The Trump-Russia collusion hoax was literally on the front page of every major democrat leaning news site for 2.5 years despite it being objectively retarded, so I don't want to hear it.
I wonder if Haidt’s moral foundations theory suffers from a similar problem.
Another related is calling something a bias. If you’re biased at anything else, you should expect to get the wrong answer. If you’re biased with humans, it means you are inegalitarian. Even if inequality is reality.
I think this is an important point – the distinction between what one might call *mechanical bias*, e.g., a measuring device that returns an output that's consistently too large or too small, and *political bias*, i.e., favouring one group or individual over another.
I'm also sceptical of Haidt's model for this very reason. It seems plausible to me that you could easily refactor his foundations so as to include, say, left-wing aversion toward racism in the purity factor. As is all too often the case in the social sciences, there are too many degrees of freedom in his model and even though I applaud his attempt at countering his own left-leaning bias I suspect you have to go much further than he dared to in order to balance things out properly.
So, were I to be a politician, I would try to steer discussion towards issues/themes that make my opponent's supporters look stupid, but keep my breadgrinder shut on issues that embarrass my own camp.
Perhaps the «sampling bias» described above means just that Democrats are more successful at pushing Republican-embarrassing topics into spotlight.
Crucial reading: https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2020/06/03/american-racism-and-the-anti-white-left/
The Trump-Russia collusion hoax was literally on the front page of every major democrat leaning news site for 2.5 years despite it being objectively retarded, so I don't want to hear it.
Great post.
I wonder if Haidt’s moral foundations theory suffers from a similar problem.
Another related is calling something a bias. If you’re biased at anything else, you should expect to get the wrong answer. If you’re biased with humans, it means you are inegalitarian. Even if inequality is reality.
I think this is an important point – the distinction between what one might call *mechanical bias*, e.g., a measuring device that returns an output that's consistently too large or too small, and *political bias*, i.e., favouring one group or individual over another.
I'm also sceptical of Haidt's model for this very reason. It seems plausible to me that you could easily refactor his foundations so as to include, say, left-wing aversion toward racism in the purity factor. As is all too often the case in the social sciences, there are too many degrees of freedom in his model and even though I applaud his attempt at countering his own left-leaning bias I suspect you have to go much further than he dared to in order to balance things out properly.
Not usually fan of cheap jibes, but for some reason "MSNPC" really got me
Typo: viola/voilà
So, were I to be a politician, I would try to steer discussion towards issues/themes that make my opponent's supporters look stupid, but keep my breadgrinder shut on issues that embarrass my own camp.
Perhaps the «sampling bias» described above means just that Democrats are more successful at pushing Republican-embarrassing topics into spotlight.