On Objectivity and the Mindless Middle

On this forum, as on any debate forum, the topic of objectivity vs. subjectivity is often raised. Some of us try to maintain objectivity in our arguments; others make no claims of objectivity at all. Some members adhere rigorously to facts; others are convinced that religious experiences and dogma show that the "facts" have been misinterpreted. In all of these cases, we all fight (or attempt to fight) the innate problems of human bias, the inevitable coloring of our interpretation of facts by our own already-established opinions.And then there is the Mindless Middle.

quote:

---

Objective
5. Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

---

Maintaining objectivity in an argument is the practice of arguing on facts and logic alone, with no input from personal emotions or opinions. The focus is on that which is objective, that which exists outside of the mind. None of us are perfect at this; some of us don't even try.The human mind is influenced to an unbelievably large degree by our subconscious, a creature that has evolved to deal not with a world of logic and reason, of statistics and mathematics and observations, but rather a world of immediate action, of real predators that may be lurking in the shadows, and a world that was impossible to control to any great degree.Our subconscious mind makes snap decisions for us; decisions we are not consciously aware of, but that we feel as a sort of "gut instinct." While our conscious mind is fully capable of rationality, or impassionate logic and reason, we are constantly assailed by the immediate conclusions of our subconscious mind - conclusions that are based not on facts and evidence, but on previous personal experience and instinct.This emotional mind colors our perceptions. It can cause us to recognize false patterns and "see" something out of the corner of our eye - a useful survival instinct when there may, in fact, be a predator lurking in the shadows (it's not paranoia, after all, if they really are trying to eat you), but significantly less so when testifying in a trial as to the identity of the person you barely glimpsed. Our subconscious mind considers events of significant emotional impact (things we desire greatly, like wining the lottery, or fear greatly, like terrorism) to be more likely or at least worthy of a response than events of low emotional impact (traffic fatality statistics). Our subconscious cannot even differenciate between fantasy and reality; to the subconscious mind, a dream and a memory create equal familiarization - an emotionally charged dream will color our "gut feelings" more than a bland but detailed memory.Most relevant in here, however, is our innate desire for fairness. It doesn't matter whether this is the result of cultural influence or an actual built-in instinct. The fact is, most of us have a tendency to prefer solutions that we consider "fair." Unfortunately, our subconscious mind, as earlier noted, doesn't even pretend to try to obtain all (or even any) of the facts before making its decision. Instead, it takes what is immediately available in terms of information, previous experience, and even fantasy.
The result is the Mindless Middle - the position that interprets "objectivity" as maintaining "fairness" to all parties - regardless of factual accuracy. That sense of fairness, like our other subconscious "gut feelings," has its place (for example, choosing a fair punishment for a crime), but only when guided by the rational, conscious mind."Teach the Controversy" is one of the results of Mindless Middle arguments. The thought is that by "telling both sides," objectivity is maintained. This, of course, is false: objectivity is maintained only by impassionately following the available facts to whatever logical colcusions they may lead, regardless of emotional impact, personal preference, or human bias. In teh case of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, available scientific facts and theories lead inexoribly to an old Earth in an older Universe, where life has increased in diversity over time through descent with modification guided by natural and sexual selection and genetic drift. Fairness is propagated by "telling both sides" of the Evolution vs. Creation dispute, but Objectivity gets the short stick.In any given dispute, the Mindless Middle tell us that "truth" lies somewhere between both extremes.The facts tell us otherwise: sometimes one side is completely wrong; sometimes one side is compeltely right; and sometimes nobody is even close.We see this effect in politics as well. Many people consider both Republicans and Democrats (here in the US, anyway) to be examples of two extremes, and that the "Correct" course of action lies somewhere in betweenthe right and left.There is no analysis of fact in such a position. In any given debate (say, raise taxes vs. lower taxes), very few people even look at the budget and create a cogent, logical, and factually-supported arguemnt. Instead, either personal preference takes over ("it's MY money, you can't have it,") or the Mindless Middle ("maybe we should compromise, and do a little of each") typically hold sway. No facts are investigated, but the Mindless Middle considers itself to be "objective" because it didn't "take sides."This is not to say that one "side" or another is always right, and the other always wrong. In the real world, binary debates are rare; even in the Evolution vs. Creation debate we don't have two sides - instead we have Theistic, Atheistic, and Agnostic Evolution supporters who will each argue amongst themselves even if they all support the Theory of Evolution (see Straggler and RAZD's famous arguments as an example). On the otehr side we have Old and Young Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents (who may or may not classify themselves with or against the Theory of Evolution), a multitude of different religious perspectives, and all manner of other "sides" that flavor the debate.In this case "objectivity" is not some philosophical chimaera made from every point of view. Only an emotionless analysis of the facts can grant an objective conclusion.The Mindless Middle is so named because, at it's core, it is the thoughtless "gut feeling" that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I say "thoughtless," and I mean that term quite literally - there is no thought performed, no analysis of fact, that leads to the conclusion. In a debate on whetehr the Earth is flat or round, the Mindless Middle wouldn;t even attempt to look at orbital photographs or mathematical derivations of the curvature of the planet, but would isntead say that the Earth is something between flat and round (perhaps a square? More likely a hemisphere).How to we avoid the Mindless Middle and maintain real objectivity?By paying attention to the definition of the word "objective" (specifically, definition 5)."Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased"We maintain objectivity by shunning emotional reactions, including the emotional preference for "fairness." We maintain objectivity by focusing on the facts available to us, and only the facts, and drawing logically consistent conclusions. We maintain objectivity by disregarding the number of proponents and opponents involved, the number and degree of other conclusions, and remembering that not all conclusions and positions are mutually exclusive. Perhaps most importantly, we maintain objectivity by acknowledging that which we do not know, because otherwise our subconscious mind will fill in the unknowns for us, and it is always possible that all of us are wrong because we do not have all of the facts.This is why the scientific method includes the reproduction of results and peer review. Peer review is not a popularity contest, as some people seem to believe. When we say that there is a "scientific concensus" that a given model is accurate, it has nothing to do with the number of people involved. Instead, it means that many independant minds attempted to objectively analyze the theory, and were unable to find any logical inconsistencies in teh conclusion, any errors in the methodology, and that the results were readily repeatable on demand. By asking multiple independant teams for criticism, we attempt to eliminate any inherent personal bias.Why by objective in the first place?Hoping, wishing, dreaming, fearing, and believing have nothing to do with whether a given statement is true or not. Despite what Oprah and some of her guests say, "positive thinking" by itself will do nothing. You can't wish yourself into a winning lottery ticket; no matter how badly a starving man in the desert wants food, his desires do nothing.Whether we believe that life's variety is the result of evolution, or special Creation, or an extraterrestrial High School genetics project gone wild, has absolutely no relevance as to which one (if any) has any degree of accuracy.Only objectivity allows us to be reasonably assured that our conclusions accurately reflect the real world external to our minds. If wishes were wings, we wouldn't need airplanes.EDIT - "Is it science?" I should think.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Hi Oni,I'll begin by saying that a lot of my commentary on the human subconscious has come from The Science of Fear by Daniel Gardner. It's a damned good book, and deals a lot with why collectively we're so terrified of things like the 9/11 attacks while we just passively accept freeway death tolls, despite the fact that an objective analysis of the numbers shows that we're far more likely to be individually affected by an auto accident than by terrorism. Many experiments have been done relating to how the human mind functions. I'll give a few examples from The Science of Fear, because I happen to have it handy. The first deals with what the author terms "the Law of SImilarity."

quote:

---

Psychologists found that when they asked students to eat a piece of fudge shaped like dog feces, the students were - shall we say - reluctant. The students knew the fudge was fudge. But it looked like dog feces and that triggered a feeling of disgust- another bit of ancient hardwiring - that they couldn't shake.
The Science of Fear, p.25

---

The Law of Similarity refers to the tendency of the unconscious mind to assess that appearance equals reality, regardless of what the conscious mind knows. In the above example, the unconscious "gut" triggered a feeling of revulsion that was instinctual simply because the fugde looked like poo, and that feeling persisted even though the students knew with their conscious minds that it was just fudge.The author later expands on this example with students who were asked to fill a tube labeled as a poisonous substance with sugar (note that the students themselves filled the empty containers with sugar), and were reluctant to eat it simply because of the label - direct knowledge of teh contents be damned.Later, teh author notes another interesting tendency - when you are presented with a number immediately prior to or contained in the question, your estimation is likely to be higher or lower depending on the number presented.The example used was "how old was Ghandi when he died?" In the first example, people were first asked if Ghandi was older or youuger than 9 when he died. In the second, people were asked whether he was older or younger than 140.In the first example, the average guess was 50. In teh second, the average was 67.This is a guess, made by people whi didn;t know the actual answer. Our unconscious gut shapes how likely we perceive any given answer, and our gut likes what it's familiar with - including what it's most recently heard. So, if you hear a really high number before you're asked to pull a random age out of your head, you're more likely to respond higher than someone who recently heard a lower number.This is just the tip of the iceberg, of course. Pick up the book - it's worth a read. The unconscious or subconscious mind in the context I'm using it is simply that part of the brain that functions based on instinct without our awareness of why it makes the judgments it does. We can work it out with experiments like the above, but we aren't aware at the time why we're picking a higher number than others are...or even that we're doing it at all.Politicians and advertisers use the subconscious mind all the time. Why do you think terrorism and pedophiles and other such objectively rare but emotionally scary and dramatic topics garner such an immensely strong reaction, while nobody can be bothered to give some funding to renovate a bridge that hasn't had proper maintenance funding in a decade?Why do you think sex sells? Consciously we all know we aren't going to be dating supermodels just because we drink Bud Light (in fact, there may be an inverse correlation there...) but an advertisement filled with scantily clad models playing volleyball will sell more beer than a random guy saying it tastes good. At another point in The Science of Fear, the author refers to a study in 1976 where one group was asked to vividly imagine Gerald Ford winning the election and making his acceptance speech. Another group was asked to do the same for Jimmy Carter. They were then asked who they thought was most likely to win. Can you guess the results?Those who vividly imagined Ford wining considered it more likely that Ford would win. Those who were asked to imagine Carter winning considered it more likely that Carter would win.It's about familiarity - our subconscious considers that which is more familiar to be more likely...but it can't differentiate between real and imagined memories. Yes and no. There aren't really two separate "minds" working at odds in the human brain. However, there is a part of our brains that gives us our initial emotional "feeling" towards any given situation. It triggers immediate unease when we see others frightened. It makes us feel comfortable when we're in familiar surroundings. It gives us that "gut" feeling on whether we should take that risk. Describing it separately from the conscious mind is simply a way to better convey what's going on behind the scenes. If I were to put it into computer terms, the conscious mind would be software, and the subconscious mind would be hardware - the operating system doesn't manually direct the video card or control the timing of the RAM or processor frequencies, even as information is passed bettween the hardware and software regularly. So too we are not aware or in control of all of the processes that go on in our brains, even though our awareness receives information from the non-aware portions in the form of immediate instincts and gut feelings (incidentally, the information transfer does go both ways - we can train our immediate instincts to a degree, and this is in large part what happens when training in sports and martial arts, and why right now you're reading without consciously thinking about every letter that forms the words in this sentence).And more to the topic of this thread, it's the source of appeals to emotion. When someone argues that x is true because x is personally preferable to them, that's their "gut" telling them that x is more likely to be true. When politicians describe terrorism as the single greatest threat to America, that's their "gut" lending more importance to a dramatic negative event that they personally fear, even though an objective analysis would show that even a 9/11 once every week, while certainly terrible, wouldn't have as much of an impact in terms of lives lost as highway traffic, or smoking.And the Mindless Middle is nothing more than an appeal to emotion - the basic desire to be "fair" to all "sides," creating an illusion of objectivity without actually engaging any analysis of fact.

You seem to be interpreting "subconscious" as being a discreet lobe of the brain that has its own consciousness.That's not what I (or the author of The Science of Fear) am saying at all.I am saying that the human brain has many autonomous functions that are not controlled by our awareness. For instance, you do not consciously control your heartbeat, or the digestion off ood. It's all handled automatically. The same with the visual cortex - you aren't aware of the process of receiving signals from the optic nerve and processing them into images.Remember my brief example of reading? The "subconscious" that I'm talking about is partially evident there. I'm not consciously thinking about how to spell every word that I'm writing, or where I need to place my fingers on the keyboard. I have learned the English language and typing to the degree that writing this message (well, the writing part, not coming up with the message itself) is only barely conscious. I;m doing it without thinking. That is the subconscious I'm talking about.It's what gives a martial artist his immediate reflexes - repetitious training can allow conscious behavior to "sink down" to the level of a near-autonomous response. Differentiate "brain" from "mind." The mind is the end result of the brain, but there's a reason that psychology and neurology are separate fields. Again, I'm not claiming that the cerebral cortex or the prefrontal lobe is specifically responsible for this. You;re right - it is the entire brain, because we're talking about a large subset of autonomous functions that range from reading and other aspects of language to walking to some functions that affect our conscious reaction to stimuli. Again, I'm not talking about neuroscience, and I'm not telling you that there's a specific lobe of the brain responsible for all of this. I am saying that you and I are not consciously aware of all of the functions our brains perform, and that specifically some of those unconscious processes color our conscious reaction to stimuli.Someone brought up spiders. I hate spiders. It's completely irrational, and I will bring to bear vastly greater force than necessary to exterminate any who enter my home, to the point that I could actually damage my own property with my completely unjustified response.It goes so deep that I actually have an aversion to touching a picture of a spider. This is what I'm talking about. I consciously know that the picture is not a spider. In most cases I know that even if it were, the spider could not or would not hurt me (not many species are aggressive towards humans, and relatively few species are capable of causing injury to a healthy adult).But somewhere behind what I rationally think and know, I associate the picture with the thing that I hate, and my "gut" tells me "don't touch, that's a spider!" That feeling is not something that I consciously control, though I can recognize it as irrational and irrelevant and try to ignore it.Do you better understand what I'm saying?