5 ms·

Everybody's biased in everything all the time to some degree or other - that's just part of the human experience. That said, I think bias is generally only har

Everybody's biased in everything all the time to some degree or other - that's just part of the human experience. That said, I think bias is generally only harmful when it's concealed from people. In this article, which is unabashedly and clearly pro-drugs, I don't see the harm in bias - people can evaluate it freely and judge accordingly.

Brian_K_White 4y ago
The bias is not 'pro drugs', the bias is 'why am I expressing pro drugs to you'
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Is it? I thought bias was "I have a distorted view of reality" per wikipedia: >Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. If you are correct, you are not biased.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    A weird and not quite applicable expression, yet still not inconsistent with what I said. You don't have to have a distorted view of reality to be in favor of something, nor to proselytise it. You don't have to have a distorted view of reality to present a distorted view to others either.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I agree that you don't have to have a distorted view of reality to present one, and that would be bias. My understanding and take is that bias is basically synonymous with error, either explicit or by omission. Claiming that a conclusion is biased is the same as it is wrong or incomplete. My question is rather can someone be biased and correct? If I'm paid to advocate for something, does that mean that everything I say is biased, and therefore incorrect?
      - Brian_K_White 4y ago
        "My understanding and take is that bias is basically synonymous with erro" I wouldn't say that. I would only say that the veracity and completeness of the presentation is unknown, but what is known is that there is some reason to question and corroborate it beyond the universal baseline reason to question everything.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  I don't think that's quite right - after having read this, I feel pretty comfortable assuming that the author is expressing this pro drugs point of view because she really believes it and wants to write about an important part of her life. It might be true that there's bias on the part of the publication in the fact that they select/pay for pro-drug pieces, but I don't really see how that affects me, the reader, particularly in the context of having clicked on this on HN and read it with no context about the publication.
  - sshine 4y ago
    > > The bias is not 'pro drugs', the bias is 'why am I expressing pro drugs to you' > I don't think that's quite right [...] there's bias [...] the fact that they select/pay for pro-drug pieces You're basically agreeing with parent post here. > I don't really see how that affects me The difference is the commercial interest and the extent to which more readers are exposed to the opinion because of paying writers who are aligned with the message. I'm pro drugs, but I don't write articles about it. The author of the article gets paid to write it. On the other hand, I'm also pro blockchain, and I do get paid to make blockchain, so if you see me write an article about how privacy is important and how Stripe and Paypal are screwing over people, you may agree with both of those, and they're honest expressions of my opinion, but because there is a correlation between my beliefs and what I get paid to do, I may be financially incentivised to express those beliefs. So you could claim that the investors are, to some degree, channelling money into popularising a belief. The evangelists are just pawns.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

The bias is not 'pro drugs', the bias is 'why am I expressing pro drugs to you'

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Is it? I thought bias was "I have a distorted view of reality" per wikipedia: >Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. If you are correct, you are not biased.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  A weird and not quite applicable expression, yet still not inconsistent with what I said. You don't have to have a distorted view of reality to be in favor of something, nor to proselytise it. You don't have to have a distorted view of reality to present a distorted view to others either.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I agree that you don't have to have a distorted view of reality to present one, and that would be bias. My understanding and take is that bias is basically synonymous with error, either explicit or by omission. Claiming that a conclusion is biased is the same as it is wrong or incomplete. My question is rather can someone be biased and correct? If I'm paid to advocate for something, does that mean that everything I say is biased, and therefore incorrect?
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      "My understanding and take is that bias is basically synonymous with erro" I wouldn't say that. I would only say that the veracity and completeness of the presentation is unknown, but what is known is that there is some reason to question and corroborate it beyond the universal baseline reason to question everything.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
idopmstuff 4y ago
I don't think that's quite right - after having read this, I feel pretty comfortable assuming that the author is expressing this pro drugs point of view because she really believes it and wants to write about an important part of her life. It might be true that there's bias on the part of the publication in the fact that they select/pay for pro-drug pieces, but I don't really see how that affects me, the reader, particularly in the context of having clicked on this on HN and read it with no context about the publication.
- sshine 4y ago
  > > The bias is not 'pro drugs', the bias is 'why am I expressing pro drugs to you' > I don't think that's quite right [...] there's bias [...] the fact that they select/pay for pro-drug pieces You're basically agreeing with parent post here. > I don't really see how that affects me The difference is the commercial interest and the extent to which more readers are exposed to the opinion because of paying writers who are aligned with the message. I'm pro drugs, but I don't write articles about it. The author of the article gets paid to write it. On the other hand, I'm also pro blockchain, and I do get paid to make blockchain, so if you see me write an article about how privacy is important and how Stripe and Paypal are screwing over people, you may agree with both of those, and they're honest expressions of my opinion, but because there is a correlation between my beliefs and what I get paid to do, I may be financially incentivised to express those beliefs. So you could claim that the investors are, to some degree, channelling money into popularising a belief. The evangelists are just pawns.