Losing Objectivity

Some thoughts on objectivity and growing older. Here, "objectivity" is used to describe a state of rational, critical thinking.The initial question is "does a person lose objectivity as they grow older?"
I think the answer is yes. More commonly described as "becoming senile," losing objectivity seems to happen more to the elderly. Although I fully admit I have no numbers or text to back this up with. I am purely going off of anectotal evidence here and would appreciate input from anyone who knows better.Assuming that objectivity is something to be desired, is there a way to keep our objectivity in good shape?I can think of situations that one could go over, and see if the answer they came up with is objective or not. But, if the same situations are used to test for objectivity, wouln't there be a danger of simply memorizing the answers, and thinking one is still objective when one actually is not in other, new situations? If such a problem becomes a reality, wouldn't the "test for objectivity" (now only giving false-positives) only be, ironically, adding confidence in the wrong direction?Is it possible to consistently and repeatedly test for objectivity of a growing/aging mind?
Is it possible to "exercise" objectivity?
If objectivity can decrease, is it possible to personally identify such a loss and reverse the non-objective thinking?
Are we all doomed to lose objectivity as we grow older and it's just a matter of time?
If so, what's the best method you can think of to slow such a loss?A few things that may help with testing for objectivity:
-a willingness to be wrong
-a willingness to learn
-acceptance of not knowing everythingAll thoughts and ideas pertaining to losing objectivity are welcome.Maybe for "Is it Science" or "Miscellaneous Topics." I'm also not opposed to this going to "Coffee House" as it may be too far away from the main EvC discussion.

Yes, I think these two points are necessary for any valid method of exercising and testing objectivity.1. Someone else who can explain the correct answer
2. The ability to realize you were wrongI wonder if there's any way to personally test for retaining the ability to realize you were wrong.A simple test would be to see how long you've gone without being corrected, I suppose. Generally, I'd think this would last a matter of days for most people. That is, if you've gone a week without ever being mistaken or corrected... perhaps it's time to double-check your willingness to be wrong. But I'm not sure how reliable this would be because it's certainly possible to "be right" for a prolonged period of time.Validating answers is an excellent tool. But if one gets to the point that they no longer identify validating answers as a sufficient tool for marking objectivity... then it may be an unrecoverable spiral.I suppose this really just goes back to the age-old question of how to you show someone a correction to something that they already think they know.

Yes, this is the exact problem I'm trying to address in this thread. I don't have much of an answer either
A basic, general (and perhaps therefore useless...) answer is that our brain is like any other muscle in our body... practice makes perfect.But how do we practice objectivity over and over without falling into the unobjective traps that arise from repetition? Don't worry about it. Happens all the time. I'm a big boy, though.. I can take it. *sniff* Don't look at mee!!!

Yes, you're right. I was trying to give an excuse for it Although I have seen exceptions, this is pretty much what I've witnessed as well. This is the exact reason for this thread. I share this fear and I'm for any and all suggestions to help prevent such things.But, how do you prevent something that (once it happens to you) you don't even acknowledge that it's there?All I have so far is a few tips to keep in mind:
-always remember that you could be wrong/mistaken
-as you get older and older, there'll be "more" (relatively) younger and younger people. Generally, we don't like being told we're wrong by younger people or anyone we deem as "below" us for whatever reason... We need to keep a conscious effort to listen for the arguement and not worry about the source.
-keep ourselves surrounded with friends/family/others and keep social situations alive. The more alone and removed we become from other people, the easier it will be to fall into the trap that our personal thoughts are the only ones that matter...they may be decent tips, but that's all they are... just tips. I'm hoping for a more objective, sure-fire way to prevent (or at least slow) such an aging-of-the-mind process.

I've been thinking about the human issue of losing objectivity/rationality and how to identify it on an internal level again.I still don't think it's possible to eliminate. Internal issues have a very nasty habit of not conforming to external measurements... mostly on account of them not being external and all. However, I do think I have an idea on how to hopefully mitigate the issue.Here's the major problem as I see it. And, as we all know, as I see things is the only way that actually matters:Human beings are very good at identifying patterns and compartmentalizing ideas/thoughts based upon these patterns. "Very good" here means we do it a lot, and we can do it unconciously a lot too. "Very good" here does not mean this is always beneficial to us, which sucks a certain kind of ass.Now, let's assume we get into a position of being excellent at being rational... beings. Not only are we very rational in our decisions, but we also know that we're very rational such that we can identify our ideas internally as "Yay, another rational idea for me!"However, as humans we are also very good at making mistakes and errors. So, eventually it is possible for us to do something mostly-rational, but not totally-rational. Just a mere sliver of irrationality that hardly makes a difference. Also, because of our "very good" way of identifying and compartmentalizing, it's possible that we see this small difference as negligible, ignore it, and label this slightly-irrational idea as "Yay, another rational idea for me!"One or two of these errors slipping through isn't going to make a difference. But, what if the issue starts to evolve? Let's say we compartmentalize more and more mere-sliver-of-irrationality ideas as "Yay, another rational idea for me!" Then, it's quite possible that the mere-sliver can turn into a moderate-sliver and the same "very good" method of human compartmentalization ends up storing many moderate-sliver-of-irrationality ideas as "Yay, another rational idea for me!"Taking this further, it's easy to see that it's possible for us to move from totally-rational to hardly-rational, or maybe even pretty-irrational while still thinking that we're actually still being rational. Of course, this process would likely take decades for us not to notice the slow movement... but it's still a possiblity that we shouldn't ignore if we want to remain rational beings.So, how do we get around this issue?
-monitor our pride by double-checking our decisions with other people who also claim to be rational and be open to being wrongBut, this requires other people. I think I've thought of a way to help mitigate the issue internally:We need to practice at being irrational.If we are always rational, then obvoiusly we're going to think we're always rational, and we're going to think that everything we do is always rational. This is exactly the kind of mind-environment where the above Major Issue can thrive within our unconcious and work against us actually remaining as rational as possible.However, if we practice being irrational every now and then, our minds can become familiar with what irrationality is. As long as we remember to "know" (compartmentalize) when we're being rational vs. when we're being irrational... our brains will be better equipped to help identify any possible sliver-of-irrationality that our unconcious compartmenatization techniques try to label as "Yay, another rational idea for me!"That is, the less we compartmentalize "all ideas we internally create" into the rational-bin, and the more we train our brains to compartmentalize "rational" vs. "irrational" on the ideas we internally create... then the better off we'll be from falling into the trap of the Major Issue outlined above.*looks around at empty room*Well, I think it's kind of interesting...

Oh... I fully agree.I didn't intend that rant to be a substitute for external evaluation. Matching observations with other people is the backbone of remaining objective and rational.I only think this merits attention because it's good to have as many ways as possible to battle "losing objectivity." And this is the best way I can think of for doing such internally.Not everyone is so blessed as to always have other people around, or be around other people... as easy as it may sound.Certainly not a replacement, simply "another tool," and a secondary one at that.

All the time? Are you sure? Do you apply this all the time to yourself, even?
What if it's not all that serious?
What if you can actually solve the problem by yourself? I agree with you when talking about certain people.
But not all people.
I believe that a certain group of people exist that have enough self-control (in the form of self-honesty) that they can benefit from a personal, self-analysis such the one I discussed.

How many people clog the medical system by forcing a doctor to waste time focusing on their obviously minimal issues instead of actually helping people who need it?I'm not saying the side of the issue you're talking about doesn't exist. I agree with you that the method I'm proposing is A) minimally secondary and B) should be used with the utmost care.But if you're trying to say it's useless, you'll have to do more than simply assert that some people exist where it would be detrimental. And I'm saying, that this is impossible for some situations. There are people/situations that exist where double-checking with other people is not always an option.

How so?I would argue that the people you're talking about don't care enough to investigate or attempt to understand the method I've described. I think they would just ignore such things all together.What makes you think that folk-who-think-they're-great-at-being-objective would waste their time investigating ways to be more objective?Isn't it more reasonable to assume that the only people who would search out and attempt to investigate this method would be those who are honest enough with themselves to understand that they may not know everything yet? And I believe in trying to help each and every one of us reach our full potential in any and all ways.If you have an idea on how my method cannot possibly help in any fashion, then I'm all ears.

By being irrational on purpose, and making sure that you acknowledge it as such. You can do it wherever you like. I wouldn't recommend any of those later ideas, they all seem very extreme.
I'm sure that using your imagination to create a silly story, or choosing the blue t-shirt over the red one some generic morning would do just fine. The point is in acknowledging the irrationality and therefore helping your brain to identify it. The point is not to be so extreme as to break the law or disregard the rights of other people.You do understand that irrational things can be productive and good as well, right?
Things like poetry, art and guessing are irrational. It is sufficiently irrational if it is not objectively rational.
If you cannot identify rationality vs. irrationality without requiring some form of punishment, then this tool is beyond the point of helping you. I'm not claiming this as a method for becoming objective.
I'm claiming this as a simple tool for helping one stay objective. Not the best tool. Not the only tool. Just a tool.
This tool will never 100% prevent losing objectivity. And it's quite possible that the scenario you describe here could still happen none-the-less. I'm just saying that this is a viable possibility for helping.