• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Naive Realism~Delusions of Objectivity (Discuss)

jamain

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
48
MBTI Type
IST_
Ever notice how two or more people can go at each other, each convinced of their rightness. Convinced that it is they who hold the moral high ground and see things as they truly are. When I look at political discussions it is not hard to notice that most seem to think the other is supporting the devil incarnate. Each side seemingly oblivious to the flaws of their own candidate.

BUT this is not a thread about politics, it is merely one among many areas that this is easily observable. This is a thread about Naive Realism.

"Naive realism” is the seductive sense that we’re seeing the world as it truly is, without bias or error"



The comedian George Carlin once noted “that anyone driving slower than you is an idiot and anyone going faster than you is a maniac.” The obscure scientific term explaining why we see most people other than ourselves as unintelligent or crazy is naïve realism.

In the absence of a thorough appreciation for how our brain ensures that we will end up as naïve realists, we can’t help but see complex social events differently from one another, with each of us denigrating the other for failing to see what is so obviously true. Although there are real differences that separate groups of people, naïve realism might be the most pernicious undetected source of conflicts and their durability.




  • Why do you think so few seem to be aware of how their biases can/may distort their perceptions? Causing them to view the one who does not see things the "right way" (same as them) as ignorant, gullible, evil/reprehensible, etc.
  • Do you believe anyone can truly be totally unbiased and objective? (approach with a completely open mind, stepping away from preconceived ideas and notions about what is fair, just, right, wrong, etc.) If yes, I hope you'll share.


Edge.org
This article is quite interesting IMO Tim Harford — Article — Delusions of objectivity
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
869
Not truly objective, but by continually immersing oneself in learning, experience, and self improvement, we can only get so close. You can do all the book reading you want, but without the experience it's all for naught.
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
  • Why do you think so few seem to be aware of how their biases can/may distort their perceptions? Causing them to view the one who does not see things the "right way" (same as them) as ignorant, gullible, evil/reprehensible, etc.

The situation is pretty much as described in the articles suggested at the end of your post. In short: Our brains operate at lightning speed, largely by taking shortcuts and making lots of assumptions.

From the evolutionary point of view: As early humans moving across the African savannah, we didn't have time to parse everything in detail, because we would get eaten by a lion or whatever while we were pausing and thinking. So we learned to move quickly and draw conclusions based on partial data.

In modern times, this evolutionary heritage often works great for dealing with tangibles and routine things like deciding what to eat or whether or not some situation is dangerous. But it doesn't work so well when it comes to complex issues. Our evolutionary "need for speed" may cause us to seize on simple facts and view them as all we need to know about the issue. Meantime anyone who insists on a deeper or more nuanced analysis gets seen as a waster of our time or even a threat to our survival--they'll cause us to metaphorically fall behind and be eaten.

  • Do you believe anyone can truly be totally unbiased and objective? (approach with a completely open mind, stepping away from preconceived ideas and notions about what is fair, just, right, wrong, etc.) If yes, I hope you'll share.

Sure, there are plenty of philosophical models and even real-life examples for distancing oneself from one's biases and prejudices and approaching objectivity. For example, the requirement that trial judges be objective in their official capacity.

The main obstacle to true objectivity is that it takes work. Objectivity runs contrary to our evolutionary "need for speed." We have the capacity for both empathy and rationality; but it takes work and time to really apply them to any given issue to the extent required for true objectivity.
 
Last edited:

Nomendei

Elegance of chaos
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
652
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Firstly, I want to precise something. Someone who is considered as a naïve realist thinks that he is superior to others. But someone who thinks to be superior isn’t necessary a naïve realist.
For example, take a person with a lot of qualities. He is smart, charismatic, workaholic, social, and very kind. Then take someone who is totally dysfunctional. He is violent, ugly, fat, mentally not advanced and dislikable. If you compare the two, is someone superior? I guess the answer is clear. Sometimes, the difference is subtler, more complex. And what happens when you are aware of it? You feel superior. And you are. Does this mean you are naively realistic?
  • Do you believe anyone can truly be totally unbiased and objective? (approach with a completely open mind, stepping away from preconceived ideas and notions about what is fair, just, right, wrong, etc.) If yes, I hope you'll share.

No. no one can. This would not only need omnipotence, but also a clear definition of justice with scientific criteria. There are a lot of situations where justice contradicts itself.
  • Why do you think so few seem to be aware of how their biases can/may distort their perceptions? Causing them to view the one who does not see things the "right way" (same as them) as ignorant, gullible, evil/reprehensible, etc.

I don’t want to assert my superiority upon others, but I will take myself as an example, because I know myself best and your description fits me.
So, I often say that I can place myself in other’s shoes. But why? After reflection I came to the following hypothesis. I may have lived a short life, but it was rich in experience, and I am rather smart. I’ve seen the beauty of the world. I traveled a lot. I have seen how people feel joy across the earth. I laughed with poor and rich. But I also saw it’s dark, tragic side. I have been mobbed, so I can relate to everyone that once was mobbed, everyone that had a low self-esteem and everyone who mentally suffered. I’ve been in countries where kids where starving next to luxurious hotels, chased by the security. I walked on streets on which dog corpses were left to rot. I saw how people died. How everything can end anytime, anywhere. I saw how people descended into madness. My brain analyses everything my eyes see. My memories are impressive, and my knowledge is wide. And to better understand someone, I imagine myself in their situation. I love to talk. It’s fascinating. Finding out how someone thinks, what they’ve been through, what their secrets are. Knowing how everyone thinks, I can make better criteria to judge someone.
Understanding how people think makes me feel superior. I often was surprised by what I learned, so I developed a critical thinking system. And I analyze myself like I analyze others. I learned my weaknesses, and I discovered my strengths. But don’t get me wrong. I’m not naïve. I may feel superior, but it doesn’t mean I see myself as good. Am self-aware. I know how people perceive me. If we were in a fictional work, I would certainly be the villain.
 

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Firstly, I want to precise something. Someone who is considered as a naïve realist thinks that he is superior to others. But someone who thinks to be superior isn’t necessary a naïve realist.

This is such a mess of a thread I have no idea where to begin or whether anything should be added at all.
"Naive" realism is an epistemic framework and has nothing to do with moral character. It is not to be confused with direct realism which usually implies, against indirect realism and other approaches (phenomenalism, idealism or what have you), that objects are perceived without an intermediary. At least two types of naive realism exist - naive direct and naive indirect realism against "scientific" direct and "scientific" indirect realism, the difference being the properties the actual object supposedly retains in observation. One of the many arguments heavily supporting direct naive realism is that the scientific realist's claim rests upon a problematic distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Dancy's Contemporary Epistemology provides a lucid and concise introduction to the topic.

None of these positions necessitate infallibility. No naive realist would make the claim that we're seeing the world "as it is" sine ira et studio, most would not even dare assert that the object is potentially graspable in its totality.
If anyone is reading this, please stop politicising technical terms you do not understand. It's fine if you're not interested in technicalities, it's not fine to twist them according to an agenda. This is going to get us killed, and I wish I were joking.
 

Nomendei

Elegance of chaos
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
652
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
This is such a mess of a thread I have no idea where to begin or whether anything should be added at all.
"Naive" realism is an epistemic framework and has nothing to do with moral character. It is not to be confused with direct realism which usually implies, against indirect realism and other approaches (phenomenalism, idealism or what have you), that objects are perceived without an intermediary. At least two types of naive realism exist - naive direct and naive indirect realism against "scientific" direct and "scientific" indirect realism, the difference being the properties the actual object supposedly retains in observation. One of the many arguments heavily supporting direct naive realism is that the scientific realist's claim rests upon a problematic distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Dancy's Contemporary Epistemology provides a lucid and concise introduction to the topic.

None of these positions necessitate infallibility. No naive realist would make the claim that we're seeing the world "as it is" sine ira et studio, most would not even dare assert that the object is potentially graspable in its totality.
If anyone is reading this, please stop politicising technical terms you do not understand. It's fine if you're not interested in technicalities, it's not fine to twist them according to an agenda. This is going to get us killed, and I wish I were joking.


Your response to my suggestion was encouraging. Thank you for taking the time to point out both the positive and negative sides. I am glad to have a member who can respond with such insight. You are correct in pointing out that being technically correct is our primary objective. I am confident that the combined efforts of the members of Typology Central will give us a pleasant experience.
giphy.gif



This is going to get us killed, and I wish I were joking.

giphy.gif
 

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
No need to be sarcastic, quoting your post was a way of pointing out my concerns with the thread itself, I have nothing against you personally. I am concerned with how scientific and philosophical terms are appropriated and twisted without proper background knowledge. On a larger scale, it almost certainly leads to calamity, as it quite often already has. Think of dialectics or vitalism.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
“Have you ever noticed when you’re driving,” the comedian George Carlin commented, “that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”

No actually, I haven't. If someone drives by like a bat out of hell, I burst out laughing.
 

jamain

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
48
MBTI Type
IST_
“Have you ever noticed when you’re driving,” the comedian George Carlin commented, “that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”

No actually, I haven't. If someone drives by like a bat out of hell, I burst out laughing.

That's probably a healthier approach than most take.
 

jamain

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
48
MBTI Type
IST_
The situation is pretty much as described in the articles suggested at the end of your post. In short: Our brains operate at lightning speed, largely by taking shortcuts and making lots of assumptions.
I agree! Due to cognitive biases we usually don't even realize that we are making those assumptions. Unless of course we engage in a debate with those who are really good at sniffing out presuppositions.

From the evolutionary point of view: As early humans moving across the African savannah, we didn't have time to parse everything in detail, because we would get eaten by a lion or whatever while we were pausing and thinking. So we learned to move quickly and draw conclusions based on partial data.

In modern times, this evolutionary heritage often works great for dealing with tangibles and routine things like deciding what to eat or whether or not some situation is dangerous. But it doesn't work so well when it comes to complex issues. Our evolutionary "need for speed" may cause us to seize on simple facts and view them as all we need to know about the issue. Meantime anyone who insists on a deeper or more nuanced analysis gets seen as a waster of our time or even a threat to our survival--they'll cause us to metaphorically fall behind and be eaten.
There is a definitely a need for balance. I unfortunately often fall into a pattern of excessive analyzation and this sometimes causes me to go in circles, especially on topics that I consider of great importance. (analysis paralysis) I think my tendency to do this is why I often find myself watching with great interest those who go so vociferously at each other, all convinced of their own rightness. Although sometime I am just a bit envious that they can achieve that level of confidence, even if I happen to disagree with their conclusion.



Sure, there are plenty of philosophical models and even real-life examples for distancing oneself from one's biases and prejudices and approaching objectivity. For example, the requirement that trial judges be objective in their official capacity.

The main obstacle to true objectivity is that it takes work. Objectivity runs contrary to our evolutionary "need for speed." We have the capacity for both empathy and rationality; but it takes work and time to really apply them to any given issue to the extent required for true objectivity.

All good points and I don't disagree with any of them.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
[MENTION=23157]jamain[/MENTION]:

Thanks for your positive comments on my post.

I unfortunately often fall into a pattern of excessive analyzation and this sometimes causes me to go in circles, especially on topics that I consider of great importance. (analysis paralysis) I think my tendency to do this is why I often find myself watching with great interest those who go so vociferously at each other, all convinced of their own rightness. Although sometime I am just a bit envious that they can achieve that level of confidence, even if I happen to disagree with their conclusion.

Only 24 posts in 4 years of membership at TypoC? It does sound like you do indeed get into bouts of "analysis paralysis" before posting. :D

I have a couple thoughts on the idea of "analysis paralysis," but first let me back up and speak broadly about the subject of the thread in general.

Going back to my previous post: The enemy here (the thing we should try to avoid when coming to quick conclusions on issues) is superficial thinking or confirmation bias.

As I discussed in my previous post, superficiality/confirmation bias occurs when we analyze things based on shortcuts, limited info, and lots of assumptions in order to come up with quick conclusions that "feel" right but may actually be riddled with errors of one type or another.

As for "analysis paralysis," I suppose that it could be considered another type of superficial thinking or confirmation bias. That is, the thinker applies lots of thought and time into analyzing a topic in order to achieve greater rigor (because the topic is important), but the thinker is unfortunately still stuck in a rut masticating the same old shortcuts, limited info, and assumptions. In other words, stress is causing him to think more slowly and carefully, but he's not really using that extra time to broaden his perspective. He's just masticating the same old material and not really achieving any greater measure of creativity or broader perspective.

Robert Greene wrote an interesting book called "Mastery." In one section he talks about "breadth of focus" versus "narrowness of focus" when one is analyzing an important topic. He says that our natural tendency is to narrow our focus when working or under stress: "When we are consumed with a particular project, our attention tends to become quite narrow as we focus so deeply. We grow tense. In this state, our mind responds by trying to reduce the amount of stimuli we have to deal with. We literally close ourselves off from the world in order to concentrate on what is necessary." [...] "This can have the unintended consequence of making it harder for us to see other possibilities, to be more open and creative with our ideas." [p. 184]

To me, that sounds similar to "analysis paralysis." It's a form of thinking that requires a lot of work but still tends to remain superficial because it's one-dimensional; it doesn't expand out to see other possibilities.

The opposite would be "breadth of focus": That is, deliberately widen one's focus to take in more possibilities and inputs. To do this, Greene suggests two things:
--Widen your search by taking in info from related fields or from theories that run counter to yours.
--"Maintain an openness and looseness of spirit. In moments of great tension and searching, you allow yourself moments of release. You take walks, engage in activities outside your work (Einstein played the violin), or think about something else, no matter how trivial." (p. 185)

Hence, in my original post I said, "We have the capacity for both empathy and rationality; but it takes work and time to really apply them to any given issue to the extent required for true objectivity."

Notice the bolding of the word "and" this time. One way to achieve broader focus is to switch back and forth between two perspectives. With politics and social issues, I like to switch back and forth between empathy/compassion and rationality. That is:
--Empathy/compassion in the sense of "reading into" the lives of other people and seeing things from their perspective.
--Rationality in the sense of "thinking into" an abstract problem and finding a point of greatest intellectual equity and balance between contrasting concepts.

By switching back and forth between empathy/compassion and rationality, I hope to avoid superficial thinking (confirmation bias, narrowness of focus) and achieve a broader perspective on things. It takes work, but it keeps my focus broader.

Of course, there are other ways to achieve broadness of focus; it doesn't necessarily have to be about balancing empathy/compassion vs. rationality. Greene suggests lots of ways of breaking out of the rut of narrowness of focus:
--learn related fields to make new associations between different ideas
--look at problems from all possible angles
--seeing more and more aspects of reality
--originality
--take a piece of work and improvise on it
--stop imitating the work of other people and express your own ideas
--several ideas dovetail in your mind
--the capability "of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason"
--make your mind active & exploratory
--and so on.

But when it comes to political/social issues, I personally like playing off rationality against empathy/compassion to get a new perspective on things.

I'll stop here. That's probably more than you wanted to know. And maybe you're thinking of something else entirely when you said "analysis paralysis." But I figured I would take a swing at the issue. I recently read Greene's "Mastery," and Greene has a lot to say about the nature of creativity and focus in the problem-solving process.

Interesting thread. Thanks!
 

jamain

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
48
MBTI Type
IST_
[MENTION=23157]jamain[/MENTION]:

Thanks for your positive comments on my post.
It was deserved you put some thought into it and made constructive points.

Only 24 posts in 4 years of membership at TypoC? It does sound like you do indeed get into bouts of "analysis paralysis" before posting. :D
I spend the bulk of my time on Personality Cafe. I have about 3800 post on PerC, but I decided to make a more concerted effort to participate on TypoC.
I have a couple thoughts on the idea of "analysis paralysis," but first let me back up and speak broadly about the subject of the thread in general.

Going back to my previous post: The enemy here (the thing we should try to avoid when coming to quick conclusions on issues) is superficial thinking or confirmation bias.
I actually wish I could come to quicker conclusions most of the time, or even come to a conclusion at all. One of my greatest enemies is self doubt. I always feel like there is something more I should look at, maybe I missed something my first time through, maybe bias caused me to come to this conclusion, I like this conclusion I should probably reject it because bias probably lead me to filter out what didn't fit, and on and on it goes ad nauseam. I can't even figure out for sure my personalty type because I never trust the results and always feel like biases may have come into play. It's aggravating and a bit like trying to find ones footing on quicksand. Sometimes I just have to give myself a mental kick and force myself to make a decision one way or the other.

As I discussed in my previous post, superficiality/confirmation bias occurs when we analyze things based on shortcuts, limited info, and lots of assumptions in order to come up with quick conclusions that "feel" right but may actually be riddled with errors of one type or another.

As for "analysis paralysis," I suppose that it could be considered another type of superficial thinking or confirmation bias. That is, the thinker applies lots of thought and time into analyzing a topic in order to achieve greater rigor (because the topic is important), but the thinker is unfortunately still stuck in a rut masticating the same old shortcuts, limited info, and assumptions. In other words, stress is causing him to think more slowly and carefully, but he's not really using that extra time to broaden his perspective. He's just masticating the same old material and not really achieving any greater measure of creativity or broader perspective.
Makes sense if you keep analyzing the same material you're going to keep getting the same outcome that you don't trust. I have been guilty of that at times, it's like I think I may have missed something the other 20 times and maybe if I look at it one more time I'll be able to make sense of it. I should mention that I have contemplated that OCD is a factor for me.

Robert Greene wrote an interesting book called "Mastery." In one section he talks about "breadth of focus" versus "narrowness of focus" when one is analyzing an important topic. He says that our natural tendency is to narrow our focus when working or under stress: "When we are consumed with a particular project, our attention tends to become quite narrow as we focus so deeply. We grow tense. In this state, our mind responds by trying to reduce the amount of stimuli we have to deal with. We literally close ourselves off from the world in order to concentrate on what is necessary." [...] "This can have the unintended consequence of making it harder for us to see other possibilities, to be more open and creative with our ideas." [p. 184]

To me, that sounds similar to "analysis paralysis." It's a form of thinking that requires a lot of work but still tends to remain superficial because it's one-dimensional; it doesn't expand out to see other possibilities.

The opposite would be "breadth of focus": That is, deliberately widen one's focus to take in more possibilities and inputs. To do this, Greene suggests two things:
--Widen your search by taking in info from related fields or from theories that run counter to yours.
--"Maintain an openness and looseness of spirit. In moments of great tension and searching, you allow yourself moments of release. You take walks, engage in activities outside your work (Einstein played the violin), or think about something else, no matter how trivial." (p. 185)

Hence, in my original post I said, "We have the capacity for both empathy and rationality; but it takes work and time to really apply them to any given issue to the extent required for true objectivity."

Notice the bolding of the word "and" this time. One way to achieve broader focus is to switch back and forth between two perspectives. With politics and social issues, I like to switch back and forth between empathy/compassion and rationality. That is:
--Empathy/compassion in the sense of "reading into" the lives of other people and seeing things from their perspective.
--Rationality in the sense of "thinking into" an abstract problem and finding a point of greatest intellectual equity and balance between contrasting concepts.

By switching back and forth between empathy/compassion and rationality, I hope to avoid superficial thinking (confirmation bias, narrowness of focus) and achieve a broader perspective on things. It takes work, but it keeps my focus broader.

Of course, there are other ways to achieve broadness of focus; it doesn't necessarily have to be about balancing empathy/compassion vs. rationality. Greene suggests lots of ways of breaking out of the rut of narrowness of focus:
--learn related fields to make new associations between different ideas
--look at problems from all possible angles
--seeing more and more aspects of reality
--originality
--take a piece of work and improvise on it
--stop imitating the work of other people and express your own ideas
--several ideas dovetail in your mind
--the capability "of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason"
--make your mind active & exploratory
--and so on.

But when it comes to political/social issues, I personally like playing off rationality against empathy/compassion to get a new perspective on things.

I'll stop here. That's probably more than you wanted to know. And maybe you're thinking of something else entirely when you said "analysis paralysis." But I figured I would take a swing at the issue. I recently read Greene's "Mastery," and Greene has a lot to say about the nature of creativity and focus in the problem-solving process.
That's interesting and it gives me something else to think about. What the author suggest makes a lot of sense.

Interesting thread. Thanks!
Well thank you, I actually needed to hear that. One of the comments below yours initially made me question starting a thread on TypoC. Then I thought good grief girl, it's one comment you're tougher than that. Thanks for the information about the book, I put in a request from my library for it. Maybe I'm doing what he said and not realizing it.
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
Well thank you, I actually needed to hear that. One of the comments below yours initially made me question starting a thread on TypoC. Then I thought good grief girl, it's one comment you're tougher than that. Thanks for the information about the book, I put in a request from my library for it. Maybe I'm doing what he said and not realizing it.

Great! Glad I could help. All the best!
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
[MENTION=23157]jamain[/MENTION]:

I was in a hurry last night, so I didn't give much of a final response. So I just want to come back to what we were talking about and hit two quick points. First:

One of the comments below yours initially made me question starting a thread on TypoC. Then I thought good grief girl, it's one comment you're tougher than that.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what was going on there. Some guy was worried about precision in the use of philosophical terms. I think the appropriate response is "Okay, thanks for pointing that out" and then move on.

The second issue that I want to address with this post:

In my earlier I was talking about "breadth of focus." In that post I said:

One way to achieve broader focus is to switch back and forth between two perspectives.

I talked about something similar in another thread, so this is a cross-post. But below is a link for a TED talk (20 minutes) by well-known social scientist Johnathan Haidt on the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives and what it means for society. He argues for taking a "dual-perspective" viewpoint on social and political issues.

Link: YouTube

At minute 15:00 in the video Haidt says, "Once you see that liberals and conservatives both have something to contribute, that they form a balance on change versus stability, then I think the way is open to step outside the moral matrix." He compares this viewpoint to yin and yang, that is, the embrace of opposites. Then at 17:36 he says it may only be possible to attain this "dual-perspective" viewpoint for a minute or two. But he says that if you're able to do it, then for that minute or two you'll get rid of a lot of the biases that distort perception and achieve something close to true objectivity. That addresses the questions you raised at the very start of the thread.

So that's something that I try to shoot for when discussing political and social issues. I ask myself: "Have I honestly tried to see things from the other guy's perspective, even if just for a couple minutes?" The answer is pretty obvious. And I find that I get much greater clarity on an issue if I can answer in the affirmative.

It's a good video to watch. Also, there's a related video (14 minutes) on a similar subject by the same guy. It's on the dangers of surrounding yourself with like-minded people and living in a bubble where you only hear what you want to hear. That kind of addresses the dangers of superficiality and confirmation bias, and how they distort our reasoning.

Link: YouTube

All the best!
 

jamain

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
48
MBTI Type
IST_
[MENTION=23157]jamain[/MENTION]:

I was in a hurry last night, so I didn't give much of a final response. So I just want to come back to what we were talking about and hit two quick points. First:



Yeah, I'm not really sure what was going on there. Some guy was worried about precision in the use of philosophical terms. I think the appropriate response is "Okay, thanks for pointing that out" and then move on.

The second issue that I want to address with this post:

In my earlier I was talking about "breadth of focus." In that post I said:



I talked about something similar in another thread, so this is a cross-post. But below is a link for a TED talk (20 minutes) by well-known social scientist Johnathan Haidt on the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives and what it means for society. He argues for taking a "dual-perspective" viewpoint on social and political issues.

Link: YouTube

At minute 15:00 in the video Haidt says, "Once you see that liberals and conservatives both have something to contribute, that they form a balance on change versus stability, then I think the way is open to step outside the moral matrix." He compares this viewpoint to yin and yang, that is, the embrace of opposites. Then at 17:36 he says it may only be possible to attain this "dual-perspective" viewpoint for a minute or two. But he says that if you're able to do it, then for that minute or two you'll get rid of a lot of the biases that distort perception and achieve something close to true objectivity. That addresses the questions you raised at the very start of the thread.

So that's something that I try to shoot for when discussing political and social issues. I ask myself: "Have I honestly tried to see things from the other guy's perspective, even if just for a couple minutes?" The answer is pretty obvious. And I find that I get much greater clarity on an issue if I can answer in the affirmative.

It's a good video to watch. Also, there's a related video (14 minutes) on a similar subject by the same guy. It's on the dangers of surrounding yourself with like-minded people and living in a bubble where you only hear what you want to hear. That kind of addresses the dangers of superficiality and confirmation bias, and how they distort our reasoning.

Link: YouTube

All the best!

Hope to have time to watch the video this evening. Your comments reminded me of a member on PerC who speaks regularly of chaos and order and how the two pull against each other. He feels they both have a role to play in striving towards that which is more ideal. In the U.S. he refers to the Democrats as chaos and the Republican as order. He criticizes both, but will then go on to say they are both necessary for balance.
 

GoldenDawn

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
32
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
1w9
The bias is the key aspect. Everyone is inclined to some notion of a metaphysics that could explain our scientific unknowns, and when we try to bring sense to these ideas we can experiment and sometimes discover new knowledge. If metaphysics is the intuitive conjecture of unsensible physics then it is the job of physics to establish a framework of sense around these ideas. When people choose to believe that metaphysical conjectures are grounding reality they become prone to biases in how they make sense of reality. So I think it's both key to grasp the framework and maintain a healthy agnosticism on epistemologically incalculable matters.
 

Tengri

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
558
  • Why do you think so few seem to be aware of how their biases can/may distort their perceptions? Causing them to view the one who does not see things the "right way" (same as them) as ignorant, gullible, evil/reprehensible, etc.
I would argue that most people are subconsciously aware that their perceptions are not entirely accurate, hence they take mental shortcuts and choose an emotional bias to fill in the blanks. You can't truly be sure of most abstract concepts i.e. the sun is millions of miles away, time is not constant, green is a word - not a color without a complex cultural framework of language, biases meshed with individual understanding and subjective experience. The pitfall of taking perceptions at face value is similar to the recent concept of truthiness: evidence that logical (and especially platonic) thought is an exercise in deduction, not necessarily the organic way that the human mind works. That's to say that someone's conviction is often indicative of holes in their reasoning, while unsurety may be its opposite

  • Do you believe anyone can truly be totally unbiased and objective? (approach with a completely open mind, stepping away from preconceived ideas and notions about what is fair, just, right, wrong, etc.) If yes, I hope you'll share.
No, that's just storybook fiction. People can choose to restrain their biases, discriminating thoughts, fears to make a concerted effort to practice good judgement, but I doubt it could ever be a perpetual state of mind.
 

Lib

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
577
  • Why do you think so few seem to be aware of how their biases can/may distort their perceptions? Causing them to view the one who does not see things the "right way" (same as them) as ignorant, gullible, evil/reprehensible, etc.
Because people usually have no intention to be intellectually honest in the first place. They often try to promote explanations that favor their position, omitting all the other facts that show differently.

  • Do you believe anyone can truly be totally unbiased and objective? (approach with a completely open mind, stepping away from preconceived ideas and notions about what is fair, just, right, wrong, etc.) If yes, I hope you'll share.

Yes. In order to be absolutely unbiased, you can try to figure out your biases, what triggers and intensifies them and take it into account.

One could theoretically be right or wrong in their deductions because reality is objective.
 
Top