"Naive realism" and bias perception

by behemot 1 Replies latest jw friends

  • behemot
    behemot

    "Naïve realism" is defined as the feeling that we see things objectively, as they really are, that our worldview enjoys a particular authenticity, and therefore everybody else should agree with us ... if they don't, either they lack relevant information or they see things through the distorting, blinding prism of their (religious, political, ideological) bias.

    We would perhaps concede that some of our views have been shaped by our personal experience, but we feel that in our own particular case such factors have led to increased insight, whereas in others' case they have impaired their perception, inference and judgment abilities.

    Cultural psychologist Jonathan Haidt points to naïve realism as "the major obstacle to world peace and social harmony" (The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom), because it works not only at the individual but also at the group level, contributing to splitting the world in good and bad (people, ideas).

    Such an attitude is typical of fundamentalist political and religious groups like the JWs. But it's worth remembering that's a common inclination to be recognized and fought against: all of us are bound to judge asymmetrically when it comes to detecting (our own or others) bias.

    An interesting paper on bias perception here:

    http://weblamp.princeton.edu/~psych/psychology/research/pronin/pubs/2002BiasBlindSpot.pdf

    Behemot

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Thanks Behemot, interesting -- and entertaining as well... :)

    Makes me wonder about the alternatives (in education especially).

    Aren't our psychological and cognitive resistances to "objectivity," which definitely grow as we draw closer to the (collective or individual) "self blind spot," due to an implicit (moral-social) judgement of "subjectivity" as wrong -- which is apparent in the very notion of bias, and the distortion from "right" it implies?

    The interplay of difference has always involved (and probably will always involve) power struggle. Ethical rationalism (especially in its modern form after Kant, i.e. both individual and universalistic) weighs on the play in a significant manner I think: we're not satisfied with differing, we need our difference to be right (if only as a right to differ), justified by "objective" or at least "common" standards which are no longer divided and limited by cultural differences. Billions of monadic individuals claiming a warrant from universal reason for being themselves. This imo favors more "twisted" forms of self-delusion than straightforward self-affirmation.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit