Observation bias can be considered an insult. Especially when the writer is trying to present a topic in a neutral way so that the reader can decide for him or her self what seems right/best/etc. Observation bias exists in the most mundane of interactions so I hardly find it difficult to imagine it exists in situations that matter. For instance, the other day my daughter asked me to make her some hot chocolate. I opened the cupboard, moved stuff around, looked up and down the shelves, closed the door and declared that the hot chocolate was nowhere to be found. Unfortunate too because it was the box of Chocolate bar mix with Coffee Crisp and Rolo flavours. In fact, check out my cupboard and you will see, the chocolate bar mix hot chocolate is not there - same as that day I looked for it. By the way, that is like an "extra" cupboard for the "extra" stuff I can't fit in the amazingly organized ones...
However, you may have noticed that there is in fact some hot chocolate in the cupboard. Again, same as the day I looked for it. But I could not see it. The reason I could not see it is because I wasn't looking for it. The picture in my head was that of a red box. I was looking for the Coffee Crisp logo and the Rolo logo. Once faced with the proposition of being denied her request, my daughter perched herself on the counter, opened the cupboard and said "This hot chocolate?" as she plucked it out and held it in her hand. She recalled what I did not; that I had decided in favour of the can over the individual packets. I expect this example is familiar and all I intend by using it is to support my point: when you are looking for one thing, you can completely avoid seeing what is directly in front of you.
The third thing I think stories (reports, observations, sightings etc) of events entail is the interpretation of an observation. Have you ever seen the movie Vantage Point? There's like six or more stories of different parts of an event that, once put together, enables a team to figure out the whole of what is going on - like a jigsaw puzzle. Each piece can only tell you so much but once you get them all together you see a big picture - metaphorically and literally turns into a big picture. This is why I dislike when I get the same news source over and over. There is no differentiation in the vantage point, so how am I to decide if it is true?
This is on my mind of course because of Ed Snowden (and a recent disagreement about it with a man we'll call Joe). Google Snowden if you have nothing but time on your hands (I wasn't going to choose a link but then decided I must - spoiler alert: it's the apres-Googled page). Now here is the beginning of your journey to enlightenment! Wait, back and forth, back and forth - hold on a moment, I need a Gravol, please.
I have yet to make a decision about Snowden's story. The reason for this is detailed in my assumption that the above mentioned three characteristics are apparent in everything we read, hear or even understand. And we are subject to them as well as we read, listen and process information. That is our gift as thinking beings. Do I honestly believe that the government is spying on its citizens? Sure. Am I worried about it? Not personally... not really... depends. And depend it does, on a whole host of other considerations that would turn this into a (possibly) short novel. My point is that Socrates was cryptically correct when he said that the more knowledge he acquired, he realized he actually knew less. And I feel the same way after trying to learn about Snowden.
No comments:
Post a Comment