And is it always a bad thing?
People on here and off frequently accuse each other of being biased, usually to dismiss the person and/or their source to avoid discussing the actual issue.
But aren’t all humans and all sources at least a little bit biased in some way? If so, how do we know that anyone’s information can be relied on?
I simply do not trust anyone and their beliefs at first. Why should I? They have to convince me that what they say and write is valid.
Yes, to be biased is to be human.
When bias begins to be a problem is when you cannot or will not seek to understand your own bias in a situation, and that’s what’s being called out.
Or, sometimes, it’s just an easy criticism to throw at someone when you’re at an impasse or don’t have a substantial argument.
Maybe get your variance under control before you attack my bias? Thanks!
Some years ago I read the book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. I recall something like your fast thinking system looks at a human you meet on the street and categorizes “threat, not a threat” in less than a second. The only way that happens is with general rules that we call “biases”.
Or, “heuristics”, subconscious rules-of-the-thumb are quick but not as accurate as conscious thought.
One meaning of “biased” is to be “unfairly prejudiced”. By definition, it is negative. I’m sure we all are biased in some circumstances some of the time. That does not mean we are alway biased.
This is different from “statistical bias”, in which, in the limit of infinite data, a statistical estimator does not converge to the “true value” of whatever is being estimated. This is the kind of bias that comes from heuristics. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Finite minds never have access to infinite data, and have to substitute in some kind of assumption based on experience. This creates statistical bias, but may be more accurate than an estimate without the “statistical bias” would be. Additionally, when estimating multiple quantities, it is often impossible for them all to be “unbiased”. For example, our unbiased estimate of the variance will lead to a biased estimate of the standard deviation for a finite data set.
Finally, we always have a viewpoint. This means that our perspective is always limited. This is sometimes contrasted with an imagined “God’s-eye” fully objective view of things. This goes to the Enlightenment idea of a truly neutral “starting point” for the investigation of truth. It is not clear whether this idea is anything more than a fantasy. This does not mean that our real, more limited viewpoint is inherently unfair, or keeps us from accessing true statements. We simply will probably not have the whole truth.
As a colored person who speaks English every single day I feel self hate since even the thoughts in my head are in the language that was imposed upon me by the imperialist Europeans, who for centuries enslaved people with dark skin.
Been thinking about trying to invent a new language just to get away from it all, but with no luck.
Actually to get to the point what I meant to say is you are all biased AF because you speak English and your thoughts are completely expressed within the confines and limitations of the Indo-European language family.
There’s a whole range of thoughts that you are incapable of thinking because the languages you don’t know have expressions and emotions that you have never felt before.
Praise the Lord!
Woah dude the LORD is the white man’s God. I’m switching to the Ganesha, man
Our God is an awesome God! (He reigns)
Ummm, how could you possibly know what is inside other people’s thoughts and feelings? Claiming omniscience?
Oh, wait, this is about bias…haha, I get it now!
