|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are you objective? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Are you objective?
Of course you are! And probably above average, too! In today's New York Times Editorialist Neil Irwin comments that in his experience people's economic views depend upon whether their party is in power. We've seen it all before here. How people see evolution depends upon their religion. How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country. How people view gun control depends upon whether they own guns. And so on. Those of us with entrenched beliefs (that would be all of us, in case there's any doubt) must always be ready and willing to make sure those beliefs are supported by the data. And we must also be willing to give serious consideration to accusations, as upsetting as they may be, that we are distorting the data or its interpretation to suit our purposes. Irwin goes on to describe the reason for the editorial, the results of a study showing that if you reward people for their answer they become less partisan. As he puts it:
quote: So we *can* be less partisan if we want, but most people need a little motivation. Or maybe the payment made them consider the questions more seriously (in the sense that they think about the questions instead of how they can get rid of this inquisitive bloke). There may be some poll-specific effect in play here, but in any case, we shouldn't need any motivation for producing non-partisan answer beyond a desire to get things right. But it's complicated. Too often we believe we've already exerted the effort to get an opinion right, and once formed we're extremely reluctant to reconsider it. But circumstances might have changed, there might be new evidence, we might have failed to consider some evidence during our original examination, who knows. No matter how well considered our opinion might be, it could still be wrong, in which case we must regather evidence, reevaluate, reexamine, etc. Even when all the data is on our side, humans have an innate ability to confound it, so the data has to be explained again and again. Making matters worse, large numbers of people can't tell good evidence from bad. These factors cause evidence nullification - we saw it most famously in the O. J. Simpson trial. I'm sure many often ask themselves what is the point of holding well considered and informed opinions when so many take the easier route of adopting whatever opinions feel best to them. Anyway, here's a call for maintaining our objectivity in 2016. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Those of us with entrenched beliefs (that would be all of us, in case there's any doubt) must always be ready and willing to make sure those beliefs are supported by the data. And we must also be willing to give serious consideration to accusations, as upsetting as they may be, that we are distorting the data or its interpretation to suit our purposes. Worldview and the cognitive dissonance inertia that resists changing it, even in the face of evidence that disturbs the worldview. But you knew I would say that ...
So we *can* be less partisan if we want, but most people need a little motivation. Or maybe the payment made them consider the questions more seriously (in the sense that they think about the questions instead of how they can get rid of this inquisitive bloke). Fascinating. I wonder if other (non-monetary) rewards would also be productive. Do "like" and "cheer" buttons have an effect (if you value them or the people they come from?).
Even when all the data is on our side, humans have an innate ability to confound it, so the data has to be explained again and again. Making matters worse, large numbers of people can't tell good evidence from bad. These factors cause evidence nullification - we saw it most famously in the O. J. Simpson trial. I'm sure many often ask themselves what is the point of holding well considered and informed opinions when so many take the easier route of adopting whatever opinions feel best to them. Curiously I was thinking of Climate Change as an example -- where it seems source of information is more important than content: is the source trusted or distrusted. Faux Noise Nutwerk can say anything they want and the people that trust FNN will believe it in spite of evidence to the contrary (from sources they don't trust). Putting this into an EvC context, are these behaviors derived via evolutionary selection: (1) following the leader of the pack makes good evolutionary sense as long as the leader is well informed and makes good decisions. When he fails, the surviving pack members regroup and a new leader is selected. (2) repeating learned behavior that has been successful in the past is easier than deciding anew every time and makes good evolutionary sense when bad decisions can be harmful. Choosing option A or B based on the flip of the coin every time will result in likely harm or death, while those that chose A once and repeat it will continue to survive and those that choose B will self-eliminate. We like to think we behave rationally with little left to instinct or reflex, yet our behavior says differently. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Anyway, here's a call for maintaining our objectivity in 2016. In return, could you give me a dollar every time I'm right? --- Failing that, how about a link?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: I have talked to literally thousands of blacks (I am not black btw), thousands of times, on all sorts of issues and I can assure you that they are many times more anti-immigration than whites. If you ask who is the most anti-immigration in the USA, then the answer isn't even close. Whites (as a whole) are the least nationalistic people in the world - especially in western-Europe. And I only wish blacks were anti-nationalist types in the USA because it would mean the U.S. could perhaps entertain the possibility of joining the E.U. But the numerical percentage of opposition (among U.S. voters) to such would make the issue absurd to even discuss. The 28 member countries of the EU should be proud of being the driving force of the greatest engine for peace, freedom, and prosperity that the world has ever seen. And I thank God that Germany held firm against the British wanting to end the EU constitutional right for citizens of member states to immigrate freely from one member-nation to the next free of paperwork, documents, and b.s. The Brits wanted to end the right of other peoples (especially Poles) to immigrate to Britain, and they were going to hold a vote on it. Germany told Britain that they would rather have the U.K. leave the EU rather than allow such a poisonous concession. Polls, in early 2015, still showed that a majority of British supported a referendum (however illegal it would have been) which only would allow Brits to remain in the EU if the "E.U. citizenship" rights were watered down to little more than a tired-old (warmed over nationalist)recipe for segregation and stagnation. (it must be said that Brits over 65 were the ones who were against the E.U., while younger Brits were in favor of staying) Thank God The Guardian and other fine publications warned the British public that the United Kingdom of Great Britain would suffer an economic depression of gargantuan proportions if they left the E.U. (a 15% GDP shrinkage almost immediately). The facts are that the citizenship rights of Poles have allowed Poland to see it's GDP go up like 500% over the past 10 years since the European Unions "Big Bang" expansion of May 1, 2004. Poland and Ukraine had the same per capita GDP in 2004, now Poles make $10,000 per person while non-E.U. Ukraine only sees a per person wage of $3000 per year. And the added income Poles have made have contributed to the British economy when Poles purchase goods from British production and British labor. Poles are moving fast ahead in innovations based around technology and research that their higher prosperity has been able to drive. A much more educated society that will benefit the entire world. The British public then turned against leaving the E.U. by mid 2015. As nationalism and it's racist borders vanish, so too does a great deal of worldwide poverty. (The Brits were able to wrestle some unfortunate concessions from EU member states. They got the EU constitution amended to allow "welfare reform" which enables Brits to refuse "welfare" to those miserable Eastern Europeans). I only wish blacks in the USA would see the light. Blacks complain endlessly about "China taking our jobs" and "those terrible trade deals" but China bought 26% of our exports in 2012. That is up from 5% (of our exports going to China) in 2000 before the trade deal with China. China has helped life the entire African economy up as they have used their increased national wealth ($1000 average Chinese annual income per person in 2000 up to $8000 today in China) to invest in the African continent. Now the virtuous cycle of higher wages in Africa is seeing growth trickle throughout all of African society. Increased immigration raises the average wage in the world just like increased trade does. Desegregate the world and lift up wages. Lift up wages and life up research budgets in health, science, and technology. Look at the Chinese example. Black African immigrants (to the USA) and American-born blacks H-A-T-E each other. Aside from South African black-immigrants, I can assure you that black African-immigrants consider whites less racist against them than (multi-generational) African-Americans are. I'm not proud of the growing anti-immigrant views among Americans but (multi-generational) blacks are the worst. Sorry for the peeve (not pet!) but this is a big one for the world to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
How about we worry about the 700,000 people who die every year from anti-biotic resistant bacteria? It is projected to go up to 10 million deaths per year in 2050(from anti-biotic resistant bacteria alone).
Every time the media rants and raves over the gun issue (or terrorism), how about we all with one (rational) voice say "shut the hell up" and then change the subject to flesh-eating bacteria. 10,000 homicides per year in the USA? Kindly ignore that one, then get to the real issues. What about the 700,000 per year (worldwide) that die from anti-biotic resistant bacteria? What about the 100,000 that die from medical mistakes in the U.S. alone? "Terrorism"? Only 3,790 people in North America died from terrorist attacks from 1968-2007. No objective, rational person should even care except that the media shoves the issue in our face not to report but to distort. What about real issues like brain-degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and dementia. It costs us $200 billion per year today in the USA and will go up to $1 trillion per year in costs to the USA by 2050. And over half of that will be paid by (the much maligned)Medicare and Medicaid. Congress has been stuck at about $700 million (per year)in research funding for a long time and only finally are there talks of increasing the budget to around an even $1 billion per year. Why not spend $10 billion per year researching possible cures? It would pay for itself many times over. (nevermind the fact that people with Vitamin D levels over 50 compared to the average American's much-lower levels shows a 56% reduction in development of the disease provided they have consistent levels high enough long before the typical age of onset) I in 3 Americans (and 1 in 2 females) will get these brain degenerative diseases, so why isn't nutrition (like vitamin D levels, Omega-3 fatty acid levels, etc.) a constitutional right? Why aren't we discussing that one? Our media is selling an agenda and is not simply reporting on actual issues relevant to our lives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
How about we worry about the 700,000 people who die every year from anti-biotic resistant bacteria? It is projected to go up to 10 million deaths per year in 2050(from anti-biotic resistant bacteria alone). How about we deal with that in a thread appropriate for doing so? Have you thought about how your argument undercuts any defensive reason for having a gun? Why worry about defending yourself from some hypothetical crook when the real problem is anti-biotic resistant bacteria? The worry about everything else line of argument is not any more viable when someone other than *** uses it. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: If I live in a city (or a small town), then I worry about cancer, heart disease, and the 30,000 Americans who die in automobile crashes every year. I admit that I do worry about ferocious lightening striking me at times. (it happens but not too often) Can't say that I care who owns a gun and what they will do with it. (I do care that poor kids are disqualified/stigmatized for life from military jobs, prison guard jobs, trucking jobs, and yes gun rights simply because a greedy doctor diagnosed them with "bi-polar" or whatever. I am outraged by that stigmatization and think that all kids should have the constitutional right to have an ERASURE LAW which expunges their "mental records" from existence. Infact, I think every adult should have the right to have a mental-record erasure every January 1 of every year)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I have talked to literally thousands of blacks (I am not black btw), thousands of times, on all sorts of issues and I can assure you that they are many times more anti-immigration than whites. If you ask who is the most anti-immigration in the USA, then the answer isn't even close. This is anecdotal evidence rather than empirical data. There could be other causes than race, such as education level and familiarity with other peoples\cultures. Curiously I would think that the more educated a person is and the more world traveled a person is -- the more they are exposed to other peoples and other cultures -- the less xenophobic they are. And I think it is easy to confuse xenophobia with racism -- the "black on black" hate you discuss would be xenophobia rather than racism. The more vocal racists I see appear to be under-educated untraveled poor whites.
I only wish blacks in the USA would see the light. Blacks complain endlessly about "China taking our jobs" ... And I only wish that the lower-class workers of all stripes and colors would see the light, and not drink the propaganda kool-aid from mass media that tries to divide people into hate\distrust groups based on simplistic and false appeals to emotions. You want better working conditions, then unite to take action to get it -- corporations will not volunteer to provide it, they have historically blocked or attempted to block progress, and continually try to chip away at progress that has been made. You want a living minimum wage, then unite and strike to get it. We have seen some progress in this direction, but it tends to be scattered and less organized than it could be. You want universal health care via medicare for all, you are going to have to work hard to get the major corporations out of the game. The real issues are not race or religion or culture, but equality, fair trade, justice, and respect.
Sorry for the peeve (not pet!) but this is a big one for the world to understand. Maybe we should have a "Rant of the Day" forum ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
LamarkNewAge writes: I have talked to literally thousands of blacks (I am not black btw), thousands of times, on all sorts of issues and I can assure you that they are many times more anti-immigration than whites. Thank you for this fine anecdotal example of lack of objectivity. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, LamarkNewAge.
How do we tell if someone is being objective? Person A peripherally mentions, in a neutral fashion, that race can influence political views. Person B responds with a fairly long post subtitled "One issue I take with your comments," in which he expresses a position on which race takes the anti- stance, and uses that as a springboard to help express his opinions on other semi-related political topics. This is probably a good sign that Person B is not being entirely objective with regards to the discussion at hand. The second piece of evidence is that Person B is relying on personal anecdotes to support his argument. ----- Everyone has biases that affect their views on certain topics. Objectivity means we can recognize our own biases and account for them when we report our conclusions.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: You left something out when you said "Person A peripherally mentions, in a neutral fashion, that race can influence political views." He was specific about which "race". Not simply that "race can influence" views on immigration. That triggered my response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
RAZD writes: We do! Maybe we should have a "Rant of the Day" forum ... Allow me to resurrect one of my old topics!
The Three Minute SoapboxChance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I didn't look too hard but here are some things I found
quote: quote: At least one of these might be outdated. The Gallup poll does show that fewer blacks think immigration is good for the country than whites. I don't see race having a large amount to do with things, according to the polls. I know from personal conversations that blacks are very anti-immigration. Perhaps they are being missed in polls. I don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
If I live in a city (or a small town), then I worry about cancer, heart disease, and the 30,000 Americans who die in automobile crashes every year. And yet I've seen that you post on topics completely unrelated to any of those concerns. For example you've posted in this very forum regarding Lamarkian biology theories. How do you have the gall to post on something other than the top two or three most important topics? Seriously, what is the purpose of objecting to what other people choose to discuss. Is your own view of the universe so superior that you can to dictate priorities for everyone else? Perhaps some black people have good reasons for having a list of priorities that differs from yours.
I am outraged by that stigmatization and think that all kids should have the constitutional right to have an ERASURE LAW which expunges their "mental records" from existence. I think we can answer the question about whether or not you are objective. You object therefore you are objective. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024