How objective are you?

[belligerent drunk]

It's quite a simple question, but answering it is a little complicated. First we need to define what "objective" or "objectivity" means. To make the discussion somewhat easier we'll define it as: if there's an apple on the table and 10 people can see the apple and agree that there's indeed an apple on the table, then saying "there's an apple on the table" is objective. That is opposed to any other claim, such as "there is an illusion of an apple due to magicks" or something of the sort.

I feel that in this day and age with the availability of all sorts of information from different sources due to internet this question is especially important. There are many examples of scores of people believing outrageous claims because of their subjective feelings. All sorts of conspiracy "theories"*, flat Earth "theories"*

The questions I'm asking in this discussion are: do you strive towards being an objective person? If so, why? If not, why? Do you think an average person should try to be as objective as possible; also why? What analysis techniques do you use in determining the validity of claims and such? Do you think the society at large should strive towards being objective? What negative or positive effects for the human race do you see the average Joe being objective or lacking objectivity having? What aspects of life are there OK to be subjective in? What do you do in the case someone you know claims stuff you can easily prove to be wrong?

I myself try to be as objective as possible. There are fields where objectivity has practically no relevance, such as art, certain types of literature and so on; but anything where other human beings' condition is affected, one needs to be objective. Medicine, politics, science in general. The main way I try to maintain my objectivity is by being very careful with what sources I trust for my information. Peer-reviewed articles for science-related stuff, more or less trusted sources for other info; and most importantly, cross-checking multiple sources, because even the best ones can get it wrong at times. In my book, if like 5 sources have about the same consensus, then the information is most likely correct.

I might add more to this thread if anything comes to mind.

Looking forward to your replies.

*The word "theory" in science, and hence everywhere else, is defined as a concept that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. For example, the theories of gravitation, electromagnetism etc. Why I'm forced to add this footnote is because the word "theory" in simple language has been abused to mean a concept that has been proposed but not proven a la "theory of evolution" (in reality, volution is as proven as gravity) used by creationsts/religious people to downplay the indeed concrete theory of evolution. In this thread the word theory will be used in its proper meaning.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Depends on who you're trying to talk with. If I see a dinosaur toy on a table and the person next to me doesn't just see a dinosaur toy. He see's the domination of meaning, claiming that what he interprets is neither a toy nor a dinosaur. He see's an institution which dictates how a series of bones found in the earth are assembled and what color they would be. It would then be objective to attempt to adopt his point of view to assume common understanding so that you both "see" the same thing and meaning.

But of course -- it's just a dinosaur toy on a table.

 

[Foreigner]

I don't find language in general very objective, which is why we place trust in commonly shared assumptions about reality without any particular justification. These are compromises that I'm okay with, whether people acknowledge them as such or not. A lot of it is tied to social constructs and "nurture" values. We need these narratives to survive. I've come to discover living from that state where there's no-story (which is the true reality) all the time is harmful to human health. We need a story to survive, so we create one. There are collective stories and individual ones. The shared collective stories are what allow us to relate across our organic boundaries, to create seemingly objective compromises about reality.

I believe it's possible to be objective. Another way of putting it could be: having clear insight. However, I think conveying this insight using language is tricky because language deals with symbols and their meanings, which are already loaded with preconceptions. So it's one thing to have clear insight but it's difficult to tell someone else that what you're seeing is objective because language is inherently subjective. Once you use language you trigger mind, and mind is never the same one minute to the next -- it is constantly changing. Even notions that we arbitrarily assign "objectivity" to mentally are not the same. If you examine how you think about these "objective" ideas one day to the next, there are differences -- subtle or gross. Memory is a good example of this. There have been studies done that examine memory over the long term. People perceive that their memories haven't changed but the studies show that they have. Mind is never truly fixed. It's only one's categorical belief that the thought is fixed that makes it seem so. You've decided it is, and so it is. The thought becomes subjectively objective within the mind space, but it's not true objectivity because mind alone can never be.

True objectivity comes from Present Awareness that is unchanging... it's a basement level awareness, beneath (for lack of a better word) the other more surface activities of consciousness -- the changeable ones. Core Awareness never changes, whether you're happy, sad, doing drugs, getting beat up, suffering horribly or totally blissed out. It's the permanent observer. So the only true objectivity is there. It is pure experience with no fixation, symbols or meanings applied... and it stays that way always. Every human being is that same Awareness underneath all the individual masquerades, so we are all aware in the same way. The illusion of differentiation comes from the diverse body-mind activities, which are temporary and disappear into oblivion when life ends.

TL;DR version: objectivity that is talked about is not objectivity; objectivity as only awareness is objectivity.

 

[Noodle]

I agree that language creates value and judgement by default.

Objectivity is awareness without language. It is pure sensory input, without attachment.

 

[alasdairm]

To make the discussion somewhat easier we'll define it as: if there's an apple on the table and 10 people can see the apple and agree that there's indeed an apple on the table, then saying "there's an apple on the table" is objective.

i'm torn.

you're saying that a large enough number of subjective opinions equals objectivity. if 10 people listen to a justin bieber record and declare that it's great, then it's objectively great?

alasdair

 

[Nixiam]

To throw my 2 cents, I don't think that objectivity is determined by popular opinion, but rather by non influenced observation. 10 people is more just peer review, a way to assure your observation is in line with what has been presented. On top of that, in order to really have a concise discussion on whether or not subjective perception can determine an objective status, we'd have to buckle down and define terms like "great". For the sake of sense, it's better to work within the framework of "objectivity is what we can determine with the scientific method" as opposed to "objectivity is determined by our perception". The latter talk is more of a cannabis induced, "I just watched matrix" time.

As for the original post, I'm not very objective, but I try hard to be. When I feel brave, I brush aside ideas that may inhibit my ability to see an ugly but reasonable truth. Especially in politics; that's a rather important subject. It takes a lot of practice, but it is very character building to practice honesty in an intellectual pursuit, or even just a human pursuit. And in life objectivity is very rewarding in a number of situations. A voice of reason is a comfortable voice. A clear mind is the prerequisite to a clear life. It separates you from the polar bits of whatever spectrum you look at.

Unfortunately people believe they are too over burdened to actually pursue this trait. Call it bad social training, laziness, capitalism, whatever.

 

[Xorkoth]

I think true objectivity is impossible for us, or for any living creature, because every single thing we perceive and think is filtered through our incomplete perspective, and every opinion we develop is, as well. I think it is certainly possible to be more or less objective, by fostering a process of always trying to step outside yourself before acting or forming opinions, and I strive for this mightily... however I think it's very much impossible to do completely.

I think there are some few things we can say are objectively true for 100% certain. Math is the first thing that comes to mind. if you have 1 thing and you add another thing to it, it will always be 2 things. And of course more complex math as well. But even a lot of what we have observed and appears entirely objective about our understanding of the universe is probably a very incomplete picture. Although we can objectively say, for example, that there will be a full solar eclipse on such and such date and such and such time in the future, and be correct. We can say, hey, if you react these 2 chemicals together in this way, it will produce something specific that we calculated beforehand.

I think in the sciences we are able to derive some objectivity in the world, but aside from that, we can only strive, but never truly succeed. However, the striving is a noble pursuit and it at least gets you to a better and more rational/balanced place. Realizing that our opinions are incapable of true objectivity helps us, ironically, to be more objective.

 

[lazydullard]

I suggest it's possibly to be nearly objective by defining a word's relationship to all other words. I suggest that a language of such rigor would allow highly translatable statements to be made about observations and self-arisen modes of being. You would make a statement in this hypothetical language by defining your perspective to a rigorously defined perspective-word such as the following about the topic of this thread: "Worried: I am not objective."

I'm not objective because I'm crazy. Being crazy is like having a secret person in you pushing a secret agenda. I can never tell if what I say is crazy or me, depending on if I'm differentiating myself from crazy at the time. Crazy is different than a personality because craziness operates at a failure or success rate whereas personality is a spectrum-flair (or more or less you at any time) that universally pulls statements to your morality.

 

[belligerent drunk]

@alasdairm: the test for objectivity may have been over-simplified. It was more of an example of something that most people agree on so that we don't get into a deeper discussion on what's real and what's not.

In any case it's refreshing to think of how you define what's objective or not for you. How you determine the spectrum and so on. I hope it sparked some thoughts.

 

[iridescentblack]

Honestly... not very objective myself. I try to explain things from an objective viewpoint or one that could be viewed as objective, but it's only a skill I've recently learned so as not to sound like an arrogant dickwipe. What I mean by explaining things in that way though is 1. presenting what facts I 'know' to be true (in discussion) while 2. highlighting the points I'm not quite sure about (as to whether they're true or not) and 3. filling in the rest of the blanks with my observations and whatnot. It's fun having discussions like that. I find myself abiding by these rules mainly when talking about religious stuff. While discussing things I might seem, to others, a bit perplexed. Once I've laid my point down though I always feel like I've missed something and I think that's key in a way. No matter how straightforward I try to be in these 'objective' conversations I always wind up falling short of a 'punchline' (which would be the equivalent of the missing fact).

 

[Emrysi]

I don’t think I’m a particularly objective person, so take this with a tablespoon or two of salt, but I don’t think anyone should be completely objective. Objectively is inherently tied to the quantitativeness of whatever you are trying to be objective about. You can objectively say that 3 is larger than 2. When value judgements enter the picture, however, objectivity is not always possible or even preferable. It’s not wrong to react to the suffering of oneself or others with inherently subjective emotions. Being objective in a debate is certainly a useful strategy, but the one who is not emotionally invested in not necessarily right. That’s not to say objectivity is not incredibly valuable in some situations, but it needs to be balanced. Justin Beiber’s music may have little objective artistic value, but that doesn’t diminish its value in the eyes of its fans, and I can think of plenty worse things for teenage girls to be listening to.

 

[Brendan12]

100% objectivity is felt subjectively as a holism..or otherwise complete and holy action which is whole and complete to the t..and the p..