4 ms·

> Bias cant be avoided, only made explicit This is so untrue and this is a harmful belief. And I'm pretty much as liberal as they come.

by tines 1y ago

pastage 1y ago
Agree it is very bad for everyone to think like this. The problem is that on subject that divide you will always have two sides. Some times you need to tone down articles too much to not be biased to either way. So I also agree that there is a place for multiple articles on the same subject. Also Wikipedia has the problem of being one type of article many subjects really need a other way to explain it. Even facts can be slander.
TheRoque 1y ago
It's true though, it's literally how your brain works. It's full of biases.
- Levitz 1y ago
  Yes, biases which ideally you are aware of and try to account for. For example, it would be stupid for me to entirely dismiss all of Wikipedia just because I know that there are some horribly biased articles and it'd be a disgrace if I shrugged such behavior off saying "hey, we all have biases, can't help it". That's what a child or even an animal would do.
- adastra22 1y ago
  What about math and physics?
  - TheRoque 1y ago
    They try to work hard and get rid of bias through various methods: peer reviews, precise methodology (randomization, blind tests etc.). And of course, even those sciences are not perfect, subject to biases, and evolve. This applies only to a subset of fields, in a lot of fields you either don't have the time to remove biases this way or it's impossible because it's inherently subjective. Besides, if you needed unbiased perfect opinions before taking any decision, the world would be stuck and slow.
    - adastra22 1y ago
      I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. There is no bias in the statement "2 + 2 = 4". Nor is there bias in stating that "any two masses experience an attraction force proportional to the masses and inverse-square proportional to the distance separating them." Not less bias -- no bias.
      - imtringued 1y ago
        There is a pretty strong bias in the statement "2 + 2 = 4" because math doesn't care about the encoding used to describe a sum. For example, in an alternative society the expression could be written with flipped number symbols, right to left or in a vertical layout. Axioms are also a form of bias.
        adastra22 1y ago
        Definitely disagree.
        int_19h 1y ago
        Axioms would only be a form of bias if they were taken at random. It's not biased to take the axiom that repeatedly holds true in empiric testing, over others that do not.
        adastra22 1y ago
        Well, it is a bias. It’s a bias towards truth :)
  - smcin 1y ago
    1) The Monty Hall Problem (to be precise it hinges on ambiguity and the distinction between prior and posterior probabilities, but that is something most people aren't aware of and will get wrong the first time they see it, even people with knowledge of say Bayes' Theorem) 2) For several others, see Alon Amit's superb Quora answer to "What are the most interesting or popular probability puzzles in which the intuition is contrary to the solution?" ([2], login-walled). Mentions the very counterintuitive Penney's Game [0]. 3) Berkson's Paradox, aka "People in hospital/getting treatment tend to have worse health indicators". 4) Asymmetric dice behavior is counterintuitive, when you first see it. 5) Benford's Law, on quantities occurring in nature (e.g. river lengths), as opposed to uniform distribution. 6) There are lots of counterintuitive things about Platonic solids. 7) Bayes' Theorem itself, superbly useful but possibly one of the things in probability most abused on a daily basis by bad journalism and bad statistics. 8) The Multiple Testing Problem/p-hacking/aka the xkcd "Green jelly beans cause acne" and as a corollary: 8a) Most published (academic) findings aren't replicable, aka "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", Joannidis (2005) [9] Almost-integers --- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem [2]: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-interesting-or-popular-probability-puzzles-in-which-the-intuition-is-contrary-to-the-solution/answer/Alon-Amit?ch=17&oid=4720182 https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-interesting-or-popul... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons_problem [9]: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html https://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penney%27s_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penney%27s_game More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Probability_theory_paradoxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Probability_theory_pa...
    - adastra22 1y ago
      Great list! But I'm not sure the relevance? The intended point, which perhaps wasn't clear, was that logic / pure math as well as readily testable empirical theories are exceptions to the "everything is biased!" claim. There are in fact things that we can know with certainty, and that provides a foundation for a broader set of knowledge. The absolute relativist position is not just boring, but doesn't reflect reality either.
dvsfish 1y ago
I get the sentiment of what you're saying, but I don’t think that’s totally fair to the parent. Biases aren’t automatically "bad" or "failings". they’re akin to heuristics, and it’s practically impossible to eliminate them entirely. For example, we’re all here talking about how we should treat Wikipedia with skepticism. That's a sort of "neutral" bias that doesn't conjure a strong emotion, and is perhaps more acceptable for it, and probably leads to better informational hygiene overall. In fact, the claim that “bias can be avoided and should be absolutely”, that is implicit in your resposne reflects a bias of its own: a bias toward moral or intellectual purity, as if the parent recognizing bias is equivalent to endorsing it. I get that this is a pedantic point to make but to come at the parent with such vigour for being realistic, again seems a bit unfair
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  It depends on if you take the parent (err GGP) literally versus in context. My personal experience has been that people claiming that bias is unavoidable (alternatively that objectivity is impossible, or that everything is political, or ...) have usually been attempting to justify a reasoning process that supports a political or religious slant of one form or another. A helpless "we couldn't possibly do anything about that issue" sort of mentality. That said if we're talking literally then I fully agree with you that heuristics are a form of bias and can sometimes be a very good thing on a case by case basis.
  - dvsfish 1y ago
    Yep fair point. I was taking them literally, though I didn't necessarily feel the context meant their post was bad faith or concessional, just a simple truth. Your elaboration adds a fair bit to your argument though and I am pretty sure I agree for the most part.
- tines 1y ago
  > In fact, the claim that “bias can be avoided and should be absolutely”, that is implicit in your resposne reflects a bias of its own: a bias toward moral or intellectual purity, as if the parent recognizing bias is equivalent to endorsing it. Nonsense. Your definition of the word "bias" includes any assertion whatsoever. Bias is distortion from reality and truth. Saying that we can avoid distortion is not itself a distortion. I never claimed that all bias should be avoided, but the post I responded to said that bias can't be avoided. Also, > a bias toward moral or intellectual purity, as if the parent recognizing bias is equivalent to endorsing it. There is no conceptual connection here between "purity" and the equivalence of recognizing bias with endorsing it, nor is saying "bias can be avoided" related to, or a kind of, "purity" in any useful sense. Stop using abstract words for effect and speak simply. > I get that this is a pedantic point to make but to come at the parent with such vigour for being realistic, again seems a bit unfair If the parent were being realistic, they'd say that we can't even recognize bias, which is actually more agreeable to me. But instead the parent admits that we can recognize bias. Since we've gotten that far, then I can say that failing to avoid it, when we should avoid it, is merely a lack of will and integrity rather than some inescapable fate.

> Bias cant be avoided, only made explicit This is so untrue and this is a harmful belief. And I'm pretty much as liberal as they come.

by tines 1y ago

> Bias cant be avoided, only made explicit This is so untrue and this is a harmful belief. And I'm pretty much as liberal as they come.

pastage 1y ago

Agree it is very bad for everyone to think like this. The problem is that on subject that divide you will always have two sides. Some times you need to tone down articles too much to not be biased to either way. So I also agree that there is a place for multiple articles on the same subject. Also Wikipedia has the problem of being one type of article many subjects really need a other way to explain it. Even facts can be slander.

TheRoque 1y ago

It's true though, it's literally how your brain works. It's full of biases.

Levitz 1y ago
Yes, biases which ideally you are aware of and try to account for. For example, it would be stupid for me to entirely dismiss all of Wikipedia just because I know that there are some horribly biased articles and it'd be a disgrace if I shrugged such behavior off saying "hey, we all have biases, can't help it". That's what a child or even an animal would do.
adastra22 1y ago
What about math and physics?
- TheRoque 1y ago
  They try to work hard and get rid of bias through various methods: peer reviews, precise methodology (randomization, blind tests etc.). And of course, even those sciences are not perfect, subject to biases, and evolve. This applies only to a subset of fields, in a lot of fields you either don't have the time to remove biases this way or it's impossible because it's inherently subjective. Besides, if you needed unbiased perfect opinions before taking any decision, the world would be stuck and slow.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. There is no bias in the statement "2 + 2 = 4". Nor is there bias in stating that "any two masses experience an attraction force proportional to the masses and inverse-square proportional to the distance separating them." Not less bias -- no bias.
    - imtringued 1y ago
      There is a pretty strong bias in the statement "2 + 2 = 4" because math doesn't care about the encoding used to describe a sum. For example, in an alternative society the expression could be written with flipped number symbols, right to left or in a vertical layout. Axioms are also a form of bias.
      - adastra22 1y ago
        Definitely disagree.
      - int_19h 1y ago
        Axioms would only be a form of bias if they were taken at random. It's not biased to take the axiom that repeatedly holds true in empiric testing, over others that do not.
        adastra22 1y ago
        Well, it is a bias. It’s a bias towards truth :)
- smcin 1y ago
  1) The Monty Hall Problem (to be precise it hinges on ambiguity and the distinction between prior and posterior probabilities, but that is something most people aren't aware of and will get wrong the first time they see it, even people with knowledge of say Bayes' Theorem) 2) For several others, see Alon Amit's superb Quora answer to "What are the most interesting or popular probability puzzles in which the intuition is contrary to the solution?" ([2], login-walled). Mentions the very counterintuitive Penney's Game [0]. 3) Berkson's Paradox, aka "People in hospital/getting treatment tend to have worse health indicators". 4) Asymmetric dice behavior is counterintuitive, when you first see it. 5) Benford's Law, on quantities occurring in nature (e.g. river lengths), as opposed to uniform distribution. 6) There are lots of counterintuitive things about Platonic solids. 7) Bayes' Theorem itself, superbly useful but possibly one of the things in probability most abused on a daily basis by bad journalism and bad statistics. 8) The Multiple Testing Problem/p-hacking/aka the xkcd "Green jelly beans cause acne" and as a corollary: 8a) Most published (academic) findings aren't replicable, aka "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", Joannidis (2005) [9] Almost-integers --- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem [2]: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-interesting-or-popular-probability-puzzles-in-which-the-intuition-is-contrary-to-the-solution/answer/Alon-Amit?ch=17&oid=4720182 https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-interesting-or-popul... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons_problem [9]: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html https://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penney%27s_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penney%27s_game More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Probability_theory_paradoxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Probability_theory_pa...
  - adastra22 1y ago
    Great list! But I'm not sure the relevance? The intended point, which perhaps wasn't clear, was that logic / pure math as well as readily testable empirical theories are exceptions to the "everything is biased!" claim. There are in fact things that we can know with certainty, and that provides a foundation for a broader set of knowledge. The absolute relativist position is not just boring, but doesn't reflect reality either.

dvsfish 1y ago

I get the sentiment of what you're saying, but I don’t think that’s totally fair to the parent. Biases aren’t automatically "bad" or "failings". they’re akin to heuristics, and it’s practically impossible to eliminate them entirely. For example, we’re all here talking about how we should treat Wikipedia with skepticism. That's a sort of "neutral" bias that doesn't conjure a strong emotion, and is perhaps more acceptable for it, and probably leads to better informational hygiene overall. In fact, the claim that “bias can be avoided and should be absolutely”, that is implicit in your resposne reflects a bias of its own: a bias toward moral or intellectual purity, as if the parent recognizing bias is equivalent to endorsing it. I get that this is a pedantic point to make but to come at the parent with such vigour for being realistic, again seems a bit unfair

fc417fc802 1y ago
It depends on if you take the parent (err GGP) literally versus in context. My personal experience has been that people claiming that bias is unavoidable (alternatively that objectivity is impossible, or that everything is political, or ...) have usually been attempting to justify a reasoning process that supports a political or religious slant of one form or another. A helpless "we couldn't possibly do anything about that issue" sort of mentality. That said if we're talking literally then I fully agree with you that heuristics are a form of bias and can sometimes be a very good thing on a case by case basis.
- dvsfish 1y ago
  Yep fair point. I was taking them literally, though I didn't necessarily feel the context meant their post was bad faith or concessional, just a simple truth. Your elaboration adds a fair bit to your argument though and I am pretty sure I agree for the most part.
tines 1y ago
> In fact, the claim that “bias can be avoided and should be absolutely”, that is implicit in your resposne reflects a bias of its own: a bias toward moral or intellectual purity, as if the parent recognizing bias is equivalent to endorsing it. Nonsense. Your definition of the word "bias" includes any assertion whatsoever. Bias is distortion from reality and truth. Saying that we can avoid distortion is not itself a distortion. I never claimed that all bias should be avoided, but the post I responded to said that bias can't be avoided. Also, > a bias toward moral or intellectual purity, as if the parent recognizing bias is equivalent to endorsing it. There is no conceptual connection here between "purity" and the equivalence of recognizing bias with endorsing it, nor is saying "bias can be avoided" related to, or a kind of, "purity" in any useful sense. Stop using abstract words for effect and speak simply. > I get that this is a pedantic point to make but to come at the parent with such vigour for being realistic, again seems a bit unfair If the parent were being realistic, they'd say that we can't even recognize bias, which is actually more agreeable to me. But instead the parent admits that we can recognize bias. Since we've gotten that far, then I can say that failing to avoid it, when we should avoid it, is merely a lack of will and integrity rather than some inescapable fate.