Coronavirus Outbreak...

[Mountain Man]

Hopefully, we all admit we are biased. The folly is to think that an individual can overcome their own bias through "honest self-reflection," and then go on to accuse anyone who challenges that amazingly naive POV as being "incapable of honest self-reflection." The whole point of bias is that it skews perception, including perception of ourselves. The person who depends on "honest self-reflection" to overcome their bias ends up thinking things like "Fox News is neutral." They also remain blind to their own bias, rendering discussions largely pointless. It wasn't until that set of exchanges that I came to realize just how pointless discussions with MM actually are.

All you're saying is that you disagree with my opinion because of your own biases.

(Of course if you had the ability to honestly assess yourself then you would know that.)

[oxmixmudd]

All you're saying is that you disagree with my opinion because of your own biases.

(Of course if you had the ability to honestly assess yourself then you would know that.)

Actually - no. It is fairly easy to show that one can't assess one's own biases without some sort of external standard or observer. In general, one needs to be outside a system to objectively evaluate it.

So it is actually an objective, unbiased statement to say that one can't accurately assess one's own biases without an external standard or observer.

[carpedm9587]

Actually - no. It is fairly easy to show that one can't assess one's own biases without some sort of external standard or observer. In general, one needs to be outside a system to objectively evaluate it.

So it is actually an objective, unbiased statement to say that one can't accurately assess one's own biases without an external standard or observer.

Force...let me introduce you to immovable object...

[Mountain Man]

Actually - no. It is fairly easy to show that one can't assess one's own biases without some sort of external standard or observer. In general, one needs to be outside a system to objectively evaluate it.

So it is actually an objective, unbiased statement to say that one can't accurately assess one's own biases without an external standard or observer.

You cut the legs out from under your own argument, because it is impossible to be outside of your own "system", and your willingness to accept the assessment of an outside observer is itself colored by your own biases to the point that you will only accept an assessment that seems true and correct to you. If it strikes you as false, then you will reject it regardless of its actual merits. Case in point, if I explained how you were biased about a certain matter, you would immediately dismiss it for no other reason than you are biased against me even though I am outside of your "system" and could, according to you, objectively assess a bias that you may be unaware of.

There's also a difference between being biased and being wrong, but you and carpe are acting like they're synonymous. I would frequently tell my late wife how gorgeous she was, and she would say, "You're you're just biased." I would reply, "Just because I'm biased doesn't mean I'm wrong."

[oxmixmudd]

You cut the legs out from under your own argument, because it is impossible to be outside of your own "system", and your willingness to accept the assessment of an outside observer is itself colored by your own biases to the point that you will only accept an assessment that seems true and correct to you. If it strikes you as false, then you will reject it regardless of its actual merits. Case in point, if I explained how you were biased about a certain matter, you would immediately dismiss it for no other reason than you are biased against me even though I am outside of your "system" and could, according to you, objectively assess a bias that you may be unaware of.

There's also a difference between being biased and being wrong, but you and carpe are acting like they're synonymous. I would frequently tell my late wife how gorgeous she was, and she would say, "You're you're just biased." I would reply, "Just because I'm biased doesn't mean I'm wrong."

In terms of evaluating the biases you can't see: Your friends are outside your system. Your doctor is outside your system. The liberal down the street is outside your system.

And yes, unless you are willing to accept you can't see your own biases and actually take heed to what that external input tells you it will not help you. But that is the same as not having external input to start with.

And no, you can't just ignore it because it doesn't seem right to you. That is why you need objective external observers. People you don't necessarily agree with, but that you trust to be honest and helpful.

One needs outside observers, preferably objective ones.

[carpedm9587]

In terms of evaluating the biases you can't see: Your friends are outside your system. Your doctor is outside your system. The liberal down the street is outside your system.

And yes, unless you are willing to accept you can't see your own biases and actually take heed to what that external input tells you it will not help you. But that is the same as not having external input to start with.

And no, you can't just ignore it because it doesn't seem right to you. That is why you need objective external observers. People you don't necessarily agree with, but that you trust to be honest and helpful.

One needs outside observers, preferably objective ones.

You're going to go in circles here. MM is devoted to the proposition that he is his own best little self-contained engine for bias mitigation. He is of the opinion that all anyone will do is pick external influences that align with their biases. Basically, when it comes to bias mitigation, it seems there are three basic models:

1) be your own "bias police"
2) seek external input, but only accept input from those who share your biases
3) seek external input from a variety of sources, and seek to remain open to assessments that run counter to your biases.

MM is either dismissing the possibility of 3), or claiming it is no different from 2). Since 2) is really no different than 1), it makes 3) the same as 1) in his world. He's wrong. Yes, it is possible our own bias will cause us to dismiss the input of others, and that will indeed drop us back to 2). But it is also possible that an external message will "get through" and we will reflect and adjust accordingly. MM has no hope of that happening in his self-contained little world. He is forever stuck with 1) with no possibility of escaping. Indeed, he will reject even this input because it doesn't come from him and he cannot entertain the possibility of it containing a valid warning about his bias situation. As I previously noted, it's why I concluded further discussion with him is pointless. I'll answer questions, but I'm done with the back and forth. Nothing can get through because MM is essentially closed to outside input.

ETA: Ironically, his insistence that "honest self-assessment" is possible defeats his own argument: if one can set bias aside long enough to assess one's own bias, then it stands to reason they can set bias aside long enough to seek more objective outside input. And outside input is like a mirror. You can either assume your hair looks good, or you can look in a mirror to determine if it is. Most people do the latter. Even an imperfect mirror is better than no mirror at all.

[carpedm9587]

And now, from the "do as I say but not as I do" department...Pence tours the Mayo clinic without a mask, despite the clinic policy that all visitors are required to wear masks and the federal recommendations about wearing masks.

If I had been the clinic director, I think I would have said, "no mask - no entry - I don't care WHO you are..."

Sadly, that probably would have lost them funding, earned them an attack from the tweeter-in-chief, or some other vindictive response. And I'm sure there will be yet another defense for this action from the usual corners.

[oxmixmudd]

And now, from the "do as I say but not as I do" department...Pence tours the Mayo clinic without a mask, despite the clinic policy that all visitors are required to wear masks and the federal recommendations about wearing masks.

If I had been the clinic director, I think I would have said, "no mask - no entry - I don't care WHO you are..."

Sadly, that probably would have lost them funding, earned them an attack from the tweeter-in-chief, or some other vindictive response. And I'm sure there will be yet another defense for this action from the usual corners.

The virus is not a 'yes man'. They keep playing this game, it will get them.

[carpedm9587]

The virus is not a 'yes man'. They keep playing this game, it will get them.

Promises, promises...



(now THAT is going to get a response...)

[Starlight]

The yellow line is very very hypothetical, and does not fit the history of natural bell curves in the history of viruses.

If you're referring to the yellow line in the Australia graph I posted, it's just different graph of the same data - a cumulative cases curve. It's not a prediction about a hypothetical.

[Mountain Man]

In terms of evaluating the biases you can't see: Your friends are outside your system. Your doctor is outside your system. The liberal down the street is outside your system.

And yes, unless you are willing to accept you can't see your own biases and actually take heed to what that external input tells you it will not help you. But that is the same as not having external input to start with.

And no, you can't just ignore it because it doesn't seem right to you. That is why you need objective external observers. People you don't necessarily agree with, but that you trust to be honest and helpful.

One needs outside observers, preferably objective ones.

But the degree to which you are willing to trust those outside observers depends on your biases. That's the part you're refusing to admit. In the end, it always comes down to your ability to honestly assess yourself, and the fact that you guys seem to think this is impossible explains a whole heck of a lot.

[oxmixmudd]

But the degree to which you are willing to trust those outside observers depends on your biases. That's the part you're refusing to admit. In the end, it always comes down to your ability to honestly assess yourself, and the fact that you guys seem to think this is impossible explains a whole heck of a lot.

It doesn't have to. If I recognize that I have biases I can't see, then I can seek out people I know and trust to help me determine what they are. And as Carpe pointed out, that outside assessment doesn't have to be perfect in order to remove the scales of my own hidden biases and begin to allow me to see them. And once I know what they are, I can compensate for them to a certain degree. But if one doesn't know what the hidden biases are, one can't know what the compensation needs to be.

What it comes down to is not one's ability to assess one's self, but ones ability to allow one's self to be assessed.

[Starlight]

What it comes down to is not one's ability to assess one's self, but ones ability to allow one's self to be assessed.

I have often wondered if either or both of those are the key abilities lacking among certain posters on this forum.

I tend to fall repeatedly into the trap of generously assuming some things are just ignorance on their part and so not their fault, but then when I try and point them to some sort of self-assessment, I get vicious responses and they show clear and stubborn determination to actively avoid engaging in any form of assessment, and this makes me realise their ignorance is wilful and they actively don't want to engage in any form of self-improvement. They are very much active agents in their own ignorance and awfulness.

It reminds me of a throwaway comment Trump made in a more candid moment that he chooses not to do any self-reflection because he's worried he wouldn't like what he saw if he did.

A person can be smart or dumb, ignorant or knowledgeable, and you can't necessarily fault them for that because different people have different abilities and grew up with different levels of education. But the ongoing choice to refuse, or not, to submit oneself to any kind of judgement, internal or external, and thus the active avoidance of self-improvement, is quite a different thing. Before being on this website, I hadn't really even thought about it as a thing that could be done. I think that's why the mentalities of some posters here often comes across to me as 'childish' (in a bad way), since opposition to assessment (combined with the lack of intelligence and ignorance of facts that results from it) is something I associate with young children.

[carpedm9587]

It doesn't have to. If I recognize that I have biases I can't see, then I can seek out people I know and trust to help me determine what they are. And as Carpe pointed out, that outside assessment doesn't have to be perfect in order to remove the scales of my own hidden biases and begin to allow me to see them. And once I know what they are, I can compensate for them to a certain degree. But if one doesn't know what the hidden biases are, one can't know what the compensation needs to be.

What it comes down to is not one's ability to assess one's self, but ones ability to allow one's self to be assessed.

Very nicely said...

[Mountain Man]

It doesn't have to. If I recognize that I have biases I can't see, then I can seek out people I know and trust to help me determine what they are.And as Carpe pointed out, that outside assessment doesn't have to be perfect in order to remove the scales of my own hidden biases and begin to allow me to see them. And once I know what they are, I can compensate for them to a certain degree. But if one doesn't know what the hidden biases are, one can't know what the compensation needs to be.

What it comes down to is not one's ability to assess one's self, but ones ability to allow one's self to be assessed.

But the degree to which you are willing to trust those outside observers depends on your biases. That's the part you're refusing to admit... and now we're just going in circles.