Most personally convincing reasons you don't believe.

[Drich]

I can't quote book, chapter and verse because I don't have the book with me. I moved in with my sister for a while and only took what I really needed so that book is still at home on my bookshelf. Though I guess you'll think that's a lie.

How two dimensional.
We are discussing bias. I am looking for a citation so as to confirm or deny your assessment of bias. your answer is to dig in to your personal interpretation and citing your own potentially bias work. I ask for The name of the book, A chapter and a specific paragraph or verse so I could potentially look it up, and you response is to make me call you a liar or to take you at your word.

You should just drop out of the conversation if you can not provide the citation you are referencing, or at the very least drop the subject.

The link does work for me, but if you say it doesn't work for you it's under Philosophy>Seeing Red (thread) post #323

Again refercing your past work is still referencing a potentially biased work, Why would you offer your own thoughts as proof if I am calling your take on said thought into question to begin with?

There's not much I can say because you've taken it out of context from the very start. But that's my fault not yours. I should've learned a long time ago that it's not wise to use a technical understanding of a term when there is a popular and emotive use of the term in play. It just ends in them getting conflated and perhaps also by me.

Indeed the fault is not mine, as I asked you to frame the definition of the subject and when you efforts proved to be inadequate I asked for a citation to frame it for myself. Which you failed to provide.

I was talking about very dry subject matter in the context of a heated and emotive discussion and that was just stupidity on my part. I was just trying to talk about neural contexts. There's no bias involved in my interpretation... that's exactly how they work - objectively. They involve a dynamic of bias to get the job done. It's explained in my post above. It's just an inherent effect for you, and me, and everyone... whatever you - we - think about influences what we think next by way of priming related things.

That maybe, but your refusal to take my specific into consideration showed that while you may have knowledge of technical bias you are not able to refrain from processing information without subjecting it to your own bias.

I'm angry now, yes, but calming down. Anger is never worth it in the long run and just brings me down. As much as I can I try to step back from it, it's just harder when someone won't drop it. It's entirely possible, probable in fact, that in that state I have a demonised version of you in my head - a delusion - that is highly affected by confirmation bias... not much different from what can happen in a mafia game. It's what can happen in a situation of low information, such as a mafia game. I don't know you personally and for all I know you could be the kindest and most loving person in real life, but all I've got to work with here is what I see, and in anger that can be affected by paranoia and confirmation bias.

That's not all you fault as I do operate in a detached manner and I do let people's opinions of me go where ever they like unchecked, and as i do not have a popular message I tend to get vilified as it is just easier to hate what you oppose rather than try and reconcile/separate the messenger from the message.