Are you objective?

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:

---

The paper by Mr. Bullock, Alan S. Gerber, Seth J. Hill and Gregory A. Huber found that offering a $1 payment for a correct response and a 33-cent payment for an answer of Don’t know eliminated the entire partisan gap between Democrats and Republicans on questions about the economy.

---

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

Thank you for this fine anecdotal example of lack of objectivity.--Percy

The sentence "How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country" from the opening post was an example of a poorly supported belief resulting from lack of objectivity. I used that example because of the recent thread With a dying white race, why are we not encouraging more white births?, where that attitude was much expressed. It was not intended as the topic of this thread. This thread is about objectivity.--Percy

No, Percy did not admit "that he was thinking of certain whites as anti-immigrant types." No, Percy did not "rush-type" the comment in the opening post. What Percy actually said in Message 24 was this: Before you can be objective you at least have to get things right.If you want to discuss attitudes about immigration as examples of objectivity or the lack thereof, then this is the thread for you. If you want to discuss attitudes about immigration as the main topic you should probably propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.--Percy

Thank you again for another round of misinterpretation and inanity.Not that it will help, but I'll explain this this one more time. This thread is about how one's group affiliations affect objectivity. I introduced three examples, evolution, immigration, and guns, and the article I cited introduced another example, the performance of the economy. Those were just examples of where group affiliation affects objectivity. They were examples, not topics of discussion. Participants can continue to use these examples in a discussion about objectivity and group affiliation, but they are not themselves the topic of this thread.One more time:This thread is not about evolution.
This thread is not about immigration.
This thread is not about guns.
This thread is not about the economy.This thread is about group affiliation and it's impact on objectivity. Anyone who wishes to use the examples from the opening post in their own messages is free to do so, but please understand that they are not the topic.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi LamarkNewAge,The specific examples were chosen because of their very wide familiarity. If they're not familiar to you then that's surprising, but they're so well known you should have no trouble familiarizing yourself with them. Forget about the "so on" part? You do realize that "and so on" is a synonym for "et cetera," right?--Percy

Of course I don't want people to forget what I said. What I'd like them to forget is what you claimed I said, because I didn't say it. You made a misinterpretation, it's been explained to you, not once but many times, it's time to drop it. They were examples, not subtopics of discussion. Continue to use them as examples if you like, but they are not the main topic. If any of those examples are something you would like to discuss as a main topic then you can open a new thread proposal over at Proposed New Topics.Your puzzling comment to forget the "so on" part seems like something a non-native speaker of English might say, so I explained that "and so on" is a synonym for "et cetera". In that context it meant, "And other examples of the same nature."--Percy