MennoNet.com

Bootstrap wrote:I've been thinking about the way people use the word bias here. Often, they look at something they don't like and immediately dismiss it as biased if it does not agree with their point of view. But here's what bias means:

Bias is an inclination or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view.

Often, I think people say "that's biased" when they really mean "this isn't expressing my viewpoint". And here's one useful test: if you can look at something and decide that it's biased in 30 seconds, you haven't taken the time to examine the facts it presents and compare it to other presentations of the same facts. Of course, you can often read an article quickly and determine that no verifiable facts are presented, that it uses blatant propaganda techniques, etc., but when the article presents facts, dismissing them that quickly usually points to your own bias.

The people most likely to shout "that's biased" are often the least likely to be open to a careful, patient examination of the facts, especially if they might interfere with your existing point of view. And that's the textbook definition of bias.

But here's another problem: I think I can see your bias. You think you can see mine. We're probably both right. If we don't take the time for a patient, friendly discussion, neither of will learn.

Szdfan wrote:And I agree with Boot, bias is often used as a way to dismiss an article out of hand that we don't agree with. I know I do that probably more often than I care to admit.

temporal1 wrote:i agree, and, as i stated above, i see it for myself, as well.
one way to discern "reading with bias" is present, is when it's obvious posts are not read in whole (which i do, and i see others do) - whether it's a news source, or the one sitting next to you in church, when you have "summed that person up," listening ends. sometimes worthwhile things get lost in the mix. but, it's how the human brain works.

in a laboratory setting, attempts to control can be made - but, as has been repeated+repeated, even labs and science can be, and usually are, biased. there is no "purity" of human thought. that's delusional.

scriptures correctly refer to filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6

Wade wrote:I have a bias. My bias is that bias is good.

"Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners." - 1 Corinthians 15:33

"...for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" - 2 Corinthians 6:14b

The perplexing part of it all is that I will always in this life only ever have a partial perspective.

Wade wrote:I have a bias. My bias is that bias is good.

"Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners." - 1 Corinthians 15:33

"...for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" - 2 Corinthians 6:14b

The perplexing part of it all is that I will always in this life only ever have a partial perspective.

temporal1 wrote:it's a beautiful thing to "go as far as i'm humanly able," then to turn it all over to God's Will.
this brings peace.

Robert wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:But here's another problem: I think I can see your bias. You think you can see mine. We're probably both right. If we don't take the time for a patient, friendly discussion, neither of will learn.

I see your bias quite easily. I bloviate mine with the same libatious verbosity.

I always think of tires when the word bias comes up.

Tires have bias. They will tend to wear and pull in one direction over time. This is why they have to be rotated to get maximum wear from them.

We all have bias. We each have developed a world view. We filter things with that world view. If it does not fit, we tend to reject it until it has hit us enough times that we have to consider rotating our tires a bit. If we rotate our tires every time we feel a slight tug, we will be in the shop constantly and never get anywhere. It is only after constantly feeling that pull, do we stop and get it addressed.

The challenge is someone else will jump in my vehicle and say, hey this pulls to the right. Mine pulls to the left, so yours needs to be fixed. I am used to the right pull and it doesn't bother me. I still get to where I need to get. Only when I fall asleep is it an issue.

So just because I have a bias, it doesn't mean I can not, nor will not get to where I need to be.

Current events: Many with a liberal bent will fix that bias for the next 4 years like many with a conservative bias fought the past 8 years. They are just waking up feeling like the other group did for 8 years. We will all get to where we need to be. Some will fit that bias more, but, if they stay awake, will get there.

Now, if we put biased tires on both sides and balance them just right, we find we can drive quite well. So opposing bias can be a very good thing. I love to hear from others who see things differently. Just because I do not agree, doesn't mean it is not worth hearing or considering. It will just take a really big "jerk" to the left to make me stop and get my tires rotated because I can easily compensate as I drive.

gcdonner wrote: You are misconstruing the definition of bias in your explanation. Tires are only referred to as "bias plied" as opposed to "radial" tires. The vast majority of modern tires are radial. Unfortunately, your analogy has broken down and not due to bias, but due to a lack of understanding of the construction of tires. It has nothing to do what so ever with the wear of tires over time, though radial tires tend to wear more evenly than bias ply tires. The way a car pulls is most often determined by alignment, which in your analogy is unrelated to the topic at hand...
Stick with electronic a cyber illustrations and leave the mechanics to those who are definitely NOT biased in any way, shape or form, since we are well rounded and not lopsided as bias ply tires tend to be, especially early in the morning after having set in one spot for an extended period of time.