Let's talk about bias!!!

[downbeatplumb]

So what are your thoughts on bias?

Some things to consider...

How does society as a whole tend towards biased thinking or not?

How do you recognise bias in you own life? How does one ride themselves of bias? Is it an exercise of will or simply something you learn (free will vs determinism)?

Is bias a myth? If it is, what is our (your) role in coming to grips with being wrong (or at least incorrect) or not? Can one justify never being wrong from a theoretical standpoint? 

What would be required to believe (heh) that one does not have any biases?

Is it easier for you to separate seeing bias in others or yourself more?

How does our perception tie into our biases? 

Are our tools to measure the universe fallible due to bias? Why or why not?

Everyone has bias. Fortunately we have a tool especially designed to remove it. Its called the scientific method.

[Mister Agenda]

Although it doesn't seem humanly possible to escape all bias, intellectual honesty requires us to do our best to eliminate or at least reduce bias in ourselves when we are able to recognize it, and especially to mitigate biases in our institutions that may cause unfair treatment.

Less bias better.

[Quick]

So what are your thoughts on bias?

Some things to consider...

How does society as a whole tend towards biased thinking or not?

How do you recognise bias in you own life? How does one ride themselves of bias? Is it an exercise of will or simply something you learn (free will vs determinism)?

Is bias a myth? If it is, what is our (your) role in coming to grips with being wrong (or at least incorrect) or not? Can one justify never being wrong from a theoretical standpoint? 

What would be required to believe (heh) that one does not have any biases?

Is it easier for you to separate seeing bias in others or yourself more?

How does our perception tie into our biases? 

Are our tools to measure the universe fallible due to bias? Why or why not?

Yes, bias exists, even among the top scientist. But, currently our best method to to date to filter out bias is scientific method.

Humans evolved to socialize and most of the time we adapt to the social norms we are raised with. That bias can be overcome to see a bigger global long term picture, sure, but for most humans it is far harder to step outside that circle.

So what are your thoughts on bias?

Some things to consider...

How does society as a whole tend towards biased thinking or not?

How do you recognise bias in you own life? How does one ride themselves of bias? Is it an exercise of will or simply something you learn (free will vs determinism)?

Is bias a myth? If it is, what is our (your) role in coming to grips with being wrong (or at least incorrect) or not? Can one justify never being wrong from a theoretical standpoint? 

What would be required to believe (heh) that one does not have any biases?

Is it easier for you to separate seeing bias in others or yourself more?

How does our perception tie into our biases? 

Are our tools to measure the universe fallible due to bias? Why or why not?

Everyone has bias. Fortunately we have a tool especially designed to remove it. Its called the scientific method.

See the following post

Although it doesn't seem humanly possible to escape all bias, intellectual honesty requires us to do our best to eliminate or at least reduce bias in ourselves when we are able to recognize it, and especially to mitigate biases in our institutions that may cause unfair treatment.

Less bias better.

This requires trusting in the process of the scientific method more than one's bias. How does one overcome such a thing?

[The Grand Nudger]

Technically you'd be trusting the efficacy of logic.  The incorporation of things like blinds, randomized sampling, minimum sample sizes, and collaborative analysis reduce the potential for those things that fuel the relevant biases.

[surreptitious57]

How do you recognise bias in your own life?

How does one ride themselves of bias?

Is it an exercise of will or simply something you learn?

How does our perception tie into our biases? 

Are our tools to measure the universe fallible due to bias?

I recognise bias in my own life whenever I think emotionally rather than logically. I prefer to think logically but because
I am human that is not always possible. Although at least I know when I am doing it and also know it can be corrected

One can never rid themselves of bias because to think without any would be the equivalent of thinking like a machine

Reducing bias is both an act of will and something one learns and gets easier over time. Being aware of logical fallacies
which are flaws in reasoning is probably the most obvious way to detect bias in ones own thinking. I refuse as a matter
of principle to believe any thing because belief is a product of faith and faith positions require zero evidence. And I also
avoid holding strong opinions because they are not facts and so cannot be demonstrated to be true.  Even though they
are not actually incompatible with the knowledge they are based upon

All perception is bias because it is subjective interpretation. Even when a particular view one holds is held by others as
well and even universally so. It is still bias because it involves a choice between at least two alternative positions. The
only time there is no bias is when there is absolutely no choice. But in reality there will always be choices even if one
does not accept them for whatever reason [ legal / moral / psychological ]

The scientific method is not fallible but those who practice it are as scientists are human and biased like everyone else
But they always try to be bias free when they are actually doing science. When they are not doing it it does not matter

[Quick]

Technically you'd be trusting the efficacy of logic.  The incorporation of things like blinds, randomized sampling, minimum sample sizes, and collaborative analysis reduce the potential for those things that fuel the relevant biases.

That may be true, but depending on the branch of psychology, it is not always a given that these methods are incorporated to the extent that you are inferring. Because of this, it leaves a lot of the empirical evidence to represent personality, intelligence and bias wanting. This is also in the realm of what we consider "verifiable" metrics such as Big 5, IQ, and MMPI. In short, we know what we want to measure but there is still a whole bunch of things in our psyche that we have no idea about. Why this matters is that we should first have a good idea of the capabilities and temperaments of individuals who are conducting these other experiments to make sure people are not lying out their ass. Furthermore, with enough confirmation bias, this can overcome something even as foolproof as a double blind experiment if the right environmental triggers are present for the scientists to collaborate to skew the results. Not saying I have evidence of this happening, but just that it is still entirely possible.

---

How do you recognise bias in your own life?

How does one ride themselves of bias?

Is it an exercise of will or simply something you learn?

How does our perception tie into our biases? 

Are our tools to measure the universe fallible due to bias?

I recognise bias in my own life whenever I think emotionally rather than logically. I prefer to think logically but because
I am human that is not always possible. Although at least I know when I am doing it and also know it can be corrected

One can never rid themselves of bias because to think without any would be the equivalent of thinking like a machine

Reducing bias is both an act of will and something one learns and gets easier over time. Being aware of logical fallacies
which are flaws in reasoning is probably the most obvious way to detect bias in ones own thinking. I refuse as a matter
of principle to believe any thing because belief is a product of faith and faith positions require zero evidence. And I also
avoid holding strong opinions because they are not facts and so cannot be demonstrated to be true.  Even though they
are not actually incompatible with the knowledge they are based upon

All perception is bias because it is subjective interpretation. Even when a particular view one holds is held by others as
well and even universally so. It is still bias because it involves a choice between at least two alternative positions. The
only time there is no bias is when there is absolutely no choice. But in reality there will always be choices even if one
does not accept them for whatever reason [ legal / moral / psychological ]

The scientific method is not fallible but those who practice it are as scientists are human and biased like everyone else
But they always try to be bias free when they are actually doing science. When they are not doing it it does not matter

Good well reasoned out response.

What would you say if I said we evolved the capacity for emotions to inform us on the world around us? Emotions are the fastest form of communication we have within ourselves. Given we have a long lineage of having emotions, how does one overcome the bias of emotion? Given there will probably always be crisis' situations in the human race, and given crisis' situations require the fastest of responses sometimes, would you say emotions are still necessary for the human race?

[The Grand Nudger]

The most well known are probably blinds.  So lets say you want to account for observer expectancy bias?  This is what happens when you subconsciously influence participants in a study.  You shake your head...you motion with your hands.  You roll your eyes.  You glance sideways at your research partner.  

A screen will cover any visual ques.  If the people on either side of the screen are unaware of what you're looking for (or what they're looking at), we call that a double blind.  It becomes increasingly difficult to project your own biases through successive blinds.

---

That may be true, but depending on the branch of psychology, it is not always a given that these methods are incorporated to the extent that you are inferring. Because of this, it leaves a lot of the empirical evidence to represent personality, intelligence and bias wanting. This is also in the realm of what we consider "verifiable" metrics such as Big 5, IQ, and MMPI. In short, we know what we want to measure but there is still a whole bunch of things in our psyche that we have no idea about. Why this matters is that we should first have a good idea of the capabilities and temperaments of individuals who are conducting these other experiments to make sure people are not lying out their ass. Furthermore, with enough confirmation bias, this can overcome something even as foolproof as a double blind experiment if the right environmental triggers are present for the scientists to collaborate to skew the results. Not saying I have evidence of this happening, but just that it is still entirely possible.

Sure, sure..and to the extent that a study is well controlled it is a more credible study than one that isn;t.  To the rest...you don;t have to know everything to know something.  

As far as confirmation bias is concerned..theres a protocol for that too.  State your assumptions early, clearly, completely, and accurately.  Then, proceed to include all data collected..not just the data that confirms your assumptions.  

While scientific fraud is possible, the peer review system seeks to produce a situation in which the number of participants in the fraud would have to be impractically large, and all of their effort can only be equal to or lesser than a single counter demonstration.  

Let me put that into context.   If all 6.9 million scientists and engineers in the united states conspired together to advance the theory that my morning shit causes the sun to rise..... it would only take me observing myself taking a single shit at 4 am to falsify the entire edifice. I would demand all of the nobel prizes for everything.

[Quick]

The most well known are probably blinds.  So lets say you want to account for observer expectancy bias?  This is what happens when you subconsciously influence participants in a study.  You shake your head...you motion with your hands.  You roll your eyes.  You glance sideways at your research partner.  

A screen will cover any visual ques.  If the people on either side of the screen are unaware of what you're looking for (or what they're looking at), we call that a double blind.  It becomes increasingly difficult to project your own biases through successive blinds.

---

That may be true, but depending on the branch of psychology, it is not always a given that these methods are incorporated to the extent that you are inferring. Because of this, it leaves a lot of the empirical evidence to represent personality, intelligence and bias wanting. This is also in the realm of what we consider "verifiable" metrics such as Big 5, IQ, and MMPI. In short, we know what we want to measure but there is still a whole bunch of things in our psyche that we have no idea about. Why this matters is that we should first have a good idea of the capabilities and temperaments of individuals who are conducting these other experiments to make sure people are not lying out their ass. Furthermore, with enough confirmation bias, this can overcome something even as foolproof as a double blind experiment if the right environmental triggers are present for the scientists to collaborate to skew the results. Not saying I have evidence of this happening, but just that it is still entirely possible.

Sure, sure..and to the extent that a study is well controlled it is a more credible study than one that isn;t.  To the rest...you don;t have to know everything to know something.  

As far as confirmation bias is concerned..theres a protocol for that too.  State your assumptions early, clearly, completely, and accurately.  Then, proceed to include all data collected..not just the data that confirms your assumptions.  

While scientific fraud is possible, the peer review system seeks to produce a situation in which the number of participants in the fraud would have to be impractically large, and all of their effort can only be equal to or lesser than a single counter demonstration.  

Let me put that into context.   If all 6.9 million scientists and engineers in the united states conspired together to advance the theory that my morning shit causes the sun to rise..... it would only take me observing myself taking a single shit at 4 am to falsify the entire edifice. I would demand all of the nobel prizes for everything.

Interesting. Very interesting.

Regarding peer review.. In some fields, peer review is susceptible to an echo chamber. Not all fields as much as others, and I would say the hard sciences are much less prone to this for both practical and psychological reasons.

[The Grand Nudger]

That would be an issue of the quality of a specific journal.  The shortcomings of particular test protocols and their application to specific subjects is actually a subject of peer review discussion itself. There are people who actually specialize in experiment design..and they bicker with each other like motherfuckers. Invalidating a method of analysis invalidates all of the conclusions which rest upon it;s assumption. You can imagine how tempting an apple that is.

[surreptitious57]

What would you say if I said we evolved the capacity for emotions to inform us on the world around us? Emotions are the fastest form of communication we have within ourselves. Given
we have a long lineage of having emotions how does one overcome the bias of emotion? Given there will probably always be crisis situations in the human race and given crisis situations
require the fastest of responses sometimes would you say emotions are still necessary for the human race?

It is not so much a question of overcoming the bias of emotion because that is not possible as we are emotional beings. But instead one of knowing when an
emotional response is preferable to a logical one and what form that should take both in terms of the type of emotion and the degree to which it is employed

From an evolutionary perspective the emotional or reptilian part of our brain is older than the logical or mammalian part of our brain
The amygdala was more necessary for our survival as a species than the pre frontal cortex even though nowadays we use it far less