Acknowledging and Confronting our own biases

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
I am posting this to spur a Meta-level discussion where people can share their experiences in acknowledging and confronting their own biases. Not everyone here has an 'out of the rabbit hole' story, but maybe they have a story to share where they confronted their own intellectual biases.

We all (myself included) can suffer from biases that result in (wanting to give) giving a pass to misinformation (or sources of misinformation) that align with our politics/opinions/beliefs. As an example I believe that marijuana should be legalized with restrictions similar to those put on alcohol or tobacco. There are plenty of 'Memes' out there that make the claim that Marijuana cures cancer and that the FDA is part of an effort by 'Big Pharma' to suppress the cure in order to profit from selling drugs to fight cancer. My position is that marijuana should be legal, but I am an opponent of bunk even when it is 'favorable' to my side of a debate, so I have spoken out against the unproven claim that marijuana cures cancer in humans. It would be hypocritical to only speak out against bunk that is at odds with my own politics/opinions and to remain silent when the bunk is used to support my side of things.

Skeptics and debunkers generally are against the spread of misinformation, but can be blind to their own lack of objectivity when it comes to politics, religion and the core beliefs they hold. Taken to an extreme, a person creates an echo chamber (metaphorically speaking) around themselves that dismisses any (sources of) information that conflicts with their core beliefs. Even worse, they will then blindly support a source that spreads misinformation or that spins/cherry picks information based on an ideology they hold. Society and individuals put labels on ourselves and others, creating a division and making distinctions between US and THEM (ie... Conservative vs Liberal, American vs non-American, Debunker vs Conspiracy theorist).

Something I found to be relevant to the current state of affairs:

in 1993 Alain Mincclaimed that we were returning to A New Middle Age; something, which was later echoed in a number of other publications (e.g. Lindhardt 2003). This“new” middle age was, Minc wrote, characterised by a collapse of the centrein the form of shared and agreed values; the discrediting of institutions; the replacement of optimism by pessimism; the return not of nationalism but tribalism; the rise of religious extremism and fanaticism amongst Jews,Christians and Muslims alike - to name but a few of the characteristics listed in this (still) fascinating book, which seemed to foresee so much of what actually happened since he published it in 1993.

The term 'Tribalism' is defined as:

Tribalism is the state of being organized in, or an advocate for, a tribe or tribes. In terms of conformity, tribalism may also refer in popular cultural terms to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are (excessively) loyal to their own tribe or social group.
Content from External Source
"The Oxford Dictionary announced a couple weeks ago that "post-truth" is its 2016 word of the year." There have been stories in the News and threads on Metabunk that consider the reasons for the spread of misinformation in America and society as a whole. It is my thought that part of the problem lies in people's lack of objectivity due to Tribalism and blind loyalty to others in their 'tribe'... even when those others are doing things we criticize others for. If people do not face and confront their own biases, this may result in ignoring or spreading misinformation.

Thoughts, anecdotes, personal stories...?
 
Thoughts, anecdotes, personal stories...?
Content from External Source
Thoughts. i try to avoid allowing myself a subjective mind,,, tho guilty of it daily, i can only aspire to do better.

Personal stories... well just the other day i read a post on MB and looked completely over its intent and aim and i went straight to working an answer for my own bias and mistake,,, which was exactly what the post was about duh...

Anecdotes.. i do like this powerful explanation and unraveling of knowledge & certainty vs dogma..


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY


The ending sequence from episode 11 of Jacob Bronowski's excellent 1973 series, The Ascent Of Man.
 
as I grew up my mother had very strong views about organ donation (against it) and vaccinations (against them)

she was the mother of five children (as I am the father of five!!)

anyway inevitably, growing up, by a kind of osmosis I developed the same views re organ donation (against it) as my mother - well into my 20's and early 30's

but increasingly as I had more children I began to see my views were both irrational and baseless - the sole pillar on which they stood was in fact nothing more than a restatement of my mothers views

I realised I personally could not, in all sincerity, defend them

so I changed them

the above is in relation to organ donation so in a way an ethical rather than purely scientific pov

vaccinations is slightly different, I (with my wife) did look into it as it became relevant to my personal situation, even going to a "what the doctors don't tell you" seminar

https://www.wddty.com/

I do think sometimes the medical profession can over medicalise some things

anyway - all my children are vaccinated (for everything) I/we just made sure they were healthy (no sniffles/colds/flu etc) when they had them
 
Last edited:
I try to keep myself balanced by having regular conversations with someone I know to be both transgendered and somewhat to the left of where I sit politically (I consider myself to be a 'Radical Centrist' (e.g. A cynic.)), we've agreed on a lot, but the disagreements have been very useful in challenging my assumptions (and theirs.), there is something that I would like to add to the discussion.

One thing I try to do is keep an eye on the right-wing sites that I can stand and something I have noticed is the appearance since the Brexit vote and Trumps victory in the US Federal election of claims that the 'Left' are incapable of understanding how they lost and that is why they lost (e.g. They no longer understand people outside their social media silos.) fairly typical of this meme is the following blog post by Coast2Coast AMs 'science advisor':


Clueless: According to this Nature article, researchers are completed baffled by the recent surge in nationalism in Europe and the United States, best illustrated by the UK vote to leave the European Union and the victory of Donald Trump in the U.S.

The cluelessness reeks throughout every word, but I can’t quote the whole article.
Content from External Source
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-th...ion/researchers-baffled-by-nationalist-surge/

The article he is referring to is this one:


Waves of nationalist sentiment are reshaping the politics of Western democracies in unexpected ways — carrying Donald Trump to a surprise victory last month in the US presidential election, and pushing the United Kingdom to vote in June to exit the European Union. And nationalist parties are rising in popularity across Europe.

Many economists see this political shift as a consequence of globalization and technological innovation over the past quarter of a century, which have eliminated many jobs in the West. And political scientists are tracing the influence of cultural tensions arising from immigration and from ethnic, racial and sexual diversity. But researchers are struggling to understand why these disparate forces have combined to drive an unpredictable brand of populist politics.
Content from External Source
http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-baffled-by-nationalist-surge-1.21110
 
We all (myself included) can suffer from biases that result in (wanting to give) giving a pass to misinformation (or sources of misinformation) that align with our politics/opinions/beliefs


I think the key (one of) to recognizing and confronting one's own bias is the willingness and ability to admit when you are wrong. Its much easier said than done.
 
I think the key (one of) to recognizing and confronting one's own bias is the willingness and ability to admit when you are wrong. Its much easier said than done.

And in the current American University climate, you have strong social pressures being exerted to encourage people to not challenge their opinions because hearing them may cause psychological harm:

The safe space, Ms. Byron explained, was intended to give people who might find comments “troubling” or “triggering,” a place to recuperate. The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma. Emma Hall, a junior, rape survivor and “sexual assault peer educator” who helped set up the room and worked in it during the debate, estimates that a couple of dozen people used it. At one point she went to the lecture hall — it was packed — but after a while, she had to return to the safe space. “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs,” Ms. Hall said.
Content from External Source
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0
 
hearing them may cause psychological harm
that was a very good article but I personally find your chosen quote distasteful. That section was about a rape victim who tried to attend a "debate" about "rape culture" and found she couldn't tolerate it at that time. I applaud her for even attempting to attend. If she can't cope with "challenging her opinion" on rape at this time, there is absolutely nothing abnormal or "bad" about that.

I'm not exactly Miss Sensitivity, but i think in discussion of that particular article it is important to remember that at least half the college population isnt even old enough to drink legally. Young "adults" commit suicide and commit mass homicide. their frontal lobes aren't even fully developed.

The article in full isnt really about "safe spaces" for rape victims. It's about how the concept is oozing into other areas of college life, often to ridiculous extremes.

Do i think colleges should stop holding debates or introducing adult topics because some students don't like what is being said? Absolutely not.
 
that was a very good article but I personally find your chosen quote distasteful. That section was about a rape victim who tried to attend a "debate" about "rape culture" and found she couldn't tolerate it at that time. I applaud her for even attempting to attend. If she can't cope with "challenging her opinion" on rape at this time, there is absolutely nothing abnormal or "bad" about that.

I'm not exactly Miss Sensitivity, but i think in discussion of that particular article it is important to remember that at least half the college population isnt even old enough to drink legally. Young "adults" commit suicide and commit mass homicide. their frontal lobes aren't even fully developed.

The article in full isnt really about "safe spaces" for rape victims. It's about how the concept is oozing into other areas of college life, often to ridiculous extremes.

Do i think colleges should stop holding debates or introducing adult topics because some students don't like what is being said? Absolutely not.

Ok, maybe it was not the best example, but it is much better than some of the claims I've seen on YouTube, where if you can stand to look for them you will find videos that purport to show people demanding 'safe spaces' because they are 'triggered' by seeing white people (Just in case anyone misses the tone, I think those videos are fake/selectively edited.)

Regarding the second point while looking for a better article I found one on Vox that quotes the outgoing president:

It’s not just sometimes folks who are mad that colleges are too liberal that have a problem. Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too. I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, "You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say." That’s not the way we learn either.
Content from External Source
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correctness

Sadly, that point of view is loosing.
 
This is a blog post dated January 24, 2017, in which the author is commenting on what they (a self-proclaimed Transsexual) dislike about current activist trends, and that thing is internet group-think:


...the majority of posts I saw were basically saying that the majority of those protesting did not have valid concerns, that they should be ignored for not doing things the way the activists would prefer them to.

That because they were marching for reasons that meant something important to them as individuals but did not explicitly seek to include other groups they were somehow hostile to those other groups.
Content from External Source
https://bjforshaw.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/activism-and-alienation-why-i-feel-excluded/

I actively monitor various sites I consider to be right-wing, so that I know what they are saying and then try to find sources other than the ones they quote, so I know how to counter them. It is getting much harder thanks to search-engine optimization.
 
I try very hard, to argue with myself and my beliefs. I visit and read opinions I do not agree with.
Sometimes biases are very deep, and it's hard to toss them away so easily. This is when I turn to the preponderance of evidence.

I've always wondered if, occasionally, it would be a good exercise to formally and publicly debate "for" ideas I don't currently believe in, or perceive as 'true'. (as a debating exercise)

I college, we had a classroom assignment where we pulled ideas out of a hat, and we had to formulate a debate based 'in favor' our random 'hat' choice assignments.....regardless if we didn't agree with them prior.
This is not an uncommon exercise in good school curriculum. It's critical thinking.

I've thought of a starting a post here, where we 'role-play' and use our best debating skills to argue FOR (in favor of) some common controversial topic that's opposite of our beliefs and/or biases.
 
Last edited:
I hypothesize that it primarily has to do with narcissism. The more narcissistic a person is, the more difficult it is challenge their own thoughts and beliefs, let alone even consider the option that they might be wrong. The ones who suffer from it the most - when they are exposed as being incorrect, they not only disagree, but seem to view it as a threat to their own self-worth - sometimes so much so, you would think their very own existence was attached to it. They will deny, reword, lie, gaslight, blame, shame, and smear you, and then "change history" so that they are now the victim, and you are the perpetrator. They will resort to all these things, rather than admit they could possibly have been wrong.
 
I actively monitor various sites I consider to be right-wing, so that I know what they are saying and then try to find sources other than the ones they quote, so I know how to counter them. It is getting much harder thanks to search-engine optimization.


yes, I sometime use this - it is good to know/understand the mind-set and arguments they use

I liken it to the Russian General Chuikov's tactic - employed against the Germans at the Battle of Stalingrad


Chuikov called it "hugging the enemy"

"It was at Stalingrad that Chuikov developed the important tactic of “hugging the enemy”, Guerrilla warfare, by which under-armed Soviet soldiers kept the German army so close to them as to minimize the superior firepower enjoyed by the Wehrmacht. Chuikov had witnessed firsthand the blitzkrieg tactics the Nazis had used to sweep across the Russian steppe, so he used the Germans' carpet-bombing of the city to draw panzer units into the rubble and chaos, where their progress was impeded. Here they could be destroyed with Molotov cocktails and Russian artillery operating at close range. This tactic also rendered the German Luftwaffe ineffective, since Stuka dive-bombers could not attack Red Army positions without endangering their own forces.[5][6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Chuikov
 
I think bias can be looked at as "programed" responses conditioned by negative, neutral, or positive feedback. It is built into our neurological system, and is a largely a result of subconscious processing and response. A lot of the daily sensory input gets dealt with below our conscious mind in our subconscious. We can't pay attention to every data stream feeding in through our senses. So subconsciously, we take in information and perform triage; how important is this, and does it need to be bumped up to our surface mind. If it's routine it remains up to our subconscious mind to deal with and our conscious mind doesn't "see" it. And what we don't see we don't evaluate intellectually or rationally. It's like when we drive to work on the same route for the thousandth time and arrive at work not even remembering the trip, but we had lots of time to think along the way.

We encounter various situations and each stimulates a response (awareness/alertness/thinking/feeling), and our response is strongly shaped by prior experience. If we have not encountered this stimulus before, we might not have an immediate response because we need more information to make a determination. This type of stimulus is likely to kicked up to the surface mind for processing. We think about what is happening. But if we have had a similar stimulus before and it was a painful experience, we might respond automatically in ways of avoidance, without thinking about it. If it was extremely painful or even life threatening, such as the experience of physical violence, it might be impossible not to run away, or think about it. Or conversely, if it was pleasurable, we might automatically expect the same and want more.

Someone says something to us and we take offense. Why? Do we want to evaluate our feeling of offense or do we respond with defense? Can we mentally step back and take a pause in order to get a better idea of what is happening; why we feel/think the way we do? Or do we respond in predictable, habitual ways?

I think much of the "bias" that resides in our subconscious makes up a large portion of what we identity as "self". Most people don't question that idea that they know who they are. I think that the most difficult stimulus to deal with is the stuff that challenges our view of "self", the concepts about our self and the world that we believe or 'know" are true. For some, a life crisis can be so disturbing they lose touch with their identity of self and no longer know who they are. For other braver people, they chose to challenge their beliefs. Ultimately, I think making the effort to know your self, to pay attention to your thoughts, feelings, and responses to information results in a broadening of the possibilities. We develop greater capability allowing us to chose how we want to respond. This is really what I think of as higher "learning".
 
I found an interesting post by Dr Stephen Novella on the 'Death of Expertise' but he does have an interesting suggestion as to what may have led to the strengthening of peoples reactions to being challenged.

However, one aspect of the current educational culture is that students should never be told they are wrong. In fact we are told to never ask straight factual questions where there is a right or wrong answer. Just ask them what they think. Don’t praise a student for giving a good answer, because then other students will feel slighted if they are not equally praised.
Content from External Source
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-death-of-expertise/
 
I was just going to share one trick that I use all the time and while I can't ever know what biases it fails to correct, I can see it working to correct some bias every time I do it:

I forget where I first read it. Maybe Churchill has a quote about it. But I spend a lot of time really trying to fully understand the argument of the conspiracists. I take a mindset of refusing to think they're just being dumb and really bang my head against what their saying trying to see what variation in word definition might lead to their conclusion.

It's never easy, doesn't always work but the number of times it has changed my perspective from "This guy must be a troll or truly an idiot" to "actually, the mistake he's making is subtle and I can see how that's confusing" is shocking.

Like, truly shocking. In general, it has shown me that the other side is smarter than they seem and that a lot of superficial conflict is over superficial concepts. Couple that with a tendency for both sides to escalate tone too quickly and it's no wonder we have such a poor track record of educating them on the reasons why they're mistaken.
 
Maybe this doesn't have so much to do with biases however I think it is very relevant to the discussion of how our minds could be influenced regarding conspiracy theories, paranoia etc.
You may have heard of the 2 Swedish sisters on the motorway (sounds like it could be a joke!). I watched the program about them, Madness In The Fast Lane, last night. I found it very disturbing probably because it was late and my mind couldn't process it very well.
This morning I am trying to remember where people some with mental illnesses some not have influenced my thinking regarding CTs and paranoia particularly when I was younger.
Anyhow it got me thinking how a persons psychosis/paranoia and what they say or how they act can have an effect on shaping your thoughts and or beliefs. An interesting observation is a lot/most of them seem to be religious/spiritual but the people pulling power they have can be quite unbelievable (i.e. David Wolfe 10.5M followers on facebook). I have only had experience mainly in the alternative health, chemtrail hoax and religion/spiritualist fields.
The power of science I feel can help save this mind bending from happening. The older I get the more I am only trusting in the scientific process for my own safety as I can easily get sucked into conspiracies more so on the health side of things.
The BBC documentary about the sisters is well worth a watch you would swear they were high on some form of drug, it certainly did my head in. I have witnessed a bit of mental illness in my lifetime including my own psychosis due to a spiked drink but this behaviour still really unsettled me.


Ursula and Sabina Eriksson (born 1967) are Swedish twin sisters who came to national attention in the United Kingdom in May 2008 after an apparent episode of folie à deux (or "shared psychosis"), a rare psychiatric disorder in which delusional beliefs are transmitted from one individual to another, which resulted in a series of bizarre incidents on the M6 motorway and the subsequent killing of Glenn Hollinshead of Fenton, Staffordshire. There was no evidence that drugs or alcohol were involved in the incidents on the M6 or the death of Hollinshead.[1][2][3]

The twins had been in Ireland before travelling to England and boarding a coach for London at Liverpool. Their odd behaviour after exiting the coach at a service station on the M6 – including not allowing the bags they were clutching to be searched – caused the driver not to allow them back on the coach. The two were later seen on the central reservation of the M6. When Highways Agency Traffic Officers arrived to assist the women, they ran across the busy motorway. Ursula managed to dodge traffic; Sabina was first struck by a SEAT Leon.

Shortly after police arrived, the women again ran onto the motorway and were struck by oncoming vehicles, a Volkswagen Polo hitting Sabina and a Mercedes-Benz Actros lorry crushing Ursula's legs. Sabina suffered a serious head injury that left her unconscious for several minutes. When Sabina regained consciousness, she refused medical aid and attacked a police officer, at which point she was arrested. Appearing calm, although a bit "odd", as she was processed by police in Stoke-on-Trent, she was therefore released from custody. Shortly afterward she was taken in by Hollinshead, whom she later stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack. She was pursued running from the scene and arrested in hospital after jumping from a bridge onto a busy trunk road, later pleading guilty to manslaughter with diminished responsibility. She was sentenced to five years imprisonment and released on parole in 2011.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_and_Sabina_Eriksson
Content from External Source
 
I have witnessed a bit of mental illness in my lifetime including my own psychosis due to a spiked drink but this behaviour still really unsettled me
I haven't heard of them or seen the episode so I don't know what their delusional belief was, but since paranoia is fear.. I think most people can relate to infectious fear. you go into a creepy/creaky old house with your ghost believing friend and she eventually freaks you out to the point you become 'uncomfortable' in the house too.
 
I haven't heard of them or seen the episode so I don't know what their delusional belief was, but since paranoia is fear.. I think most people can relate to infectious fear. you go into a creepy/creaky old house with your ghost believing friend and she eventually freaks you out to the point you become 'uncomfortable' in the house too.
In certain circumstances you don't need a nervous friend to get your fear up. A few years ago I was walking past a cemetery late at night, it was this one, one of those big old rambling Victorian jobs of the kind thats popular with horror movie producers and goth-metal bands. It was 3am, very dark, with a sky full of scudding clouds and there wasn't a soul to be seen. Now I'm not a believer in the supernatural and I'm not easily spooked, but suddenly the clouds parted, a full moon lit the place up and then this bloody dog started howling. It was like I had walked into a Hammer Horror movie, and I'll admit I started to panic and legged it and it took a good few minutes for my rational self to get control.
 
In certain circumstances you don't need a nervous friend to get your fear up. A few years ago I was walking past a cemetery late at night, it was this one, one of those big old rambling Victorian jobs of the kind thats popular with horror movie producers and goth-metal bands. It was 3am, very dark, with a sky full of scudding clouds and there wasn't a soul to be seen. Now I'm not a believer in the supernatural and I'm not easily spooked, but suddenly the clouds parted, a full moon lit the place up and then this bloody dog started howling. It was like I had walked into a Hammer Horror movie, and I'll admit I started to panic and legged it and it took a good few minutes for my rational self to get control.

Something like that would be an interesting test: I often think that there are really (at least) two levels to beliefs. There are those we state, and those we live by - for example, if someone says they believe in an afterlife, and especially in heaven, then death shouldn't be a problem. So then what happens when someone dies or their own death approaches? Do they look forward to it? Does it trouble them? I think that's where real belief is measured.

I guess your own 'experiment' showed you that, rational as you are in your stated beliefs, there's something deep inside you that is also irrational.

As for me, I believe in 'spirits', but have happily and soundly slept in many a graveyard. :)
 
Last edited:
The show Extranormal in Mexico had a segment where a group of fans of the show were invited to do an investigation in 'haunted ' sites. A retired pro wrestler turned expert in the occult and a camera crew all went.

He had a preparation meeting between the van and the gates that was supposed to guide them to be more alert but actually freaked some out before going in the site.
Religious symbols and tiny flashlights in hand it was usually less than five minutes to mass fear attacks over a random light reflection or a sound no one could explain.

He would ' experience ' physical attacks if it was a tougher group and that usually had all heading out and examining video for Sunday's show.

It was all in the prep work plus being in a 'haunted' place between midnight and 3am that only a few might have seen before. It was genius.

Simple psychology and fear while being in an unfamiliar place. At night during the ' spooky hours ' no less. Armed with a tiny flashlight.

They dropped that trick a while ago but still use the same tricks during televised investigations.

The have proven exactly zero results in decades of investigating. Not one legend turned to solid proof. But that is why they must keep at it. Lol!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top