to ask how you see things objectively - even if you come with biases

[chomalungma]

Or is that impossible?

I will say that I have zero time for Cummings and Johnson - so I am seeing this through my own personal biases.

I guess there are people who have plenty of time for them. So see this through their biases.

How do you see things objectively - or is this impossible?

I usually try to assume that they must believe their own side of things as much as I believe mine, which makes it easier to then try to make sense of their thought processes. With previous Tory governments that worked as no matter how much I thought they were wrong, I thought that at least they thought they were right. It's very difficult with the current crowd though as I don't think it's the case for them - they don't believe what they're saying and so it's harder for us to

I think it's impossible to make a judgement about the character of someone you don't know in person so I try to limit my judgemental comments to their actions. So I approved of the speed that BJ informed the country about the initial financial support available to people to get through C19 but I'm not impressed by his defence of DC.

People are rarely all good or all bad.

I honestly think it's impossible. I want to believe that I am objective and I am able to weigh up the facts on their merit, but I have to be honest and admit that I am at least primed to come to certain judgements.

It is really hard. I try to read different media but then I still come with my own views and struggle to believe them. Or to ridicule them

Nobody can see anything objectively. We are all humans. We have emotions, biases, vested interests, personal needs for our world to make sense to us... Even if we don't notice that stuff going on inside us.

Really hard.

A lot of Tories including MPs are incredibly angry about this DC business though which shows that he's crossed a line.

But you can take steps to interrogate your bias, you are not doomed to be ruled by them.

You have the remove your emotional reaction to the situation.

The minute you start saying "I am so angry..." You are no longer objective.

You have to look at the black and white of the situation:

What do the guidelines say.

What action was taken.

What circumstances were these actions taken under.

Then you can come to a objective conclusion.

FourTeaFallOut
That's a good point and also being willing to listen to an opposing view. My mind has been changed many times after hearing a different perspective.

One thing I try to do, especially in a world of Twitter is not automatically believe everything bad said about people I don't like, and try to check before I spread things. I look a photos, for example, and say 'Is there any proof that's where/who/what it says it is?', 'Is that source website trustworthy or highly biased?'

While I think Cummings is a disgrace, particularly his inability to apologise, I've been a bit annoyed that people are saying 'He went to see his elderly parents and exposed them when he had COVID' as I don't think that is actually true, and as a result spreading that as a rumour is more likely to make people break distancing and think they might as well see their parents. Because, gallingly, his parents have a large enough estate for him to stay in a separate property, so I very much doubt he came near them when he was infectious or probably afterwards.

It's also difficult in Twitter world because the moment you point out an inaccuracy, everyone jumps in saying you are defending the awful person/action, not trying to say 'Let's leave spreading things that aren't true to the other side and focus on the stuff that is demostrably true'

It's ok to be angry at DC it's also ok to not be angry at him.

That's called your opinion, and every opinion is valid.

I always try to be objective and not just judge based on me, what I might not be getting or doing, seeming unfairness, etc. I try to look at things from others' perspectives, with as many facts as I can get, and with empathy and reasonableness ....

I understood the importance of not spreading the virus too quickly to avoid over burdening the NHS (it's going nowhere fast). I also understand exceptional circumstances, which laws and rules must include.

Personally, I think someone who judges people solely based on how they vote politically, is incapable of seeing things objectively.

Actually, I don't agree that every option is valid, down that road madness lies. But I do not think objectivity is particularly useful when considering the matter of morality, a bit of common sense will do. As for dick head Cummings - anger is perfectly appropriate.

Option= opinion

Apply critical thinking principles. Try and spot the logical fallacies and assumptions in your own argument and that of opposing arguments. Check your sources and verify them if you can. Acknowledge your own biases and also look into any unconscious bias you may have.

You can be biased and still be right, just make sure that what you say is backed with facts and not rhetoric. And look to see where others are trying to obfuscate.

It is not easy.

I would say, if your gut thinks something seems off but your puzzled by the defence of it, look to see if there are fallacious approaches in either your own understanding or that of the opposing argument.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies

I think that (while it is often forgotten) this definition and explanation of due impartiality in the BBC Editorial guidelines is great.

www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality

Due impartiality usually involves more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. It does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law.

As a PP said. Not all views are equal and not all arguments deserve the same airtime. If 99.oit of 100 scientists say the world is round and one says it is flat, you do not need to give the one airtime at all, let alone equal airtime to the other 99 scientists because they have a different opinion.

Objectivity is hard, even when we try and get a balance by reading listening to different views checking to see that stats are not quoted out of context or even if true some other crucial information is witheld or what the norm is. Journalists greatest concern is not always for the truth, the Daily Mail is not always false, the Guardian is not always right neither is the BBC, some sources are more reliable than others, we need to challenge ourselves to look outside our bubble. What you or I think is obvious morally ethically legally is not always the common view, the majority / common view is not always right, neither is it wrong just because it is held by less well educated or poorer people, ethics can't be held in a vacuum

Getting a balanced objective view on multiple issues is hard work, it can't be done with sound bites not even multiple soundbites from across the spectrum as sound bites are too shallow to discuss nuances and tend to make everything black and white rather than many shades of grey

I see things objectively by recognising what my biases are and accepting that they skew my perception. Then by removing emotion and gut response from the equation. I rarely act on first thoughts, sometimes not even on second thoughts.
It also helps if I use multiple sources for information, even ones I disagree with. It makes my critical thinking more analytical.

It’s really difficult. But I think the first step is being aware of your bias, as you obviously are. It’s easy to be aware of one’s bias with politics though, for obvious reasons - you know which party you vote for! It’s much harder to be aware of one’s unconscious biases.

One of the things I do is ask myself if someone I really like and care about had done/ said the thing I am pushed off about, would I feel the same way?

Pissed off about.....