(March 15, 2018 at 8:24 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:(March 15, 2018 at 8:17 am)Grandizer Wrote: And from the second Wikipedia link, a paragraph which serves as a good response:
Of course, I have biases, and of course, I will never be able to control for all of them satisfactorily. But it does make a difference to acknowledge that one has biases and make an effort to address them. Besides, the question was about whether or not it is the "heart" that leads to the formation of beliefs, rather than the "head". One could be utterly biased, and yet still have their "head" do all the "talking".
Yeah, I read that. I have to wonder how persistent the effect of that education is, and whether or not the corrective effect does not wane with time. Regardless, the bulk of people lack such education and are thus not benefiting from any correction effect.
It seems like these studies apply to the general population, but I wonder what the outcome would be if it was theists in one group and atheists in the other. I do suspect there will be differences, maybe not in terms of one group handling biases better than the other, but in terms of having different sets of priorities (which may imply different sets of biases).
Quote:In case I wasn't clear, the heart/head dichotomy was just a metaphor for the dichotomy between non-rational and rational processes of belief formation and development. In that sense, no, one could not be biased and still have the head do all the talking as it is a part of the definition of bias that it is not a rational process/influence.
So, if I understood you correctly, by "non-rational", you mean "driven by biases overruling logic/reason" rather than "emotional". So this means one can't be "biased for logic/reason" in this sense. Fair enough.
