Mike just said I'm biased, but I don't think I am. It's just that, in most major ideological matters, I've already analyzed the evidence and made up my mind. If being "unbiased" means being unsure and constantly wavering, then I'm not unbiased I guess. But to me, once the information has been gathered and considered, and a decision has been made, it's not "bias" for me to be confident that my position is the correct one.
I am generally open to new evidence and willing to consider other positions if the situation warrants it. For example, I used to be totally against the War on Drugs and took a very libertarian position, but I've since reconsidered and I'm not really sure what the best policy would be, even though I know the status quo is incredibly harmful. Likewise on other issues, such as using public money for space exploration.
So yes, I'm generally pretty confident in what I believe, and I think that I've got a good amount of logic and evidence to support my positions. I also like to think that I'm open to new ideas and to changing old ones, but I'm not going to jump on every bandwagon or concede that every contrary position is rational and worthy of real consideration.
However, Mike assures me that this wasn't the meaning of "biased" he intended, and that he really does think I have "a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment".
hmm. were this true, we could see clear logical premises for every last one of your beliefs.
let me be clear: i'm biased. i know that. i know that i've decided that there are some topics i think i've got enough information on to "make up my mind." but if you're not aware of your bias, you can't put out objective analysis. and if you've made up your mind about it all, that would imply you know everything there is to know about a number of things.
"bias" itself isn't a bad thing -- you just have to be able to recognize it and call it out, so it doesn't mar your subsequent claims.
It can be difficult to distinguish between bias and consistency. But consistency for consistency's sake is a bias.
Candace said: 'let me be clear: i'm biased. i know that. i know that i've decided that there are some topics i think i've got enough information on to "make up my mind."'
But I don't really think that's "bias". You may have objectively considered all the evidence, and then made a decision. You may recognize that there's no point in seriously considering many contrary opinions because you've already done so, so you can dismiss them prima facie.
And Nick, yes, I agree that consistency just for the sake of it isn't good. But, here's an example. I know a lot about Al Sharpton, and I'm familiar with his history and modus operandi; when he comes on TV and starts denouncing someone as a "racist", I have no compelling reason to actually investigate the facts. I pretty much toss the accusation out entirely based on its source, because I have evaluated that source objectively previously, and found it to be non-credible. On the other hand, if Bill Clinton called someone a racist, I'd be curious and check into it. I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton, but I know that he doesn't throw around spurious charges of "racism", so his accusation would carry much more weight with me. Is that bias? Maybe.
The most recent example of why I feel this way is our discussion here about the bay institute. I'm not going to rehash it, but I felt that you came to a lot of conclusions based on incomplete, nonexistant or actually incorrect information. When I called you on it, you continued to make statements like "and by their own admission it sounds like things are going fairily well", a conclusion that I still can't understand how anyone could come to unless they came to it before actually reading the article.
This is an isolated example, and I don't mean to argue it here. I do not believe that you are biased on every point, but I would say you're closer to Al Sharpton than Bill Clinton, as you describe it. I just don't get any feeling that, on certian subjects, that you actually see all of the information. And, I get the feeling that you often just search for the things that support your argument, and twist things or jump to conclusions or put words in peoples mouths - "they don't want us to grow so much food, and that they don't think there should be so many darn humans all over the place".
Obviously though, the problem is entirely that I am biased against you.
Yeah, well I thought I was clear that my impressions of the Bay Institute weren't based on facts, but just intuition. Plus, as I explained, I'm reasonably familiar with that "type" of organization and I wanted to explain my perception of them and how that fit in to what they said, and how the article was written.
I suppose in a way that's "bias", but it seems like a product of entirely rational ignorance -- I can't know everything about everything, but I can make rational extrapolations from what I do know and then apply them to new situations. That's the basis for all prejudices, and I'm certainly predjudiced. That seems different than being "biased", however... but maybe we're just mincing words now.
There is no effectively no difference between prejudice and bias. Heck, the dictionary uses each word in the definition of the other. But it sounds cooler to say "terminate with extreme prejudice" than "terminate with extreme bias".
Imagine this! Biased comments on a biased article about the meaning of the word biased!
Thats cool.
As a programmer, I've learned to avoid the 'endless loop'. Its a programming bug that causes your code to loop forever, waiting for a condition which will never be true; or, will never be untrue.
Bias: A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment...
How can anyone not be biased? Or is this a biased statement? Oh my gosh. I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure...
Gross over-analysis of words like this are a trip down the same roads that bring us these wonderful frivolous lawsuits. What do you mean the hot coffee that burned me at the drive through was supposed to be hot? What does the word hot REALLY mean?
And while we're at it...what IS the meaning of the word is?
Imagine this! Trying to actually understand how people think and make decisions. The original post and the comments here are all perfectly rational, and I'm sorry if you can't comprehend why the questions are interesting or important.
And while we're at it... let's make arrogant, condescending comments anonymously.