NationStates Jolt Archive

In a rather controversial thread, an article was presented with the suggestion it was written by someone with specific political leanings. The way in which people interpreted the article seemed more based on their view of those political leanings than the writing itself. Now, to filter out bias, we need to be aware of bias...but too often that only applies to the bias of OTHERS and not ourselves. So. How do your own views colour how you process information?

For example, read the following statement:

"Males are inherently more aggressive than females."

Now...how would you react had this been a quote by a noted radical feminist? Would your reaction differ if a man had said this? How would that context change if you found out the person being quoted studies primates?

Context is key...but so is perception. How much of what you perceive is based on your particular assumptions as to what is meant...even before you read what is actually said?

if a male said that, i would presume he was just stating a fact...cuz it certainly seems to me that males are more agressive than females...if a feminist radical said that, i would presume she's still stating a fact, but that she was also attacking the male populace as being overly violent. if they studied primates...i dunno. it would be weird.

In a rather controversial thread, an article was presented with the suggestion it was written by someone with specific political leanings. The way in which people interpreted the article seemed more based on their view of those political leanings than the writing itself. Now, to filter out bias, we need to be aware of bias...but too often that only applies to the bias of OTHERS and not ourselves. So. How do your own views colour how you process information?

For example, read the following statement:

"Males are inherently more aggressive than females."

Now...how would you react had this been a quote by a noted radical feminist? Would your reaction differ if a man had said this? How would that context change if you found out the person being quoted studies primates?

Context is key...but so is perception. How much of what you perceive is based on your particular assumptions as to what is meant...even before you read what is actually said?

I would ask the person making the statement what they meant.

If the person was not available, such as in the case of the above "written"
statement, the person making the statement would not be available, and I
would come to the conclusion that I don't really know WHAT the writer
meant,.. and as such, can't really take a position on that WAS meant by it.

The context is important, but having the writer available for questioning is
the only sensible way to establish what was actually meant, as the meaning
is not established in the reading, but in the writing.

I would ask the person making the statement what they meant.

If the person was not available, such as in the case of the above "written"
statement, the person making the statement would not be available, and I
would come to the conclusion that I don't really know WHAT the writer
meant,.. and as such, can't really take a position on that WAS meant by it.

The context is important, but having the writer available for questioning is
the only sensible way to establish what was actually meant, as the meaning
is not established in the reading, but in the writing.
Quite often, however, you are not going to have the writer available to you for clarification. And if the article you happen to read is by someone you've never heard of, the context may not be available to you. If you are told, "this was written by a socialist" or a "whateverist", how much is your view of what is written going to changed, based on your personal view of socialism or whateverism?

Is it possible for us to glean any useful insight from someone else if we allow our own biases (anti-capitalism, anti-whateverism) to come into play? If we simply dismiss what someone says because they believe in an ideology that we do not agree with...are we perhaps throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Going off the the idea of "Males being more agressive..."

I'll punch somebody in the face if they said that to me (just kidding). :)

But seriously, it all depends upon the data presented. Just saying "This is true", is no good. You need to back it with a study of say 1200 people of each sex given stimuli that has been seen to cause aggression in nearly anyone and resulting in some sort of falsifiable statistic that says "Indeed, 75% of men are aggressive in this situation, whereas only 50% of women are."

Then of course their is the validity of the test, the groups queried (if you only have white males and females, from say a suburb of Toronto, it isn't really a valid test). Lots of things factor in.

I'm sure that in the heat of the moment I respond in a way colored by my knowledge or beliefs, but in general not as much.

Going off the the idea of "Males being more agressive..."
*snip*

I'm sure that in the heat of the moment I respond in a way colored by my knowledge or beliefs, but in general not as much.Not that much? You haven't considered that the statement wasn't even made about humans at all. :D

In a rather controversial thread, an article was presented with the suggestion it was written by someone with specific political leanings. The way in which people interpreted the article seemed more based on their view of those political leanings than the writing itself. Now, to filter out bias, we need to be aware of bias...but too often that only applies to the bias of OTHERS and not ourselves. So. How do your own views colour how you process information?

For example, read the following statement:

"Males are inherently more aggressive than females."

Now...how would you react had this been a quote by a noted radical feminist? Would your reaction differ if a man had said this? How would that context change if you found out the person being quoted studies primates?

Context is key...but so is perception. How much of what you perceive is based on your particular assumptions as to what is meant...even before you read what is actually said?
Context is everything--you risk looking like an ass if you make a judgment based solely on a single statement. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop us from doing it pretty regularly, which I guess backs up your argument.

Here's another thing to factor in--the context of the location in which you find the statement. Here's what I mean--I talk about politics for the most part around here, so I tend to see threads in a political format first, and have to switch gears if there's something non-political being discussed. As a result, if I saw that quote and didn't know the context, my first question would be "is that a political statement? and if so, what's the background of the speaker?" If I read that statement on a website like Pharyngula, which is a blog run by a biologist, I'd have more questions (because he flips between biology and politics) about context.

Sometimes we simply assume that there is a particular agenda behind someone's statement or expressed viewpoint, based on what we know of their ideological leanings. Take for example another statement:

Aboriginal men are more prone to alcoholism.

Than? Than non-aboriginal men? Than aboriginal women? What? We aren't given the full context here, so there is a lot of room for interpretation. Much of the information we are given here on NS (and elsewhere) is similar...decidedly lacking in context, and very open to interpretation. There is no ONE way to read that statement. It can be interpreted in many ways.

Imagine it was said by a white politician. Would that automatically mean it was a racist comment? Depends on how you feel about white politicians using 'aboriginal' and 'alcoholism' in the same sentence. What if it was a comment made in passing by an aboriginal woman at the supermarket? What if an aboriginal professor of biology was saying this? That statement might say different things to you, depending on not only the original context, but also how you feel about the original context.

Context is everything--you risk looking like an ass if you make a judgment based solely on a single statement. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop us from doing it pretty regularly, which I guess backs up your argument. I'm using single statements, because I wanted to simplify the issue to begin with...but I think this applies to even long articles or editorials. I think it's why so many people can read the same information and glean widely diverse opinions of it...sometimes to the point where you're not even sure you read the same thing as they did.

Here's another thing to factor in--the context of the location in which you find the statement. Here's what I mean--I talk about politics for the most part around here, so I tend to see threads in a political format first, and have to switch gears if there's something non-political being discussed. As a result, if I saw that quote and didn't know the context, my first question would be "is that a political statement? and if so, what's the background of the speaker?" If I read that statement on a website like Pharyngula, which is a blog run by a biologist, I'd have more questions (because he flips between biology and politics) about context.
I agree we tend to take things in NS in a very political context...but sometimes that blinds us. We equate politics with partisanship, rather than understanding that anything is political if taken that way...comments about society can be simple everyday musings, or read as manifestos. I think we need to step back sometimes and just READ without assuming first.

Not that much? You haven't considered that the statement wasn't even made about humans at all. :D

A good point. But I wasn't really reacting to the statement so much as the "idea" of the statement. In that sense, my words could be interpolated to change into human, dog, chimp, amoeba...whatever...ok, not amoeba, they are sexless.

But then, I wanted to add also, that my beliefs and knowledge due come into play when selecting what I want to read and/or debate. In this sense, I suppose everything is colored as I won't get into a conversation about say Roof Repair, since I know nothing about it.

the basic premise strikes me as true

different viewpoints = different interpertations

Context is key...but so is perception. How much of what you perceive is based on your particular assumptions as to what is meant...even before you read what is actually said?
I've actually changed my opinion on a post I read just by misreading the name at first. But this somehow takes the history of my interactions with other posters, so I find it justified at least a little bit.
I try not to let my political views cloud my perception, but how can you tell whether you're biased?

I've actually changed my opinion on a post I read just by misreading the name at first. But this somehow takes the history of my interactions with other posters, so I find it justified at least a little bit.
I try not to let my political views cloud my perception, but how can you tell whether you're biased?
I think just questioning yourself and your reaction to certain things is important. For example...I'm less likely to listen to someone who proclaims themself to be a white supremacist than I am to someone who is not overtly racist when discussing things like a predisposition to alcoholism within aboriginal populations. But if both people use the same scientific information to back up their argument (for or against, because that particular issue is far from resolved), and the argument itself is not made in an overtly racist manner by either of them...why am I really dismissing or accepting the information? Am I evaluating the information and the argument based on it? Or am I evaluating the person making the argument and presenting the information?

And if someone is making a rather vague social commentary based on an experience they've had...I shouldn't assume that there is some wider political agenda behind that commentary.

I've actually changed my opinion on a post I read just by misreading the name at first. But this somehow takes the history of my interactions with other posters, so I find it justified at least a little bit.
I try not to let my political views cloud my perception, but how can you tell whether you're biased?
I think you have to assume that you're biased and compensate for that, or at least attempt to compensate for it. That means being open to the possibility that your point of view is flawed and challenging your own beliefs from time to time. Ask yourself why you believe something and justify it to yourself--if you can't present yourself with a coherent argument, you better reconsider your position.

Considering that your own biases may be colouring your perception of an issue might also help you to understand the baffling interpretations of others...we've all come across someone sometime here on NS that seems to read into an issue something COMPLETELY different than you do...and then things turn into a semantical nightmare of definition-justification...Dempublicents and Jocabia...are you out there?

Facts are facts. Opinions are just that. If a fact is stated (and can be backed up appropriately), I'll sit well with that. But when that feminist takes that simple fact and bases a conclusion on it that's outrageous, I'll tune out (i.e., how many men are more-or-less driven to violence because of classic devious female manipulation?).
It comes down to how the facts are presented, and in what context.

Considering that your own biases may be colouring your perception of an issue might also help you to understand the baffling interpretations of others...we've all come across someone sometime here on NS that seems to read into an issue something COMPLETELY different than you do...and then things turn into a semantical nightmare of definition-justification...Dempublicents and Jocabia...are you out there?


Or checking out the thread in hopes it wont be boring-BUT IT IS !!!

Is this the best you've got? You've had week to think this up. :p

:fluffle:

I think you have to assume that you're biased and compensate for that, or at least attempt to compensate for it. That means being open to the possibility that your point of view is flawed and challenging your own beliefs from time to time. Ask yourself why you believe something and justify it to yourself--if you can't present yourself with a coherent argument, you better reconsider your position.
Of course, how can you truly see your position as flawed when you recognize certain things as "facts" that other would consider "[political affiliation] bullshit"? What really is it that tells you these facts weren't really bogus rhetoric?
(Personally, I consider it rather bad form to rub under someone's nose how unbiased one is. Somehow, it's always hypocritical.)

"Males are inherently more aggressive than females."

Now...how would you react had this been a quote by a noted radical feminist? Would your reaction differ if a man had said this? How would that context change if you found out the person being quoted studies primates?

Context is key...but so is perception. How much of what you perceive is based on your particular assumptions as to what is meant...even before you read what is actually said?
My eye goes immediately to the word "inherent", as that touches on my philosophical beliefs, and therefore philosophical bias. I would question "Is it true that it is inherent?" before I even looked at the context.

Similarly, whether a feminist, a man or a biologist said it, I would look at the larger context of what's being said (the article or speech) before the person. But then, so much of the person is in what they are trying to say.

I guess the answer to your question is, I don't know.

Facts are facts. Opinions are just that. If a fact is stated (and can be backed up appropriately), I'll sit well with that. But when that feminist takes that simple fact and bases a conclusion on it that's outrageous, I'll tune out (i.e., how many men are more-or-less driven to violence because of classic devious female manipulation?). Hmmm...that bolded part...sounds a bit like a conclusion not based on facts ;)
It comes down to how the facts are presented, and in what context.
It does. But it also comes down into the connotations you yourself read into something. For example, that comment I picked out at the beginning of your quote..."How many men are more-or-less driven to violence because of classic devious female manipulation". I can read that in a number of ways, and then make assumptions, and force you to clarify yourself:

1) So you are saying that females are devious and manipulative and are at fault for men's violence?

2) So you are saying that men don't mean to be violent, but that women force them to it?

3) So you are saying that men are easily outsmarted and manipulated?

Can you see how each one of these interpretations could be taken from your one comment? Now you have to run around like a madman to clarify yourself. Unfortunately, in most cases we can't get the original author to clarify...so we try to do it for them, based on our own interpretation.

So...what DID you mean by that comment? :D

Or checking out the thread in hopes it wont be boring-BUT IT IS !!!

Is this the best you've got? You've had week to think this up. :p

:fluffle:
That's assuming I sit around and think up NS topics all day. Assumption is the mother of foot-in-mouth disease. :p

That's assuming I sit around and think up NS topics all day. Assumption is the mother of foot-in-mouth disease. :p

I have a tool that can pry your foot right outta there, sweety.

Just wanted to light your fire. And I'm all crude and ignorant, so... ;)

Of course, how can you truly see your position as flawed when you recognize certain things as "facts" that other would consider "[political affiliation] bullshit"? What really is it that tells you these facts weren't really bogus rhetoric?
(Personally, I consider it rather bad form to rub under someone's nose how unbiased one is. Somehow, it's always hypocritical.)
Yeah, I don't really buy that 'facts are facts' statement. Facts are rarely presented in isolation...and even facts can be interpreted to back up something that it doesn't necessarily support. And are we talking just scientific facts? Or social facts? I don't think social facts exist. Not as pure, ubiased truths.

Yeah, I don't really buy that 'facts are facts' statement. Facts are rarely presented in isolation...and even facts can be interpreted to back up something that it doesn't necessarily support. And are we talking just scientific facts? Or social facts? I don't think social facts exist. Not as pure, ubiased truths.Scientific facts have been revoked too. Newton's laws are technically incorrect. The world turned out to be round. We scoff at the notion of the world being flat, but who can tell what scientific "facts" we cling to that are similarly false..?

Hmmm...that bolded part...sounds a bit like a conclusion not based on facts ;)

It does. But it also comes down into the connotations you yourself read into something. For example, that comment I picked out at the beginning of your quote..."How many men are more-or-less driven to violence because of classic devious female manipulation". I can read that in a number of ways, and then make assumptions, and force you to clarify yourself:

1) So you are saying that females are devious and manipulative and are at fault for men's violence?

2) So you are saying that men don't mean to be violent, but that women force them to it?

3) So you are saying that men are easily outsmarted and manipulated?

Can you see how each one of these interpretations could be taken from your one comment? Now you have to run around like a madman to clarify yourself. Unfortunately, in most cases we can't get the original author to clarify...so we try to do it for them, based on our own interpretation.

So...what DID you mean by that comment? :D

Sin, you crack me up! You know I made that statement just to bother you. :D

But aside from that, I can't help but have my perception colored by my beliefs (there, I said it). It's pretty impossible as a human being not to.
And the writer's beliefs are just as important as the text, since she's bound to the same bias.
Anyone saying otherwise is probably blowin' smoke up our asses. Her perception is as colored by her beliefs as the reader's.
Just my $.02.

A most excellent thread. :)


For example, read the following statement:

"Males are inherently more aggressive than females."

Now...how would you react had this been a quote by a noted radical feminist? Would your reaction differ if a man had said this? How would that context change if you found out the person being quoted studies primates?

Context is key...but so is perception. How much of what you perceive is based on your particular assumptions as to what is meant...even before you read what is actually said?

My reaction, in any case, would undoubtedly be one of annoyance or even anger, stemming from the fact that I'm a male and that I'd feel insulted. And also that I tend to view any generalisation as a sign of low intellect from the person making it, which I find inherently annoying.

Then if the statement where made by a man, my annoyance would be very mild. If made by a militant feminist, much higher (because I'd take it as a definite insult, a groundless one at that in my case at least, and because I'd automatically stick the "low intellect" label on her in reaction). If applied to (non-human) primates, my annoyance would decrease to virtually nothing.

So the way we react depends very much on our own views and beliefs, as much as who the person we're reacting to is.

A most excellent thread. :)


You hear that, Carn??? I don't have to f*ck talk to get THEIR attention! :eek:

depends on what they follow it up with. innocuous statements can hide some pretty viscious ideology and some racist seeming speech can be followed up with good suggestions for progress

You hear that, Carn??? I don't have to f*ck talk to get THEIR attention! :eek:


Yeah, yeah-we're all really impressed here.

I guess you're better off at work impressing some, rather than having me get your juices flowing.

Did you switch chairs when no one is looking?

depends on what they follow it up with. innocuous statements can hide some pretty viscious ideology and some racist seeming speech can be followed up with good suggestions for progress
I just hate to think I might be dismissing good suggestions simply because I despise the person making them.

I just hate to think I might be dismissing good suggestions simply because I despise the person making them.

Ah, but don't most of us do it instinctively all the same? And don't most of us tend to reject anything that doesn't fit with our preconceptions, without actually taking it into (serious) consideration?

I'm not saying we necessarily do, but I do feel sometimes that most people (myself included, no doubt) tend to adapt facts to their own preconceptions rather than the reverse.

In a rather controversial thread, an article was presented with the suggestion it was written by someone with specific political leanings. The way in which people interpreted the article seemed more based on their view of those political leanings than the writing itself. Now, to filter out bias, we need to be aware of bias...but too often that only applies to the bias of OTHERS and not ourselves. So. How do your own views colour how you process information?

For example, read the following statement:

"Males are inherently more aggressive than females."

Now...how would you react had this been a quote by a noted radical feminist? Would your reaction differ if a man had said this? How would that context change if you found out the person being quoted studies primates?

Context is key...but so is perception. How much of what you perceive is based on your particular assumptions as to what is meant...even before you read what is actually said?

it's almost impossible for a reader/watcher/listener to not filter information through his cognitive lens

Ah, but don't most of us do it instinctively all the same? And don't most of us tend to reject anything that doesn't fit with our preconceptions, without actually taking it into (serious) consideration?

I'm not saying we necessarily do, but I do feel sometimes that most people (myself included, no doubt) tend to adapt facts to their own preconceptions rather than the reverse.
Well, that can be handy too...I don't want to walk around with TOO open a mind. If, in my experience, a certain person is a habitual liar...I don't want to stop myself from assuming that the next thing out of his mouth is a lie.

We filter...I just want to make sure I don't filter out too much.

Well, that can be handy too...I don't want to walk around with TOO open a mind. If, in my experience, a certain person is a habitual liar...I don't want to stop myself from assuming that the next thing out of his mouth is a lie.

We filter...I just want to make sure I don't filter out too much.

I don't mean only lies, I mean opinions. Things that don't fit neatly into true/not-true.

Or, for that matter, facts used to back up (or "proove") opinions.

Quite often, however, you are not going to have the writer available to you for clarification. And if the article you happen to read is by someone you've never heard of, the context may not be available to you. If you are told, "this was written by a socialist" or a "whateverist", how much is your view of what is written going to changed, based on your personal view of socialism or whateverism?

I would have to say I can't comment on what someone who I can't get
clarification from has to say, as I don't know the context or the particulars of
what they meant.

In other words, It's impossible to make anything but half-assed commentary
on a collection of words if you don't know what was meant by their assembly.

I'm not overly averse to making half-assed commentary, of course, such
as, "If this was written by a socialist fembot, then all socialist fembots should
be herded back to the corral for anti-male fine tuning."


Is it possible for us to glean any useful insight from someone else if we allow our own biases (anti-capitalism, anti-whateverism) to come into play? If we simply dismiss what someone says because they believe in an ideology that we do not agree with...are we perhaps throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

If I don't know what someone meant by what they said, and I can't find out
what they meant, then I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY MEANT.

If I don't know what they meant, then it's a bad idea to comment on what
they said, as my comments could influence others because of my potential
error as to what the author actually meant.

Therefore, what was said by the author is neither here nor there. It needs
more information before I can do ANYTHING with it.