Coronavirus Outbreak...

[carpedm9587]

They all do it, because everyone has biases. Period. To what "degree" is just a matter of opinion. If you're left, you trust left sources. If you're right, you trust right sources. Hopefully you're somewhere in between and look at multiple sources.

Actually, that is not how I proceed. I trust sources that, when I chase down the details of their articles, they consistently check out as both accurate and the details have been faithfully replicated rather than picked out of context to spin a point of view. I am more concerned with accuracy of information than I am with left/right bias.

As for how I assess their left/right lean, it is only partially informed by my own opinion, because I know I am prone to bias. Instead I looked for multiple sources that assess left/right bias, and specifically included an aggregator and a socially-driven assessor in the mix. I actually don't agree with some of their assessments, but (cognizant of my bias), I accept the aggregate of those assessments and my own as "as close to unbiased as I am likely to get." Bias is never completely removed. It can be mitigated - but not eliminated. At some point, you have to trust a bit.

[carpedm9587]

That quote is indeed correct. Now read it again, Pix. You have once again added meaning to my post and ignored significant aspects, so you are back to talking to your mental caricature.

Doubt that Trump will be re-elected or doubt that I am actually going to leave?

I am hopeful that Trump will actually not be re-elected, and I would recommend you do not make bet on the latter. But if you wish to, Id be happy to take that bet...


BTW - I'm curious to know if you agree with MM's characterization of those media outlets. Do you also rate those outlets as:

Breitbart: Right
Mother Jones: Extreme left
FOX: Neutral
CNN: Extreme left
WSJ: Left
BBC: Left

[Mountain Man]

I think carpe might just be trolling us at this point.

[shunyadragon]

I understand all that. But, beyond that, there seems to be a sense of "well, this virus is different, so we don't really know".

Yes, Viruses vary in the relationship with their hosts, but the COVID-19 does behave in many ways like other viruses. I gave some of specific differences with the H1N1 and COVID-19 in a previous post. There are certain viruses that can jump from host to host as a pattern for their survival, and some viruses cannot. Coronaviruses and H1N1 viruses can readily move from host to host including humans. The viruses like H1N1 and COVID-19 that readily migrate from host to host often do so in an annual cycle, and their infection of one host follows a bell cure infection history in the population. COVID-19 follows this predictable path is the basis for my previous prediction. The only thing that I am it appears a little low on the fatality prediction. My prediction that the peak will be between late April to early May tapering off in May and June still stands. It has not been determined that COVID-19 will have a cycle like flus.

There is a big problem with claims of leaders in China and the USA that we are defeating the virus, but in reality as in pandemics before; the virus does what the virus does. We can reduce the fatalities and severe cases, but because 80% or more of those infected are asymptomatic of only show mild systems. The virus actually in relation to the host controls the pandemic. Vaccines developed will like lonly be significantly effect if the COVAG-19 returns in a cycle

[oxmixmudd]

Honest self-assessment.

1) How do you discover your own internal biases?
2) How do you know such discovery is complete (how to you discover a bias you are not aware of)?
3) How do you keep those internal biases from making you dishonest in your self assessment?

[seanD]

Actually, that is not how I proceed. I trust sources that, when I chase down the details of their articles, they consistently check out as both accurate and the details have been faithfully replicated rather than picked out of context to spin a point of view. I am more concerned with accuracy of information than I am with left/right bias.

As for how I assess their left/right lean, it is only partially informed by my own opinion, because I know I am prone to bias. Instead I looked for multiple sources that assess left/right bias, and specifically included an aggregator and a socially-driven assessor in the mix. I actually don't agree with some of their assessments, but (cognizant of my bias), I accept the aggregate of those assessments and my own as "as close to unbiased as I am likely to get." Bias is never completely removed. It can be mitigated - but not eliminated. At some point, you have to trust a bit.

You won't find a source that isn't either left or right. You're delusional if you think you will. Most news sources will be slanted to the left. And the fact you actually "trust sources" is foolhardy also. I look at a source without NO trust, because I always assume they're bias and will have some sort of bent or slant on it, which is why I cross reference the sources with other sources to get different angles or different bits of information that I can piece together on my own. It also depends on what the sources are used for. If we're talking extensive research, this is essential. If were talking about a report about a current event, not so much, unless the source is heavy on opinion or commentary.

[carpedm9587]

1) How do you discover your own internal biases?
2) How do you know such discovery is complete (how to you discover a bias you are not aware of)?
3) How do you keep those internal biases from making you dishonest in your self assessment?

So long as the "self" is the only form of assessment - you cannot hope to mitigate bias. The biased self will always get in the way, no matter how "honest" you think you are being. You need outside resources to assess bias, recognizing that no outside source will be perfect and may well be subject to its own bias. I put my trust in "casting a wide net." I can think of no other way to mitigate my own bias.

[carpedm9587]

You won't find a source that isn't either left or right. You're delusional if you think you will. Most news sources will be slanted to the left. And the fact you actually "trust sources" is foolhardy also. I look at a source without NO trust, because I always assume they're bias and will have some sort of bent or slant on it, which is why I cross reference the sources with other sources to get different angles or different bits of information that I can piece together on my own. It also depends on what the sources are used for. If we're talking extensive research, this is essential. If were talking about a report about a current event, not so much, unless the source is heavy on opinion or commentary.

As I noted, Sean - my approach is to deeply examine the claims made the first time I see a byline. As I find their use of information is accurate, I gain trust and my checking reduces to "spot checking." There is no way a single person can exhaustively chase down every claimed fact in every article. At some point, trust becomes part of the equation. Of course, reading from multiple sources is also helpful. TO that end, I find allsides.com a very useful resource.

[Sparko]

talkingpoints.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44168[/ATTACH]

Do you think that is funny?

[shunyadragon]

Do you think that is funny?

It is a very cold tragic way of thinking.

[Sparko]

Do you think that is funny?

[oxmixmudd]

So long as the "self" is the only form of assessment - you cannot hope to mitigate bias. The biased self will always get in the way, no matter how "honest" you think you are being. You need outside resources to assess bias, recognizing that no outside source will be perfect and may well be subject to its own bias. I put my trust in "casting a wide net." I can think of no other way to mitigate my own bias.

I'm just curious how MM will answer the questions.

[lilpixieofterror]

That quote is indeed correct. Now read it again, Pix. You have once again added meaning to my post and ignored significant aspects, so you are back to talking to your mental caricature.

Doubt that Trump will be re-elected or doubt that I am actually going to leave?

I am hopeful that Trump will actually not be re-elected, and I would recommend you do not make bet on the latter. But if you wish to, Id be happy to take that bet...

BTW - I'm curious to know if you agree with MM's characterization of those media outlets. Do you also rate those outlets as:

Breitbart: Right
Mother Jones: Extreme left
FOX: Neutral
CNN: Extreme left
WSJ: Left
BBC: Left

[carpedm9587]

Correct. The analogy is simple. The ocean has a 3.5% salinity. I can make a 5 gallon salt water fish tank 3.5% saline. That makes the proportion of the salt/water in my tank the equivalent of the ocean. It doesn't make my fish tank the ocean. Likewise, I would estimate both Trump and Hitler do 95% evil, 5% good, at least publicly. That doesn't make Trump equivalent to Hitler, which is captured in the second part of that paragraph - which you are either ignoring or not understanding.

See my response above. You are asking questions easily derived from the second part of my answer.

Quite a number of people, far richer than you, said the same thing in 2016, are they gone?

And I care because...?

If Trump is re-elected, pretty much 100%.

Why did they say something they would not follow through with?

You'll have to ask them.

That depends on HOW you move, Pix.

Fair enough. It wasn't actually a debate - I responded to a post by Sean and MM provided his analysis of those news sites. Since you chimed in on that exchange, I assumed you had your own rating. You don't have to share it if you don't wish to...