Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you agree that all news sources are biased in some way, then what exactly are we arguing about in this thread?
Is your argument that certain biases are better than other biases?
I think I lost the narrative somewhere along the way.
It seems that some people are angling that bias insinuates fraud or inaccuracy or deceit. I don't think that's true in every case. I have acknowledged that there is bias in everything we see, including in you and in me and in everyone else who has commented. In the marketplace of ideas, in fact, some biases tend to have the upper hand amongst the masses. You often see this by which platforms win and lose, and which come at a great cost or benefit to those that push them. From where I'm standing today, it seems that the biases that I subscribe to have the majority support amongst the masses. You might want to call this 'conformist', but I tend to favor that it's just human nature. Inherently benevolent, good natured, psychologically well people tend to like the same ideas as me.
If you agree that all news sources are biased in some way, then what exactly are we arguing about in this thread?
Is your argument that certain biases are better than other biases?
I think I lost the narrative somewhere along the way.
I'm with you on losing the narrative, but yes I think the argument is that some biases are better than others. Per the below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalUID
It seems that some people are angling that bias insinuates fraud or inaccuracy or deceit. I don't think that's true in every case. I have acknowledged that there is bias in everything we see, including in you and in me and in everyone else who has commented. In the marketplace of ideas, in fact, some biases tend to have the upper hand amongst the masses. You often see this by which platforms win and lose, and which come at a great cost or benefit to those that push them. From where I'm standing today, it seems that the biases that I subscribe to have the majority support amongst the masses. You might want to call this 'conformist', but I tend to favor that it's just human nature. Inherently benevolent, good natured, psychologically well people tend to like the same ideas as me.
Are you trying to say that if a lot of people believe something, it must be true? What are you trying to say with your last sentence?
I'm with you on losing the narrative, but yes I think the argument is that some biases are better than others. Per the below:
Are you trying to say that if a lot of people believe something, it must be true? What are you trying to say with your last sentence?
This thread has gone down many different pathways as they do with open discussion.
Not at all saying that something must be true if a lot of people believe something. Case in point, the rise of fascism in Germany based on state-controlled propaganda against certain minorities (and some might say America as of late). But yes, some biases definitely do tend to be "better", or more favorable, than others. Progress over time illustrates this; the end of (legal) human slavery in America, civil rights movement, women's suffrage, labor rights (i.e. FLSA), etc. At one point in time, these were all unpopular ideas and definitely did not represent the status quo. There's a reason why our country's values and culture looks much different today than it did in 1776. Progress and benevolence always finds a way, just like it is today, even if it's a slow grind. And as such, these (biases) become our new truths that we hold to be self-evident. Some ideas/biases/slants are better, and America is living proof of that evolution.
Last edited by digitalUID; 04-19-2023 at 10:52 AM..
I haven't read the whole thread (just the first page and the post above) but OP you seem to assume that people want to believe what's true. That's not a safe assumption. A safer one, anyway, is that people want to be told that what they believe is true. That's very comforting.
I haven't read the whole thread (just the first page and the post above) but OP you seem to assume that people want to believe what's true. That's not a safe assumption. A safer one, anyway, is that people want to be told that what they believe is true. That's very comforting.
OK so let's look at the question of psychology and why people choose to trust whoever they trust...
What is in one's background and makeup of their personality, if they:
-Choose subject matter experts to give them information about a subject (the geeks and nerds)?
-Prefer sources that exhibit charisma or who entertain them?
-Look for displays of dominance or strength?
-Find appeal in conspiracy, the old "you are one of the special few who see the truth, everyone else has blinders on" thing?
-Embrace tradition and authority based on old books, whether that is the faith that they were raised in or esoteric teachings from some exotic culture?
-Seek to fit in with the social circles right around them, and think that their small community bubble is representative of, say, the whole country?
-Believe what their parents taught them without question...
-Reject what their parents taught them without question...
Etc
What experiences and foundations do we use to inform us about fundamental truths in the world around us?
The people around you. Most of us do live in something of a bubble by our choice of professions and friends.
Social media and moving into big cities has made that worse. In a small town you can't get away from those who think differently. You HAVE to live with them. In the big cities its easy to get in a group just like you.
People often find facts that support their narrative.
The NYT is a provincial paper that is often a joke when they venture outside NY. One classic example is the reporter in Houston in the 80s saying the downtown was abandoned. They hardly saw anyone when they were downtown at lunchtime one day in July. If they had bothered asking anyone, they would have learned that nobody who doesn't have to walks around in the Houston heat and humidity in July! They eat lunch in the tunnels that connect all the main office buildings. They wanted to show Houston was empty and used the irrelevance of nobody walking on the streets at noon.
Another NYT example. They said that doctors having interests in testing centers raises health care costs so they showed there was a higher % of doctors having interests in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas than in El Paso and there were more tests done in the Valley. Again, if they asked anyone in Texas or any lawyer, they would have told them that the Rio Grande Valley is ground zero for massive tort cases. Juries there tend to award huge damages. Tort lawyers tried very hard to find a connection so they could sue in the Valley. So, duh! Doctors order more tests.
You see it in business where executives make decisions and then have the accountants run the numbers. They will give them assumptions that make the deal seem good. Its takes some really bad numbers to get them to change their mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
