Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Psychology Of Bias


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Members
  • 3050 posts

Posted 01 January 2017 - 07:42 AM

This topic is about why people default to bias, instead of trying to be objective to new things. I am presenting a topic, originally in chemistry, which is called chemical selection in water, at the nano-scale.  Everything I claim can be supported with published papers, that have been published in highly accredited journals. Yet, this ends in strange claims.

 

I can see if I made an irrational claim like people can live on just eating rocks. Or big foot actually has a small feet. But when I claim order in water impacting the organics of life, which is supported by modern published science evidence, this is a strange claim. 

 

As a little background, I am very creative, which means I try a lot of things to see what works. I can understand how those who are not creative may not understand how idea develop works. Not everything will work, but you follow hunches and learn from your mistakes. I am also conservative and try to write in a forum environment that is slanted liberal. I may be the enemy no matter what I say. Why would people bias their minds, even to supported science, in favor of group speak and emotional filters? 


Edited by HydrogenBond, 01 January 2017 - 07:45 AM.


#2 A-wal

A-wal

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 601 posts

Posted 01 January 2017 - 08:20 AM

I haven't read that topic but there's a very prevalent and dogmatic attitude in science that borders on irrational and rejects anything that doesn't conform with the official party line. If everyone thought like that science would still be in the dark ages.

 

Also too many parrots who think that memorising something means that they understand it reciting back what they've just googled somehow makes them seem clever. People like that tend to slip up though by taking what they'd read out of context and trying to apply it to the wrong situations.

 

It's also not helped by the genuine crackpots who are so far away from understanding that they can't see just how ridiculous their claims are because it trains people to automatically reject anything that isn't widely accepted.



#3 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15052 posts

Posted 02 January 2017 - 11:08 AM

This topic is about why people default to bias, instead of trying to be objective to new things. I am presenting a topic, originally in chemistry, which is called chemical selection in water, at the nano-scale.  Everything I claim can be supported with published papers, that have been published in highly accredited journals. Yet, this ends in strange claims.
...


Maybe stop dissembling your religious bias and just lay out your real agenda. You are only fooling newbs and yourself with this decades long line of subterfugian and implicative drivel. :evil:

#4 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 292 posts

Posted 05 January 2017 - 06:31 PM

This topic is about why people default to bias, instead of trying to be objective to new things. I am presenting a topic, originally in chemistry, which is called chemical selection in water, at the nano-scale.  Everything I claim can be supported with published papers, that have been published in highly accredited journals. Yet, this ends in strange claims.

 

I can see if I made an irrational claim like people can live on just eating rocks. Or big foot actually has a small feet. But when I claim order in water impacting the organics of life, which is supported by modern published science evidence, this is a strange claim. 

 

As a little background, I am very creative, which means I try a lot of things to see what works. I can understand how those who are not creative may not understand how idea develop works. Not everything will work, but you follow hunches and learn from your mistakes. I am also conservative and try to write in a forum environment that is slanted liberal. I may be the enemy no matter what I say. Why would people bias their minds, even to supported science, in favor of group speak and emotional filters? 

One could argue that anything that is not general knowledge would be considered to be "strange" weather it is supported or not.  



#5 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Members
  • 3050 posts

Posted 07 January 2017 - 07:43 AM

Maybe stop dissembling your religious bias and just lay out your real agenda. You are only fooling newbs and yourself with this decades long line of subterfugian and implicative drivel. :evil:

Much of that has to do with being on the defensive against biased attacks. One can only turn the cheek so many times, before it is time to move. If you are surrounded by a pack of wolves, you need to place you back against a wall, so they can't surround you.  This makes it harder for the pack to attack from all sides. 

 

At the same time, I am vulnerable because I am creative. Being creative means you often need to follow a train of thought, without censor and without preconceived expectations. If you were writing a song, you may start with a short catch phrase or a short music riff. You don't know where this is going 100%. You follow the creative process without any biased expectation. Sometimes this leads to duds and sometimes to useful things. The duds can still teach you things. People who are more by the book have the advantage of buying off the shelf. But if you write hundreds of songs and have a hundred duds, some people only remember the duds they would never buy. 

 

Creativity in some areas of discussions; social sciences, can also be connected to empathy. Walking a mile in someone else's shoes can go a long way to understanding. Sometimes those shoes are on the feet of the good, bad, the left and the right. Empathizing with both teaches you things. But in a politically charged environment, empathizing with the wrong side can be taboo. Empathizing with Trump can make people biased against you to where even truth is doubted. I also have place for religion, which can make atheists biased against me so anything I say is wrong. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive when you are creative. One can create in both areas. I used to irk people in religious forums sites by arguing in my own creative way while adding science. They did not need another by the book bureaucrat. 

 

I suppose if had an agenda, it was to use others as a sounding board, to find my place, and open a door. I just keep knocking on doors with hope one door  will open. I thought my water science was that door. Instead when a door appear to open, the dogs are let out, to chase me off the property. I am fast and can escape, to knock at the next door or maybe a side door. 


Edited by HydrogenBond, 07 January 2017 - 07:52 AM.


#6 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15052 posts

Posted 07 January 2017 - 03:02 PM

Maybe stop dissembling your religious bias and just lay out your real agenda. You are only fooling newbs and yourself with this decades long line of subterfugian and implicative drivel. :evil:

Much of that has to do with being on the defensive against biased attacks. One can only turn the cheek so many times, before it is time to move. If you are surrounded by a pack of wolves, you need to place you back against a wall, so they can't surround you. This makes it harder for the pack to attack from all sides.

At the same time, I am vulnerable because I am creative. Being creative means you often need to follow a train of thought, without censor and without preconceived expectations. If you were writing a song, you may start with a short catch phrase or a short music riff. You don't know where this is going 100%. You follow the creative process without any biased expectation. Sometimes this leads to duds and sometimes to useful things. The duds can still teach you things. People who are more by the book have the advantage of buying off the shelf. But if you write hundreds of songs and have a hundred duds, some people only remember the duds they would never buy.

Creativity in some areas of discussions; social sciences, can also be connected to empathy. Walking a mile in someone else's shoes can go a long way to understanding. Sometimes those shoes are on the feet of the good, bad, the left and the right. Empathizing with both teaches you things. But in a politically charged environment, empathizing with the wrong side can be taboo. Empathizing with Trump can make people biased against you to where even truth is doubted. I also have place for religion, which can make atheists biased against me so anything I say is wrong. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive when you are creative. One can create in both areas. I used to irk people in religious forums sites by arguing in my own creative way while adding science. They did not need another by the book bureaucrat.

I suppose if had an agenda, it was to use others as a sounding board, to find my place, and open a door. I just keep knocking on doors with hope one door will open. I thought my water science was that door. Instead when a door appear to open, the dogs are let out, to chase me off the property. I am fast and can escape, to knock at the next door or maybe a side door.


Subterfuge here, even if 'creative', is reprehensible.
Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully. Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak righteousness. Selah. Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue. Psalms 52:2-4

Edited by Turtle, 07 January 2017 - 03:05 PM.