Poll: how biased are you?

[dank69]

So if you are just wrong you have not lied?

Why would you think otherwise?

 

[fskimospy]

So if you are just wrong you have not lied?

Yes. Lies are intentionally false statements.

 

[a777pilot]

ROFLMAO!

"Bush lied about WMD in Iraq."

That's why.

It was an error, not, repeat, NOT a lie.

Sorry for the derail......but you asked.

 

[Perknose]

There's certainly hubris in selecting the top option. However, options 2 and 3 are posed in a relative sense. Being average or above average in objectivity may not mean that you're terribly objective. Depends on how you assess "average" objectivity.

Yup. But, as with the example of the self-rating drivers, the overwhelming majority rate themselves above average. Hubris and self-delusion . . . subjectivity . . . features principally in this.

 

[Ldir]

ROFLMAO!

"Bush lied about WMD in Iraq."

That's why.

It was an error, not, repeat, NOT a lie.

Sorry for the derail......but you asked.

Nobody knows for sure what Bush knew. But his minions knew the truth and lied about it. Maybe they kept the boss in the dark. Maybe he knew and was lying too.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yup. But, as with the example of the self-rating drivers, the overwhelming majority rate themselves above average. Hubris and self-delusion . . . subjectivity . . . features principally in this.

Yes, but, not to put too fine a point on it, you said:

I am frankly amazed at the hubris of everyone who voted for the top two options.

The "hubris" (or self-delusion) would only apply to those who in fact over-rated themselves, not everyone in those categories. That said, I'm quite certain a large number of people think more highly of their objectivity than is warranted. That much I expected from the poll. Next time, I'm going to make the poll public and that will be much more interesting.

 

[woolfe9999]

ROFLMAO!

"Bush lied about WMD in Iraq."

That's why.

It was an error, not, repeat, NOT a lie.

Sorry for the derail......but you asked.

That is a point under constant debate, however. The relevant point here being that those who accused Bush of lying, actually think he knew the probability of WMD was low, not that he made an error. They aren't confusing an error with a lie. They may be right or wrong about what he knew or didn't know, but there is no confusion over what the word "lie" means.

 

[a777pilot]

Nobody knows for sure what Bush knew. But his minions knew the truth and lied about it. Maybe they kept the boss in the dark. Maybe he knew and was lying too.

We need another thread on this, but.............

That information....."But his minions knew the truth".......is beyond your ken.

 

[a777pilot]

That is a point under constant debate, however. The relevant point here being that those who accused Bush of lying, actually think he knew the probability of WMD was low, not that he made an error. They aren't confusing an error with a lie. They may be right or wrong about what he knew or didn't know, but there is no confusion over what the word "lie" means.

Well then there are a lot of liberals that need a dictionary.

 

[a777pilot]

I'm curious about peoples' subjective assessments of their degree of bias.

A few things to understand before answering the poll.

1. A bias isn't a viewpoint. It is the tendency to be resistant to changing your position in the face of facts and logic to the contrary. It's a psychological state, not a specific ideology.

2. Bias is not something you have or don't have. It exists by degrees.

3. A bias isn't necessarily one to the right or left overall. An independent or self-described moderate may take positions to the right on certain issues and to the left on others. The question is to what degree are you open minded and amenable to persuasion on the positions you hold. Being a moderate doesn't automatically make you more objective, nor does being a liberal, conservative or libertarian.

This poll is public.

Meanwhile back at the OP.................

 

[woolfe9999]

Well then there are a lot of liberals that need a dictionary.

No, one one needs a dictionary because no one is confusing a mistake with a lie. Those who who think it was a mistake and those who think it was a lie disagree about the facts, not about word definitions.

 

[irishScott]

I put near 100%. In light of contravening evidence I have and will reconsider even some of my most deeply held beliefs. No one's perfect, but I try.

The problem is that there are few political issues that are entirely logical, and many come down to a moral stance. Then, to continue logical argument, you have to get into sociology or anthropology. And even then you're getting into theories. Most people can't/won't go that far and aren't willing to change even if they do.

 

[a777pilot]

No, one one needs a dictionary because no one is confusing a mistake with a lie. Those who who think it was a mistake and those who think it was a lie disagree about the facts, not about word definitions.

Those that say it was a lie have no facts to back up their accusations.

 

[a777pilot]

I put near 100%. In light of contravening evidence I have and will reconsider even some of my most deeply held beliefs. No one's perfect, but I try.

The problem is that there are few political issues that are entirely logical, and many come down to a moral stance. Then, to continue logical argument, you have to get into sociology or anthropology. And even then you're getting into theories. Most people can't/won't go that far and aren't willing to change even if they do.

That was helpful.



LOL!

 

[woolfe9999]

I put near 100%. In light of contravening evidence I have and will reconsider even some of my most deeply held beliefs. No one's perfect, but I try.

The problem is that there are few political issues that are entirely logical, and many come down to a moral stance. Then, to continue logical argument, you have to get into sociology or anthropology. And even then you're getting into theories. Most people can't/won't go that far and aren't willing to change even if they do.

I don't think anyone is even near 100% objectivity, but for the record, I'd certainly put you in the "above average" category.

I think you skipped a step in your discussion of logic and moral stance. People must first agree on the facts before any discussion is meaningful. If not, then the people debating may as well be on different planets, and they can do nothing more than talk at each other. Logic has no power when the syllogism consists of one or more false premises. The conclusion may logically follow from the premises, but it's still wrong (GiGo).

As for morality, that comes down to people's emotions. Once the facts have been adduced, and the logic parsed, if what you're left with is differing moral stances, you have reached the end of the productive part of the discussion. Abortion is a good example of something that can only be argued on facts and logic up to a point.

- wolf

 

[Ldir]

We need another thread on this, but.............

That information....."But his minions knew the truth".......is beyond your ken.

Start that thread if you dare.

 

[a777pilot]

Start that thread if you dare.

OK. I will.

 

[werepossum]

I put near 100%. In light of contravening evidence I have and will reconsider even some of my most deeply held beliefs. No one's perfect, but I try.

The problem is that there are few political issues that are entirely logical, and many come down to a moral stance. Then, to continue logical argument, you have to get into sociology or anthropology. And even then you're getting into theories. Most people can't/won't go that far and aren't willing to change even if they do.

Well put. I rated myself average and I've say you're less biased than am I.

I don't think anyone is even near 100% objectivity, but for the record, I'd certainly put you in the "above average" category.

I think you skipped a step in your discussion of logic and moral stance. People must first agree on the facts before any discussion is meaningful. If not, then the people debating may as well be on different planets, and they can do nothing more than talk at each other. Logic has no power when the syllogism consists of one or more false premises. The conclusion may logically follow from the premises, but it's still wrong (GiGo).

As for morality, that comes down to people's emotions. Once the facts have been adduced, and the logic parsed, if what you're left with is differing moral stances, you have reached the end of the productive part of the discussion. Abortion is a good example of something that can only be argued on facts and logic up to a point.

- wolf

Agreed specifically about IrishScott and about your logic in general. That said, in most issues there are multiple facts, and people on both sides can disagree on the relative importance of each fact honestly as well as with bias. So even after identifying the basic facts, we'd still have to agree on the relative importance of each.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I put near 100%. In light of contravening evidence

So... 100% biased, huh?

(This is why fail poll is fail)

 

[woolfe9999]

So... 100% biased, huh?

(This is why fail poll is fail)

Why is it fail? Do you even know every purpose the poll is intended to serve?

 

[nonlnear]

I would call myself fairly unbiased in that I change my opinion fairly readily when confronted with significant evidence, but I don't believe in the existence of objectivity except in very narrowly defined contexts. Pretty much anything remotely political falls far afield of where objectivity is a meaningful concept IMHO.

 

[woolfe9999]

I would call myself fairly unbiased in that I change my opinion fairly readily when confronted with significant evidence, but I don't believe in the existence of objectivity except in very narrowly defined contexts. Pretty much anything remotely political falls far afield of where objectivity is a meaningful concept IMHO.

Do you think of "objectivity" as something that manifests by degrees or is it more of an on/off switch?

 

[nonlnear]

Do you think of "objectivity" as something that manifests by degrees or is it more of an on/off switch?

I don't believe it exists except for within very narrowly construed frameworks. Mathematics is objective when looking at proven results. The hard sciences do a decent job of approximating objectivity, but that is only with a lot of effort. Other than that it's all about who has more fans. In fact I believe the assertion of the existence of objectivity in realms of public policy is itself a propaganda device. All questions of public policy are about what people want society to be. It is aspirational. There may be a limited degree of objectivity possible in asserting correlations between variables, but the big issue of why something is good for society is always a value judgment, and can never be objective.

 

[monovillage]

Do you think of "objectivity" as something that manifests by degrees or is it more of an on/off switch?

It's my opinion it's by degrees and depends what the subject is. The more you care about a subject the higher your "bias" rheostat will go.

I'll repeat, this is a very interesting subject/poll and i'm looking forward to another public one with refinements from this thread.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't believe it exists except for within very narrowly construed frameworks. Mathematics is objective when looking at proven results. The hard sciences do a decent job of approximating objectivity, but that is only with a lot of effort. Other than that it's all about who has more fans. In fact I believe the assertion of the existence of objectivity in realms of public policy is itself a propaganda device. All questions of public policy are about what people want society to be. It is aspirational. There may be a limited degree of objectivity possible in asserting correlations between variables, but the big issue of why something is good for society is always a value judgment, and can never be objective.

People can be objective in the sense of being willing to alter their opinions when previously unknown facts come to light, or when confronted with a sound argument that hadn't occurred to them. I think objectivity applies at the threshold especially, where you start with facts. You mention "factual minutia" somewhere, but people have disagreements over major and critical facts.

I don't know if "objectivity" exists according to some abstract or purist definition, but it is readily apparent that people vary by degrees in the extent to which they are amenable to revising their opinion based on new information. To suggest that everyone has equal levels of bias - if indeed that is what you suggest - is quite obviously not accurate.