Btw, a good news story... For some reason (cant remember why) I recently looked up a girl from new zealand on facebook, that i was in a shared house with in london 10 years ago. She puts a load of talking to the camera videos on there. And i couldnt believe how sad she looked in them. I asked her about it, and she as good as told me she was raped in london 10 years ago, and it's ruined her life. I talked to her about it, and she said i was pretty awesome (just sayin ) and she realised during our conversation that ever since that time she had equated fun with fear, and she was going to change that right now. ... This was a few weeks ago. We havent talked since, but she's posted a couple of videos. And not only is she the girl i remember fro, a decade ago, but she looks incredibly happy, and talks about releasing yourself from your past. So I did something alright anyway
Another thing btw, that i didnt mention in my article, and i think is very important, is one sided press reporting on these kind of issues. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and was heavily mocked by powerspurs. I thought about replying but innthe end just left it. But the first thing i thought of referring to in a reply, was that bbc article the other day about harrassment. The one where you looked at the ohoto at the top. Well i dont know if you read the article, but the headline was about women being victims of harassment in the workplace. The picture at the top showed an attractively dressed woman being letched on by a guy. 90% of the article was about women being harassed. Then in one paragraph at the borrom, almost as an aside, it mentioned that the study also found a large number of men reporting that they had received numerous unwanted sexual advances from women, who they had repeatedly turnd down. And one of my reactions to that article, was why is this tucked away as an aside at the bottom ? Well, i looked at that article again todayl and you know what ? They have now edited it, and taken that reference out entirely. Is that even handed reporting ?
"Regarding the feminist movement, I don't think it is your selective argument thingy, because everything that i see from such people is bias, inconsidered, misleading, and unhelpful" I think you've just added more evidence to my theory. Unless "everything that I see from such people" does not include all the advances like winning the vote, having matrimonial rape outlawed, drawing up legislation to try to end discriminatory inequalities in pay, acknowledgement that domestic violence is just violence, ditching arbitrary male preference for sort of literally the top of the societal heap. These things were done by feminists. Done because of feminism and,as we have seen that the most recent example I give above, are *still* being done due to feminism existing. It's a fallacy to think that the old feminists were good feminists providing mostly good outcomes and modern feminists are bad feminists providing only bad outcomes. You clearly infer that you know that recent changes in the law were good outcomes. Every day millions and millions of people's lives are improving thanks to feminism being out there. Why won't you accept that "such people" (if you are, as I must assume, talking of feminists in general not just the two or three a year that annoy you in newspaper stories) clearly help do the good things you say they do? Or are you saying that none of the advances in women's rights *which are still happening* are made discussion points by, protested for, debated by, legislated by and enforced by feminists?!
That's not what I said. Past feminists are responsible for achieving the momentum in society, which has moved us from the situation of having 'a force of change v a force of resistance'. There is no longer a force of resistance. Or to the extent that there is, it's from a minority in terminal decline. The battle is no longer being fought (solely) by a feminist movement. It is now a movement adopted by mainstream society, and business leaders. From this position, feminist activists need to work with mainstream society and business leaders, to help them to continue to i plement the changes that they are trying to implement, and want to impliment. But any 'feminists' that i see - consultancies devoted to womens' rights, organisations devoted to womens' rights, regular tweeters and bloggers on feminist issues - all provide the same material. And that material continues to be a) white men are bad b) all differences between male and female pay and roles is due to discrimination c) this guy's an asshole / this woman's awesome. Theyre out of touch and out of time.
"But any 'feminists' that I see..." Do you see many? How much do you *actually* know about all the activities of every "organisation of women's rights?". Think about how little you know of their activities. Think of all those days you *don't* read of some possible injustice you perceive them to be causing (or for the most part supporting via a press release or a tweet). They're doing things on those other 360-odd days. What do you think they're doing? Do you think they might possibly be distributing condoms, campaigning for alterations to the laws regarding violence and rape, sheltering battered wives? Are feminists not also trying to gently nudge young minds towards a *little* more wisdom by surprising students simply by using the female pronoun in examples in lectures? Are you *positive* that you know for sure that these organisations and individuals do nothing good ever?
Trust me. Try looking for confirmation bias in your life in general. And remember that part of it existing is *because* you can't see yourself doing it at first glance. I wouldn't expect you to.
Confirmation bias is not science fiction. It is a very common, well understood, understandable aspect of human psychology and thought. If you don't ever do it you're probably extreme-end autistic or something. Does my silver BMW example not ring any bells with you at all from your own conclusion-forming that you do in everyday life? Ever thought the toast always falls butter-side down? Ever thought the bus always arrives the very moment you light a cigarette? Ever thought that the phone always rings the moment you get in the bath? Ever thought that the line next to you in the supermarket always seems to move quicker than yours? Ever thought that all X people had Y characteristic? Or that the cat always ****s in the same spot in the garden outside the kitchen window?
Okay. I'm trying to tell you about a really uncontroversial, work-a-day finding of psychology that basically accepted as a fact of human behaviour. Did you follow the link? This is really not weird stuff. I've heard economists use it to understand human decision making, heard about mistakes made in the study of nature due to confirmation bias. You really think that there are no regular flaws in human thinking that some people have identified and given names to? And that no one subsequent to that has had cause to use this knowledge? You don't believe that confirmation bias exists?!
Since you're talking about conspiracy theories: I met a guy. He said of 9/11 "the moment thosea bit towers went down I knew it was the CIA. And NOTHING that I learned about it subsequently has taken away from that conclusion". Sounds a bit like confirmation bias might have been working overtime there. You really don't empathize at all with my silver BMW example? You don't think you ever do stuff like that? I used to play poker quite a lot too so I know that confirmation bias is something that any good gambler has to look out for and try to avoid.
The trouble ive got, is that I had a theory that after I posted that video clip, that you were going to reply, telling me about confirmarion bias again. Then, when you did, I told myself that it was just my confirmation bias telling me you did, when you actually didnt, and that you dont actually exist afterall. My alternative theory was that confirmation bias doesnt exist, in which case you cant have told me about it, therefore I would have imagined your comments, leaving me again with no evidence at all that you exist. So either way, I've come to the conclusion that you dont exist. On that basis, I dont even need to form a view on confirmation bias.
I've never spoken to someone who, at the assertion that it's possible he may have made a mistake responds by saying that that'd be like suggesting that we all live in the Matrix. I wonder if someone who does that is more or less likely to exercise confirmation bias. Hmm. Whaddaya think, readers?
