(Steve Szumski)
Ive been thinking about all the discussion of the mind abstracting extensional experiences, especially Arvind's comment about Clinton exaggerating her experiences. Ive come to the conclusion that its impossible to NOT exaggerate experiences, whether it be in your own mind or in your relating the event to others. The very way the mind perceives the situation and the way our memories operate prioritizes certain things over others. For example, my mom related to me an experience she had recently. Two cars were driving down the highway in front of her, and one flipped over and crashed, bring another car with it. She described it as happening in "slow motion", something I'm sure we have all heard about. I think this is an blatant example of the human mind twisting experiences and creating a perspective bias (don't know if that's even an expression).
So this perspective bias always exists, and the state of our minds at the time can dictate to what extent it operates. It might be the case Pi's mind simply was under too much strain and his perspective bias concocted this situation with the animals to mask the harsher reality of the human degradation.
Of course I'm making all of this up as I go but I'd like to hear what others think of what I'm calling the "Perspective Bias"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have to agree with this. I mean, after all, going back to the types of words we use, don't they all work to fit to how we see or feel about something. I may not agree that we 'exaggerate' things, but I do think that we always view something differently from someone else because everyone's different semantic environments. If we all didn't come from somewhere different, do you really think it would be useful at all to have this blog?
I also think that the part about memories. When one makes a decision, doesn't one try to think back to another similar situation in order to make the best choice? In that effect, don't the situations that we remember actually make up the rest of our semantic environment?
Interestly enough, the fact that Steve is stating that perspective bias always exists is in itself a form of perspective bias. Weird... Anyway, if this bias is truly ever-present in the human experience, saying anything "true" is impossible. And this, I've come to realize, simply can't be.
If I offer the simple phrase "Taylor Burke has five fingers on his left hand." Let us look past the fact that words cannot truly express anything at all, and act as though we've never read Hayakawa. There is no bias in the statement "Taylor Burke has five fingers on his left hand." It is merely a fact based on the observations of any human being who was able to look at my hand, count the digits on said hand, and symbolize their findings with the statement "Taylor Burke has five fingers on his left hand." And although it seems I'm making a case for the words themselves, I'm actually trying to get to the root of the REALIZATION of the case. It simply cannot be disputed that this is truth, it is the only truth of the matter at the current time.
So I guess my challenge is to find a perspective bias in such a seemingly simplistic circumstance.
What a roundabout post.
(Taylor Burke)
I must slightly disagree with one of Steve's speculations:
"Ive come to the conclusion that its impossible to NOT exaggerate experiences, whether it be in your own mind or in your relating the event to others."
Is exaggeration possible? Yes. Is it always put to work? Not exactly. Some have a tendency to stretch stories, whether it be for entertainment purposes or mere self-satisfaction. Yet others stray away from this factor; and I dare make a generalization that it is usually these people who are employed as the ones who relay reports to commonfolk like us. Then again, this "generalization" could be a form of perspective bias, can it not?
When it comes to writing and the Toulmin Method of Argumentation, you must not allow the audience to believe that you have a perspective bias. The "handy-dandy" warrant establishes a common ground between the speaker and listener, allowing you to advance in your persuading process. If this shared territory fails to be acquired (such as universal agreement on the defined terms of the debate), then an argument of any sort is somewhat impossible.
Thus, a perspective bias, especially an obnoxiously publicised one, will not gain any followers for your cause.
I apologize if my observations have strayed from the purpose of your post, but these are my ideas regarding the topic at hand.
(Samantha Maliha)
I, too, must respectfully disagree with Steve's speculation that it is "impossible to NOT exaggerate experiences," but simply because of the word "exaggerate." I completely understand Steve's reasoning and agree that we all have "perspective bias." However, I think that "exaggerate" is not the best word to use. I believe that there ARE situations that cannot really be exaggerated, like the phrase Taylor used as an example in his post: "Taylor Burke has five fingers on his left hand." This situation can't really be exaggerated, can it? But I guess this depends on what is meant by the word EXAGGERATE? Perhaps the reason I disagree with Steve's speculation is that I have a different definition of the word. Does anyone else feel this way?
Sam stated:
"When it comes to writing and the Toulmin Method of Argumentation, you must not allow the audience to believe that you have a perspective bias."
I strongly agree with this speculation. While we may all possess the quality that Steve has named "perspective bias," if we reveal this to others, we are at a great disadvantage.
Logically, our goal as arguers and persuaders is to demonstrate the "perspective bias" of our opponents without revealing our own bias, and by doing so, establish that OUR OWN perspective or opinion is "true" and end the argument. However, this seems like it would be a rather difficult task, because, after all, isn't "perspective bias" the reason for certain arguments? If we can't eliminate our "perspective bias," won't it be difficult to put an end to an argument? Yet this doesn't make much sense, since we all know that some arguments DO end eventually...
I think I've just chased myself in a circle and now I'm even more confused. I apologize for getting off-topic. Are there any thoughts about my confusing comment? I welcome clarifications.
(Janet Lee)
Two thoughts come to mind as I read through what my peers have to say. The first thought deals with the definition of "exaggerate." I think that Janet's question could be relevant-- "what is meant by exaggerate?" When I read Steve's post the first time, I interpretted Steve's statement "it is impossible to not to exaggerate" as meaning probably pretty close to what he means by "perspective bias", in that everyone comes at things from different angles, and, therefore, everyone will have a different perspective and explain their experiences in different ways. I don't know if that's the correct interpretation, but if it is, I agree with Steve. I think it all comes down, like Mr. Lazarow said, to definitions.
The second point I would like to note deals with Janet's point about perspective bias in writing/speaking, or, more generally, persuading. Each person is going to have a perspective bias, and it is really a matter of how well you can make your bias sound good to the audience. FOR EXAMPLE, at the beginning of the Constitutional Convention, James Madison's idea of scrapping the Articles of Confederation probably would not have been taken well. So, he decided to at least start off by saying that his proposal was to "amend" the Articles of Confederation, not scrap them. He knew who his audience would be; therefore, he knew what he needed to do to make sure his audience wasn't automatically turned off from what he had to say.
(Emily Thompson)
Post a Comment