Posted on 04/24/2022 7:50:46 PM PDT by DoodleBob
Pic is worth a thousand words.
I can think of one: Evil
The clearest indication of bias os that one thinks in ways that Big Brother would disapprove of. One must steadfastly banish such rubbish from one’s mind!
That Schwab sounds like a nazi. He talks with nazi thinking. He dad was a nazi.
Screw his assaholic lectures.
Anal Schwab. Somebody send us a nazi from central casting.
Confirmation bias: “If we cancel all the other thoughts so the only one you read is ours, over and over again, you must agree, right?”
Sampling bias: “We will delete all the facts that don’t support the thought we want you to have. Science!”
Brilliance bias: “We dressed this autocrat up in a white coat and you’re supposed to believe him even though he’s been lying since the 1980s when he was busy killing gay AIDS people. Also try not to think too hard about how the doofus/idiot/loser in every commercial and sitcom is a CISwhitemale, and only POCs and alphabet people have anything smart to say on TV.”
Everyone is biased through their life experiences. Being biased is a neutral characteristic.
We have the Free Republic unearthing blog to help us out and make frequent use of it.
If I could make correct stock purchase decision reliably, I would have no financial worries.
The big problem for my beach cottage craving ladyfriend is that the truth is not always obvious.
I am getting inundated in mental manure at an unprecedented rate.
The basis for decision making is now greatly weakened.
One man denken.
All other persons mussen glauben.
Verstehen Sie?
Life can also be unpredictable.
Except now it's not comedy, it's farce.
I am definitely biased against:
1. Big, out-of-control government
2. Democrats
3. Lefties
4. Liberals
5. DNC
6. CNN
7. MSNBC
8. Low-information voters
9. The Seattle City Council
10. Jay Inslee
And others...
Certain “leaders” use accusations of bias to avoid addressing competing ideas, which bias claims they of course never apply to themselves.
Although Ernst Stavro Schwab doesn’t quite fit the requirements for the Antichrist he’s an excellent match for level of evil. I contend that at this point he’s the most dangerously evil individual on the planet. People like Xi, Putin and Kim are massively evil, but their evil is more about nationalism than globalism. And nationalism is not necessarily bad, only if it’s employed by bad actors. Globalism is 100% evil.
Although Ernst Stavro Schwab doesn’t quite fit the requirements for the Antichrist he’s an excellent match for level of evil. I contend that at this point he’s the most dangerously evil individual on the planet. People like Xi, Putin and Kim are massively evil, but their evil is more about nationalism than globalism. And nationalism is not necessarily bad, only if it’s employed by bad actors. Globalism is 100% evil.
Obama was regurgitating the same talking points in his Stanford word salad justifying Big Tech censorship.
I suffer from Anal Schwab bias. I think Klaus is an a$$hole, when in reality he ia a anal tumor caked in feces.
But then, why throw in this particularistic "Brilliance Bias," which applies only to a misperception (if, indeed, it is a misperception) that most of the brilliant figures in history have been men and thus women are "less brilliant?"
First of all, anyone making the neutral observation (that the greatest individuals in History have been men, and that women are strangely lacking in that cohort) - it's neutral because it's TRUE! - has done nothing wrong.
BUT - He is suffering from the Apex Fallacy if he then proceeds to assume that this proves that men, as a whole are more intelligent than women as a whole. That's because, while all the great (military, scientific, religious, etc.) leaders in History may have been men, MOST men have still been only poor schlubs. That nearly all "great personalities" have been men does not alter the fact that 99.9% of all men have still led lives of "quiet desperation," with no recognition, no perks, no accolades.
By the same token, those who tell us that the female sex has been oppressed throughout History by "The Patriarchy" likewise ignore the fact that 99.9% of all men have also been oppressed by established power structures - i.e., the lot of most men has been barely distinguishable from the lot of all women. Hardly fair to call this a "Patriarchy!"
The fact is that the Bell Curve for men has leading (= brilliant) and trailing (= imbecilic) edges that extend out somewhat farther than the Bell Curve for the female sex. (The male Bell Curve for I.Q. is thus "flatter.")
There are thus more brilliant men than brilliant women - but also more idiotic men than idiotic women.
Still, my question stands: Why does the author of this contribution enumerate two standard biases - and then a third strangely specific bias?
That, itself, is indicative of some inherent bias, I would venture to say!
Regards,
Are we supposed to believe this rubbish? Brilliance Bias includes only the binary genders. There are at least 57, from what I’ve been told.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.