Coronavirus Outbreak...

[Mountain Man]

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?

Do you really not know?

You discover your biases by first of all being aware that they're always present, and secondly, figuring out why you feel a certain way about something. Everything you think and feel is informed by your knowledge and life experiences, and it's generally not difficult to figure out what those are.

Asking how you know if it's complete is a nonsense question. Honest self-assessment is an ongoing process. It's never complete.

Your third question is similarly nonsensical because being dishonest with yourself is the polar opposite of an honest self-assessment. If someone doesn't know when they're being dishonest with themselves then that's a serious problem they need to work through. I have no advice to offer on that point.

[lilpixieofterror]

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.



And I care because...?



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



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...

[carpedm9587]

Trump is pretty evil and

You're talking to the caricature in your head again - so I'll let you talk to him.

Psst...I said the underlined part. The bold part you added.

Lots of people said they were leaving in 2016, if Trump won. They are still here and I doubt this is nothing more than virtue signaling.

I'm sure that's true. And that matters because...?

[oxmixmudd]

Do you really not know?

You discover your biases by first of all being aware that they're always present, and secondly, figuring out why you feel a certain way about something. Everything you think and feel is informed by your knowledge and life experiences, and it's generally not difficult to figure out what those are.

Asking how you know if it's complete is a nonsense question. Honest self-assessment is an ongoing process. It's never complete.

Your third question is similarly nonsensical because being dishonest with yourself is the polar opposite of an honest self-assessment. If someone doesn't know when they're being dishonest with themselves then that's a serious problem they need to work through. I have no advice to offer on that point.

For someone so smug and denigrating. You've only revealed you are in fact incapable of honest self assessment. What you have left off is the absolute necessity of objective input from outside one's self.

No-one is capable of objectively evaluating their own biases.

This is why the programmers are not the testers.

This is why quality control is not the factory workers.

This is why judges recuse if there is a conflict of interest.

To name a few.

[lilpixieofterror]

You're talking to the caricature in your head again - so I'll let you talk to him.

Psst...I said the underlined part. The bold part you added.

I'm sure that's true. And that matters because...?

[carpedm9587]

You continue to argue with your caricature - so I have nothing to add.

[carpedm9587]

For someone so smug and denigrating. You've only revealed you are in fact incapable of honest self assessment. What you have left off is the absolute necessity of objective input from outside one's self.

No-one is capable of objectively evaluating their own biases.

This is why the programmers are not the testers.

This is why quality control is not the factory workers.

This is why judges recuse if there is a conflict of interest.

To name a few.

Methinks thou doth scream pointlessly into the void...

[lilpixieofterror]

You continue to argue with your caricature - so I have nothing to add.

[Roy]

Still worth mentioning that New York and New Jersey account for 50% of those numbers. Cut them out of the equation, and the US looks pretty good overall.

Not really. If Louisiana, Massachusetts and Connecticut were countries they'd all be in the top 10 for cases/million. The UK hasn't been very effective, but is still doing better than Colorado, Georgia, Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Delaware, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington DC and Rhode Island. The US state with the lowest infection rate is still doing worse than.

The only way to believe the US "looks pretty good overall" is to not do any comparisons.

One week on, and Rhode Island and Washington DC also have more cases per million people than the 10th highest country. And the best US state (Hawaii) still has a higher infection rate than Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Russia or Japan.

Meanwhile, seven states - Massachusetts, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Michigan - have more than 30,000 cases each. Should we cut them out of the equation too?

[Roy]

My emphasis:

they aren't even closeare even close, is crazy.

Carp says they aren't even close, and that they don't even begin to compare. Lilpix reads that as they are even close. Seeing what is expected or desired, not what is actually there. It explains a lot.

[Roy]

Wow. The projection is strong enough to display a logo on the moon.

[Charles]

Do you really not know?

You discover your biases by first of all being aware that they're always present, and secondly, figuring out why you feel a certain way about something. Everything you think and feel is informed by your knowledge and life experiences, and it's generally not difficult to figure out what those are.

Asking how you know if it's complete is a nonsense question. Honest self-assessment is an ongoing process. It's never complete.

Your third question is similarly nonsensical because being dishonest with yourself is the polar opposite of an honest self-assessment. If someone doesn't know when they're being dishonest with themselves then that's a serious problem they need to work through. I have no advice to offer on that point.

So, first we should be aware that baises are always present. Then we should figure out why we feel a certain way about something. Is that "finding out" biased or not biased? If we should expect them not to be biased, your first statement that we should be aware that biases are always present does not hold. If indeed our "finding out" is biased, our ability to "figure out" is limited by default. And then your statement "Everything you think and feel is informed by your knowledge and life experiences, and it's generally not difficult to figure out what those are." should be seen in the light of that. How do you know it is not difficult to figure out how your knowledge and life experience is influencing you when you admit you are always biased? The idea that it is, indeed, knowledge and experience that guides you, is itself biased according to your own line of "reasoning".

You see? Contradictions everywhere. Perhaps your biases made it impossible for you to see them. It did sound good though, but you had not really thought out the consequences of what you were saying

[carpedm9587]

You have successfully pegged your caricature, Pix. Congratulations. Most of this has little/nothing to do with anything I've said or behavior I've exhibited, so I have no further response.


ETA: BTW, what exactly is 24/7/366? Seven days a week on every leap year?

[carpedm9587]

My emphasis:Carp says they aren't even close, and that they don't even begin to compare. Lilpix reads that as they are even close. Seeing what is expected or desired, not what is actually there. It explains a lot.

She actually does this consistently - which is why I describe it as Pix arguing with the caricature in her mind. She takes the reverse of what I have said, arbitrarily decides which parts of my post are and are not important, and ignores things I have actually said and done - all of this builds up to this "Boogeyman Carpe" in her mind, which she then flails away at.

I've come to believe she's just not going to see it. The "Boogeyman Carpe" has become reality for her.

[carpedm9587]

So, first we should be aware that baises are always present. Then we should figure out why we feel a certain way about something. Is that "finding out" biased or not biased? If we should expect them not to be biased, your first statement that we should be aware that biases are always present does not hold. If indeed our "finding out" is biased, our ability to "figure out" is limited by default. And then your statement "Everything you think and feel is informed by your knowledge and life experiences, and it's generally not difficult to figure out what those are." should be seen in the light of that. How do you know it is not difficult to figure out how your knowledge and life experience is influencing you when you admit you are always biased? The idea that it is, indeed, knowledge and experience that guides you, is itself biased according to your own line of "reasoning".

You see? Contradictions everywhere. Perhaps your biases made it impossible for you to see them. It did sound good though, but you had not really thought out the consequences of what you were saying

The idea that someone can apply "honest self-assessment" to deal with personal bias is simply contradictory on the face of it. It's like saying I can determine how fast I am moving by just "examining myself." Bias is relative to a context. Speed is relative to a measurement framework. Without looking outside the self, neither bias nor speed can be determined. IMO, clinging to the fiction that is can be determined without external reference points is a form of delusion. And anyone who can rate Fox News as "neutral" is badly in the grips of that delusion.