biased. Like how scientists can believe in God when they are trying to do logical science.

[Guest American Woman]

Is that your biased view on this?

Everyone is biased in some way. Everyone. I am biased in many ways. It just takes some recognition of what your biases are.

So you know everyone in the world, do you?

My view is that it's not a fact that everyone is biased and I believe that there are some people who are not. Nothing "biased" about that.

Now if you'd like to offer up some indisputable proof that everyone is biased, go for it. In the meantime, it's just your opinion that everyone is biased, not a fact, as you are presenting it.

They are different sure. I do have some preferences and I do have biases.

Which speaks for you - not everyone in the world.

Even then people can still be biased. Like how scientists can believe in God when they are trying to do logical science.

There's nothing "biased" about that in the least.

biased past participle, past tense of bi·as (Verb)

Verb: Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly: "the tests were biased against women"; "a biased view of the world".

Influence unfairly to invoke favoritism: "her story failed to bias the jury".

Edited July 4, 2012 by American Woman

[TimG]

Those that hold onto illogical conclusions that don't follow from premises, simply because they favour those conclusions

Most people think people that they disagree with are 'illogical' and favour conclusions that 'don't follow from premises'. This is because world views can be so different and unless one can understand the assumptions that underline the frame of reference then one cannot understand the logic that that supports the conclusion. It often comes down to a question of risk tolerance and the weight that someone puts on conflicting evidence.

The difference between conservatives and liberals on the drug issue is a good example. To liberals it is illogical to ban drugs like marijuana because of the harm due to drug crime. But to conservatives making it legal is illogical because of the harm caused by the increased use that comes with legalization. Both premises are logical and follow from the evidence. The difference is in the weight placed on the different evidence. i.e. conservatives don't ignore the harm caused by making it a crime. They simply feel that crime will not go away if it is legalized (alcohol is legal and causes a lot of crime) and society will be worse off because consumption increases. Liberals don't think society is harmed by increased consumption and are therefore more concerned about the harm caused by crime.

Edited July 4, 2012 by TimG

[eyeball]

Now if you'd like to offer up some indisputable proof that everyone is biased, go for it. In the meantime, it's just your opinion that everyone is biased, not a fact, as you are presenting it.

It's more a matter of common knowledge.

Verb: Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly: "the tests were biased against women"; "a biased view of the world".

That's just one dictionary's opinion.