Are you objective?

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 ... 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?). 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.Enjoy

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. 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. Maybe we should have a "Rant of the Day" forum ...Enjoy

Indeed, and so is the awareness of logical fallacies, such as appeals to unevidenced consequences, straw man arguments, post hoc ergo propter hoc, part for the whole, etc etc etc.The use of logical fallacies in any argument should be a big red flag that objectivity is not being pursued but emotional subjectivity or bias.

Agreed, but the conclusions -- the hypothesis -- is then tested ... and tested ... and tested ...... and results are held tentatively rather than absolutely. Exactly, but not everything is open to scientific study or the scientific method, and at that point adherence to strict logic can help you form a rationally consistent worldview rather than one based on fantasy or wishful thinking. Agreed, but the point was not the use of logic, per se but that the use of logical fallacies as an argument is not objective reasoning; knowing fallacies can help keep you objective when faced with arguments based on them rather than arguments based on evidence .Enjoy

Indeed, wiki is my usual first go-to source, followed by links in the articles to scientific literature and other references. So I support it with a monthly contribution, as it would be difficult to replace.One of the best aspects of wiki in my mind is that it cannot be treated as an absolute source, it is subject to change, and can be changed by anyone. This has led to some problems on touchy topics and edits by people with an agenda, but it also means it can be updated rapidly with new or revised information when it becomes available.There are a couple of pages that I help monitor, and it is always interesting to see a page change, whether you agree with it or if that change affects how you see things.Certainly when it comes to sources for evidence the scientific papers of peer reviewed journals would be top of the list, but often those are behind paywalls and all you can freely access are abstracts.Equally certain in my mind is that "googling" alone is the worst kind of source because (a) there is so much garbage out there posted by idiots, gullible fools, and deluded people (not to mention people with an agenda), and (b) because it can be used as a self-filter where you can cherry-pick results to bolster your position ("the devil can cite scripture for his purpose") and ignore contrary information -- for example: liberals go to liberal news sites while conservatives go to conservative news sites, and neither group gets a complete picture.The difference between wiki and google-glop is that wiki information is passed through a reality check filter.Enjoy

How does" ... How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country. ... "equal" ... describing whites as the most anti-immigration people in the USA... "???As I see it - objectively - Percy could equally mean whites are most pro-immigration ...What it does mean to me -objectively - is that immigration is seen differently by different races. Period. Something you have gone to some length to validate.Enjoy

2?Enjoy