Comments on: Object Bias

By: Metaphors For Work | Brian Frank

Metaphors For Work | Brian Frank — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:20:03 +0000

[...] lot of these are very deep; a lot rarely change, as in the metaphors representing our common spatial bias. Here are more examples via Pinker’s The Stuff of Thought: … the pronoun it (A [...]

By: Social Uncertainty Principle | brianfrank.ca

Social Uncertainty Principle | brianfrank.ca — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:59:05 +0000

[...] the previous discussion of object bias and conceptions of [...]

By: Brian Frank

Brian Frank — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:40:51 +0000

We're on exactly the same wavelength. Those are the same concerns that I've had in mind all along -- very assuring :)

I like your phrase "mask the uncertainty," or "masked subjectivity." I don't want to be too critical of statistical rigour, but I definitely worry that researchers might be afraid to tackle important challenges (or the most potentially fruitful aspects of important challenges, or afraid of addressing them in more creative ways) because of fear of ambiguity or accusations of pseudo-science.

On the other hand when I'm thinking about these things I've very wary of pseudo-science myself.

I'm having a lot of self-doubt in this process, feeling very vulnerable -- especially because I've been very tough on myself but these ideas are still extremely far from ridicule-proof (understatement).

By: ndrwclrk

ndrwclrk — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:10:55 +0000

Great! I'm glad you took the comment in the spirit it was intended. I definitely think you're onto something here. The way I understand it, for example, a lot of “problems” with the understanding of quantum mechanics just goes away if you stop thinking that electrons (and other “objects” that are *absolutely small*) need to have a “location” in space.

Similarly, I've noticed over and over again the power of *statistics* as something that just attract attention like crazy. Statistics always imply some form of classification, and it's that classification that is inherently subjective, socially constructed, etc. The statistics themselves mask all that uncertainty, because they appear to be so concrete. Who can argue with numbers, right?

By: Brian Frank

Brian Frank — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:40:51 +0000

We're on exactly the same wavelength. Those are the same concerns that I've had in mind all along -- very assuring :)

I like your phrase "mask the uncertainty," or "masked subjectivity." I don't want to be too critical of statistical rigour, but I definitely worry that researchers might be afraid to tackle important challenges (or the most potentially fruitful aspects of important challenges, or afraid of addressing them in more thoughtful and creative ways) because of fear of ambiguity or accusations of pseudo-science.

On the other hand when I'm thinking about these things I've very wary of pseudo-science myself.

I'm having a lot of self-doubt in this process, feeling very vulnerable -- especially because I've been very tough on myself but these ideas are still extremely far from ridicule-proof (understatement).

By: ndrwclrk

ndrwclrk — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:10:55 +0000

By: Things Happen Because Time Exists | brianfrank.ca

Things Happen Because Time Exists | brianfrank.ca — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:47:50 +0000

[...] back to my earlier post on object bias, or reification, and consider how we evolved for survival in a world of concrete [...]

By: Brian Frank

Brian Frank — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:10:11 +0000

Thanks Andrew - looks like it is the same, but perhaps with a different emphasis and elaboration.

No doubt I'll miss more as I continue laying out a big picture. By doing this I'm hoping to get a better sense of which aspects need the most attention, i.e. through feedback such as yours.

The source I definitely should credit as an influence is Whitehead for his "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" (which I've previously mentioned here).

By: ndrwclrk

ndrwclrk — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:46:26 +0000

Brian, how is your concept of “object bias” different from “reification”, or the “reification fallacy”? I actually like your term better, but it seems like it might be the same thing.

By: Brian Frank

Brian Frank — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:42:48 +0000

Thanks Ken… As for coming back later in the week you might be discouraged to find a few more posts like this :)

By: Rockinon

Rockinon — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:34:39 +0000

It is far too early in the morning but I'll be back later in the week to carefully read your post. You wrote: “It’s possible to cultivate the habit of doubting ideas without dismissing them…” Yes!

There is just so much to think about when reading your stuff. Your writings alone are worth the price of my Internet connection.