Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Subjective assumptions do not necessarily have an emotional basis. They may carry with them bias, but to assume that bias is always emotional is incorrect.
|
What is a bias as you see it? I see having a bias as something subjective that distorts a persons view of objective information.
For example, continuing with the life insurance example: If you decide to purchase half as much life insurance as I do (assuming we fit in the same categories that should objectively lead us to the same amount), who am I to say your choice is wrong? who are you to say my choice is wrong? Assuming we both looked at the same information, I think it is reasonable that we may come to different conclusions. We are different, we have different biases, we have different emotional responses to risks and hazards.
Making the link to our favorite topic - the Iraq threat or non-threat. If your choice is to take no action to insure against the risks and hazards presented by Iraq under Saddam, who am I to say you are wrong? If my choice is to take action to insure against the risks and hazards presented by Iraq under Saddam who are you to say I am wrong? Theoretically, you get one vote and I get one vote. If I get the majority of people to see it the way I do, something gets done. I get people to see it my way, certainly by including facts, but I have to make an emotional connection to those facts. It seems Bush understood that, he even got liberals to emotionally connect to his arguments. And, he has people like me who will argue the point ad nauseam. Roach's study seems to try to understand why - and I am giving you my understanding of why.