I think this is called "bias blind spot".
-
Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
- Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
The "Framing Bias" - a cognitive bias
- Thread starter TBRS1
- Start date
100%!
And in many areas now, that manipulation is old hat and finely tuned to get the best returns at our expense.
I think humans are in many ways little different from many other animals and have many/most of the basic drivers they have too. Granted it's become incredibly complex as our societies have become ever more complex, but underlying it are still the same basic behaviours.
We can dress them up all we like to try and pretend we are something different, even 'special' (hmmm...
), but I think that's much more to do with our lack of being something special and different - we just have certain attributes that have grown far beyond any other known species, just like giraffes have longer necks, but they are still necks, not something 'special' and new.
)
Agree.I'd go further myself (in part being unable to manage any complex abstract math or any other method of 'proof') to say that truth is a flexible thing according to it's context and nature, and who is asking (for that truth); certainty likewise is abstract and maybe more a matter of pragmatism (i.e. we have to start all logical arguments with some sort of assumptions being made, or make little progress)?
I may be being pedantic here (unintentionally) but I'd prefer using 'fact' rather than truth and certainty. That of course doesn't remove those elements of uncertainty, rather repositions them I think, but that may well be more just me being me.
My only mode of conscious cognition of which I can determine in myself is using logic and this seems to come from the subconscious more than the conscious side. It's like a sort of real-time fact checker running in the background below my level of awareness and I get sort of virtual alarm bells when I take in something that breaks the logical progression.
In some ways the current popularity for popularity at any cost (most of all at the cost of honesty, integrity and trust) has made it easier to see the lies because instead of lies hidden between truths where the subconscious expectation is they are all true and accurate, we have a sea of inaccuracies in which the truths are the minority - i.e. the assumption is there will almost always be inaccuracies.
The lies will always fold under examination using intellectual methodologies, heck, most of them can't stand up to basic common sense ...
And yet they do!
It's a dangerous game those with power are playing in encouraging that, and I fear it's an uncontrollable beast and that by poking it so much, one day it's going to wake up and show what an uncontrollable force of nature can do.
I think this may have something to do with the recent virulent attacks on intellectuals - scientists, academics, authors, artists, professional experts in their fields, people who can generally cut through the BS with ease and have the implicit power of being able to make things work.
In fact it reflects the social treatment of smiths and similar back in the past where the ability to forge a weapon or tool in a material harder and sharper and more effective than anything else around was considered to be magic and those skills made the smiths hugely powerful and people rightly feared great armies all armoured and tooled up with these magical unstoppable weapons and controlled by the only people who could provide that armour and weaponry.
So they were often ostracised and made to live outside of mainstream society, often even physically - refused residence in the villages, living by providing the villages with what they needed in return for food and other resources (and limited acceptance and protection), never allowed to become too powerful - a mistake modern society has made and now suffers for it.
Our modern day 'magicians' have succeeded in casting a spell that's the biggest lie of all, beneath which all their blatant lies can be openly stated, even admitted to but excused as necessary (Vance and the 'migrants eating pets' event). This has become normalised through the amplification of social media and the human weakness to manipulation through repetition.
[Caveat: BTW, all my rantings are the world as Boog's see's, nothing more, I'm not saying I'm right (or that it makes sense for that matter)!]
I have spoken on this topic many times. "Facts" are subject to specific conditions. As such, your life experiences may yield "facts" that are different than mine. If one does not understand this phenomenon, and you're one that "has to be correct", then discussions or arguments initiate.
Another example, you mentioned attacks upon intellectuals. This is often out of ignorance and frustration. Again, even within the context of the scientific method, one must control for variables. In effect, one must limit variables that may "contaminate" results. As such, the results of any experiment are TRUE, but within the specific context of the conditions. Many studies are required to challenge those results and glean a broader perspective in terms of the "whole truth". It may take decades. So, to suggest that "doctors don't know anything" contains some truth but is also a lie. Doctors know what is currently available to them in terms of knowledge. 2 years from now, their practice and recommendations will change, as they should. This is how we all get better. Complaining that "they said one thing, then another, and now it's something else" is NOT proof that we can't trust doctors, but rather it IS proof that the scientific process is working the way we all wish it should. We want to know that methods and treatments that we were exposed to as children have improved significantly for our own children.
I may be smellier, but I'll never be a sommelier!
I used to go to France and sometimes Italy camping with my family in the summer hols when I was a child, and we'd drive around setting up camp wherever we wanted according to weather and desire so would often visit little villages and towns, and many in wine growing regions would have a co-operative that they would contribute all the wines that couldn't be labelled as Appellation Contrôlée (only limited numbers of bottles can be labelled under a Chateaux or region name) and you could buy wine that exactly the same as what was for sale at the shop front, but about a tenth the price! But most tourists would only buy the bottles with the limited run of labels, even after tasting both, presumably because the label and traditional bottle style etc gave it something extra.
But then the placebo effect is a powerful and well recognised effect, so the line between reality and psychology (or however it's best phrased) isn't really a line but more a continuous (don't say it! don't say it!!) spectrum (drat! I said it!!) between mind and body, which are all so connected it's not really accurate to separate them I think.
Actually, not the case!
b) I'm unable to consciously recall experiences at all, only the semantic memory that an experience had/has occurred (yeah, being pedantic again! Sorry! Couldn't resist my inner brat!
).a) If you have spoken many times, I've missed that or more likely have no conscious memory of it - I often come across posts I've very recently made, that I have no recollection of! In fact that occurs even within a post - I lose what I've already written and have to reread my own post to be able to finish it! Dur!
But more seriously, we delve into (from my p.o.v.) matters focussed around the strict definitions we each have for the words. My bad for not being more explicit.
By 'fact' I mean something that ultimately we have been unable to disprove and/or find alternative explanations for, and where our current understanding allows prediction modelling, and generally is something we need to assume to be able to progress along a specific line of enquiry. I hope that's a bit better defined (as to what I meant by fact, at least). And not disagreeing about it being conditional - get down to it, everything is relative.
But I'm pretty much (erratically) self educated so I'm very likely being confusing and imprecise trying to discuss a subject I know little about beyond my own flawed conclusions, with others experienced and educated in the field. Just the terms themselves are easy to misuse by the ignorant so I apologise if that's the case.
Thank you. I appreciate the referral to a more impartial source.
(I had to look up "phatic communication")
Yes, I think you're right. If you consider non-linguistic communication (music, dance, visual art) the emotional content is the primary message. If you and I listen to the same song, we will most likely both identify the same emotion, but we will "materialize it" (i.e.: apply the emotion to our own experience) differently.
I think that in small talk the individuals create a short term negotiated emotional reality in order to interact - this "negotiated reality" may be something as simple as "we are friends and, therefore, we can speak freely, within certain limits."
Phatic - yeah, I'd never come across it until I started finding out more about myself (post self-diagnosis), but it describes something I didn't have words for beyond 'emotive', but 'emotive' can be differently interpreted I think.
I suspect I would not be very good at identifying the emotion being expressed though - more just blank incomprehension than misinterpretation in my own case. I suspect the prosopagnosia has an impact for any facial expressiveness, and the alexithymia impacts too, but beyond the most basic and extreme emotions such as anger I struggle to gain any enlightenment as to what that person really feels about something, and equally struggle to put a feeling across to someone.
It does vary from person to person, and some are clearer than others to understand a little better but still mostly ambiguous or vague at best.
I like your 'negotiated reality' - that says it much better than I could express.
There is an actual definition - and test - for "facts."Actually, not the case!
b) I'm unable to consciously recall experiences at all, only the semantic memory that an experience had/has occurred (yeah, being pedantic again! Sorry! Couldn't resist my inner brat!
a) If you have spoken many times, I've missed that or more likely have no conscious memory of it - I often come across posts I've very recently made, that I have no recollection of! In fact that occurs even within a post - I lose what I've already written and have to reread my own post to be able to finish it! Dur!
But more seriously, we delve into (from my p.o.v.) matters focussed around the strict definitions we each have for the words. My bad for not being more explicit.
By 'fact' I mean something that ultimately we have been unable to disprove and/or find alternative explanations for, and where our current understanding allows prediction modelling, and generally is something we need to assume to be able to progress along a specific line of enquiry. I hope that's a bit better defined (as to what I meant by fact, at least). And not disagreeing about it being conditional - get down to it, everything is relative.
But I'm pretty much (erratically) self educated so I'm very likely being confusing and imprecise trying to discuss a subject I know little about beyond my own flawed conclusions, with others experienced and educated in the field. Just the terms themselves are easy to misuse by the ignorant so I apologise if that's the case.
A statement that can (at least in theory - for example, science may not yet have a test for a particular theory yet) be proved "true" or "false" is a fact. If a fact statement is proved false, it is a "false fact." If proved true, it is a "true fact."
Example:
Blue cheese is the best cheese (subjective, can't be proved or disproved. Opinion, NOT fact).
Blue cheese has a distinct flavor produced by mixing gasoline into it (there is no gasoline in blue cheese. The statement is proved wrong, therefore it is a false fact).
Blue cheese gets it's blue color from a mold growing on it (get out the microscope, pour out a few Petri dishes. The blue color IS blue mold, therefore, this is a true fact).
Ahhh, so when you speak of "facts", these might be more commonly found in mathematics and physics within your definition. Objective truths. They are true whether you believe them or not. Yes. Agree. I believe I mentioned in a previous post that in "real life", it is difficult to find examples of these sorts of "truths" outside of mathematics and physics.Actually, not the case!
b) I'm unable to consciously recall experiences at all, only the semantic memory that an experience had/has occurred (yeah, being pedantic again! Sorry! Couldn't resist my inner brat!
a) If you have spoken many times, I've missed that or more likely have no conscious memory of it - I often come across posts I've very recently made, that I have no recollection of! In fact that occurs even within a post - I lose what I've already written and have to reread my own post to be able to finish it! Dur!
But more seriously, we delve into (from my p.o.v.) matters focussed around the strict definitions we each have for the words. My bad for not being more explicit.
By 'fact' I mean something that ultimately we have been unable to disprove and/or find alternative explanations for, and where our current understanding allows prediction modelling, and generally is something we need to assume to be able to progress along a specific line of enquiry. I hope that's a bit better defined (as to what I meant by fact, at least). And not disagreeing about it being conditional - get down to it, everything is relative.
But I'm pretty much (erratically) self educated so I'm very likely being confusing and imprecise trying to discuss a subject I know little about beyond my own flawed conclusions, with others experienced and educated in the field. Just the terms themselves are easy to misuse by the ignorant so I apologise if that's the case.
Outside of mathematics and physics, I operate on a different, perhaps broader perspective when it comes to truths and facts when it comes to daily life experiences. For example, in your life, you may have experiences that definitely happened to you, that is a fact, a truth, they happened. However, within that context, is often a rather unique set of conditions or circumstances. If given the identical conditions, it would likely happen again, and again, and again with nearly 100% accuracy. However, this rarely happens in life as the variables that we experience in life are not a set of controlled conditions but are often in some degree of "flux". So, here I come along with my own life experience, rather similar, but with a different result. You might say, based upon your experience "X" is true, and I say in my experience that "Y" is true. Well, we both have our facts, the results that did happen without a doubt, but both are subject to specific conditions.
Last edited:
To further complicate the issue: The 3 types of truths.
They say: "You can't step in the same river twice."
In this case, "they" seem to be correct
.
This is what I meant about lack of education on my part, and what I was trying to express was how I was using the word, not what I think the correct definition is, sorry for being unclear. I don't usually converse with anyone about topics of this nature (the more science oriented topics) beyond this site so I'm not very good at matching conventions and definitions.
I'm not quite sure I see the reasoning in categorising things as 'false facts'. To my view a fact is labelled as such for the very reason it's true, anything else that says different is simply not a fact (unless or until it can be shown otherwise). But we're looking at this in different ways I think, for me, as I really use the word internally, it's more like a flag to say I've not disproved something or found an equally viable alternative then I use that to base other things on. I've never learnt to use the terms in a way necessary for unambiguous, precise and accurate descriptions that others can digest.
Sort of, but as I mentioned earlier, I can't handle abstract math, which for someone who can only engage with the sciences as a core fundamental interest ("what is this world I find myself in?") turned out to be a bit of a drawback! Not to mention the other educational issues making exams extremely difficult to pass, so I've only had my own interest to flit around all sorts of scientific topics, but little formal stuff. I can only operate on logic and words and often have massive knowledge gaps that most formally educated people take for granted.
So objective truth is presumably that which doesn't rely on an specific individual but rather a set of pre-defined rules?
To me subjective truth is a misnomer, but this circles back to why I made my original comment about truth and fact. Maybe a better description would be that I see everything as black boxes.
Because I have problems with memorising arbitrary symbols I have to learn how things work, then whenever I need to make the black box do something, I work it out from first principals around my understanding how the box works. Every black box is different and can be treated different, indeed have to be, and can never be fully understood back to very first principles (or at least I'm not capable) - my understanding the box well enough to be able to work out how to use it instead of rote learning a set of actions to control it defines when it becomes a fact. When that model breaks down (some change in circumstance) then it's no longer trusted as a fact.
The advantage, in discussions, of having a definition for "fact" that includes "false facts" and "true facts" is that it provides a "test" that can be used when a person makes a "factual statement."
For example, if I say "the earth is roughly round" and somebody else says "the earth is roughly flat", both are "facts," but they are contradictory facts.
Since both things can't be true at the same time, one of them must be wrong.
One finds out which is true and which is false by determining which is supported by the evidence.
This, though, leads to another problem. A person can simply refuse to consider actual evidence. This is a whole other bag of worms.
I am similar in the fact that I love physics, and I do have a great sense of pattern recognition. I also love the "process" of breaking things down to first principles to understand the "black box". I am often consumed with the trial-and-error method, doing the literature searches, etc. in order to understand the "black box". Sure, I could be lazy and just look up the answer, and I have on occasion, but I enjoy the process of learning, making the mistakes, trying another set of conditions, and trying again. Back in the day, I enjoyed my physics courses, from a lab perspective, even though I may have struggled with some of the math that proved the results.
Objective truths are those that are true about our world and are not subject to belief. If all the world's knowledge were destroyed in some horrific event, and a thousand years later we gained our knowledge back via trial-and-error and scientific method, those objective truths would be the same. Some things in this world and universe just "are".
Your comment about when a model breaks down (some change in circumstance) then it's no longer trusted as fact. Exactly! However, you cannot throw out the models that did not break down. So, you repeat the model, changing the conditions, repeat, change the conditions, repeat, and so on, over and over again. Find out which conditions do not work, and which ones do. Now, you have two sets of facts. This is the scientific method. Over time, this is how objective truths are found. This is why, say, medical practices and recommendations change over time. Someone is coming up with new studies to test what we know with different experimental conditions, and every now and then, a "red flag" is thrown up showing that in specific patient populations, under specific conditions, harm could be done. We then modify our practice.
Another example might be algorithms. These practice diagrams based upon "if this, then that", where the current "best practices" are based upon specific conditions. We use them quite a bit in medicine. Having said that, as we gain more knowledge, every so often, the algorithm changes. An example below: 2020 Algorithms
Last edited:
Now here I would never consider "the earth is roughly flat" to be anything more than a statement, and to my internal perception neither of the two statements have any more validity as facts than the statement "the earth likes to spin".
Neither of the 'earth' statements is a fact (however you reasonably define a fact), for starters they are complex combinations of facts in concept with multiple possible meanings (I'm only describing this from my own subjective internal view) - a fact could be considered to be a unit of understanding which can progress a more complex piece of understanding, and what makes them facts is that they succeed in this function. Thinking on it, they also need to be independent of the whole thought structure, they can stand alone and still retain the same meaning, otherwise they would be conditional on something else (I speak pragmatically, obviously nothing can have meaning with referencing and being referenced by something else).
But my point on the two statements as I read them is that they are only contradictory with respect to each other, but not to any actual dimension of the earth. Even the statement "the earth is roughly spherical" is such an open ended description, it could be approximately accurate but it could be something else, and even if approximately accurate, I'm not sure I'd class it a fact in my own system. Just having the word 'approximately' may well need qualifying, I'd call it grey area as it could be used as a fact to base something line of reasoning on, but equally it may not fit the bill and it would require specific examples to make that appraisal.
But none of this (my definitions) is good clean reasoning, I've never had to consider it much; these aren't tools I use as you would academically, I'm just trying to describe it in a way that makes at least some sense.
That resonates, I was a big science fan from a very early age when my school and parents couldn't get me to read (4 years old) and in despair sent me off to a private tutor. Two half hour sessions later she tell's my parents I can read just fine if not better, just get me something more interesting to read than Janet and John Play Hopscotch"!
So in trying different things they brought home a junior science book of some sort and that was it, problem sorted. But from my part, with hindsight I think it was the only thing that made sense to me, a logical description of how the world works. This meant so much more than the boring rubbish we had to read in school that just drove me to distraction with it's meaningless tripe.
But pulling apart the black boxes that interested me was such a sheer pleasure and stimulating, I couldn't associate it with learning, it was just fun and games. This is why I loved IT so much, I could try everything out without anything more than the box in front of me. So many little black boxes within boxes, and so many things to do with it, just to learn more about what's in there and how to pull it's strings.
Ok, I think that's pretty close to what I had in mind - it takes an individual to have belief, but a set of pre-defined rules removes that influence after the fact (once the rules are in place).
I'm actually more familiar with the principals of scientific method than I'm qualified for. I worked in one of the big London universities as a technician in the chemistry department for about 12 years, then another 10 in a pharmaceutical drug discovery research institute, so have been immersed in scientific academia to fair degree, but not academically speaking, and my father was pretty academic too, so all in all a lot rubbed off in passing, but not the formal parts such as learning the language of publications and specialised areas, and the processes involved, etc. I understand the reasons for falsifiability, peer review of publications, etc etc, but I lack the common knowledge and terminology that most degree students will pick up for their field that puts them on the same page in technical discussions where the precision of word definitions can make a big difference.
Or at least only throw out (replace/modify) if that fact/model is fundamental, if it's built of subunits then it depends on the relationship of the unit(s) that fail with the units they interact with. This seems more like the case, and then with luck there's one functional unit that can be swapped out for a working one without needing to rebuild the whole model. is that what you were getting at?
There are facts associated with failed attempts. There's value in mistakes. Knowing what isn't going to work is every bit as important as knowing what will work. So, yes, no need to throw out the whole model, just sort out what works and what doesn't.
An example, say what you want about Elon Musk from a personal perspective, not relevant here, but how he demands his engineering teams at SpaceX and Tesla to test and retest, have catastrophic failures, blow crap up, be innovative, to engineer at the speed of thought, etc. is the model we are speaking about. Revel in the mistakes and learn something new. If you look at the progression in design specs of their rocket engines over the past 2-3 years or the fact that there can be 20+ part design changes, in several individual parts, within a single model year Tesla vehicle, in each one of those vehicles, is astounding. It's unheard of in most industries. Things that take decades to do at most other companies, they do in a matter of a few days. Their teams work the model and work it hard, and with no hesitation, adjust the design.
Officially, you are entirely correct.
This is a flaw with language - language is very, very good at some things (notably, conveying emotions), but very, very bad at others (notably, conveying information with crystal clarity).
Generally, language clunks along find for most human interaction, more or less. But to convey very accurate information, a system of communication where each symbol has a precisely defined meaning, had to be invented.
The most common such system is math, then there is "symbolic logic" (Math is one of several forms of symbolic logic). "Logic by syllogism" (putting two statements together to derive another) seems most language-like, but in testing syllogisms, they get turned into math.
Each of these requires an individual to learn an entirely new way of thinking, a new operating procedure, and a new language - which people mostly don't want to do, so we muddle along, trying to make language do something it isn't very good at.
On the other hand, you can't write a sonnet using just math.
Maybe an AI will someday, but currently, writing done by AIs tends to be largely unintelligent.
I find the flaw is less the language itself, rather how it's used, and maybe the fact of how we are evolved to use it 'naturally' as opposed to it's use as an information tool of precision and accuracy using an intellectual methodology. We use an essentially outdated (out evolved?) comms tool to try and perform tasks that require absolute descriptions rather than relative one's?
Maybe we need languages of areas of function or subject (such as math) to gain more precise communication of ideas?
