How does one account for bias without using their own bias in the test?

Is "bias" in this study nothing more than "wrong think" as the creator of the study sees it?

Or is there some objective standard?

One example was gun control, and whether smart/dumb people demonstrate political bias.

How is that tested for, exactly?

Presumably, anyone who would create such a study must see themselves as intelligent, too, which according to their own standard, would make them more biased than others.

Also, the author of this video (the person who wrote the script) claims that intelligence is a measure of the effectiveness of pursuing a goal.

IMO, that is a REALLY stupid definition of intelligence.

Intelligence is a measure of the ability for abstract thinking, versus concrete thinking (what "could be" or how "this relates to that," versus "what is," or "this is this, and that is that").

The author can claim that a computer can be "intelligent" because it effectively processes 1's and 0's, but that is just a machine operating the way intelligent humans designed it. It is not actually intelligence, per se.

He says, "Rationality is intelligence in pursuing objective truth." No, rationality is the use of logic (reason) to identify objective truth. One does not need a high degree of intelligence to figure out how to get from the house to the grocery store.

"I want foodl the food is over there. I need to drive over there." Sure, there is SOME abstract thinking involved, but not on the level that it takes to figure out how to build the car in the first place.

The less intelligent person can figure out how to use something AFTER someone smarter figured out how to create it; but they can't create it themselves. And they don't need to, because they have a different role in society.

The less intelligent person might have other skills that make them the world's BEST at using something, but they could not figure out how to create it in the first place. For that, one needs abstract thinking ability.

He then gets into "rational" vs. "Irrational" beliefs. BUT ... rational/irrational according to WHOM?

The entire thing looks like bias. No doubt, we all have bias.

But the REAL difference is the level of cognitive dissonance.

If a person believes something and is confronted with evidence or a logical argument that refutes that belief, will the person cling to their belief or consider the new evidence, and possibly amend their current belief?

MANY people, regardless of intelligence level, have difficulty doing this. Others can do it fairly easily.

Many highly intelligent people have their identity wrapped up in something that causes them to not be able to control their cognitive dissonance. A university professor might be very intelligent, but if his training is all centered around believing things that turn out to not be true, he wll have a very difficult time dealing with the new evidence.

"It is difficult to get a man to believe something, when his salary depends upon him not believing it." -- Upton Sinclair

THIS is what makes the difference between those who can drop the pretenses of the world we live in to see it for what it is, and those who cannot.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the ego of the individual in question.

How does one account for bias without using their own bias in the test?

Is "bias" in this study nothing more than "wrong think" as the creator of the study sees it?

Or is there some objective standard?

One example was gun control, and whether smart/dumb people demonstrate political bias.

How is that tested for, exactly?

Presumably, anyone who would create such a study must see themselves as intelligent, too, which according to their own standard, would make them more biased than others.

Also, the author of this video (the person who wrote the script) claims that intelligence is a measure of the effectiveness of pursuing a goal.

IMO, that is a REALLY stupid definition of intelligence.

Intelligence is a measure of the ability for abstract thinking, versus concrete thinking (what "could be" or how "this relates to that," versus "what is," or "this is this, and that is that").

The author can claim that a computer can be "intelligent" because it effectively processes 1's and 0's, but that is just a machine operating the way intelligent humans designed it. It is not actually intelligence, per se.

He says, "Rationality is intelligence in pursuing objective truth." No, rationality is the use of logic (reason) to identify objective truth. One does not need a high degree of intelligence to figure out how to get from the house to the grocery store.

"I want food, the food is over there, I need to get over there." Sure, there is SOME abstract thinking involved, but not on the level that it takes to figure out how to build the car in the first place.

The less intelligent person can figure out how to use something AFTER someone smarter figured out how to create it; but they can't create it themselves. And they don't need to, because they have a different role in society.

The less intelligent person might have other skills that make them the world's BEST at using something, but they could not figure out how to create it in the first place. For that, one needs abstract thinking ability.

He then gets into "rational" vs. "Irrational" beliefs. BUT ... rational/irrational according to WHOM?

The entire thing looks like bias. No doubt, we all have bias.

But the REAL difference is the level of cognitive dissonance.

If a person believes something and is confronted with evidence or a logical argument that refutes that belief, will the person cling to their belief or consider the new evidence, and possibly amend their current belief?

MANY people, regardless of intelligence level, have difficulty doing this. Others can do it fairly easily.

Many highly intelligent people have their identity wrapped up in something that causes them to not be able to control their cognitive dissonance. A university professor might be very intelligent, but if his training is all centered around believing things that turn out to not be true, he wll have a very difficult time dealing with the new evidence.

"It is difficult to get a man to believe something, when his salary depends upon him not believing it." -- Upton Sinclair

THIS is what makes the difference between those who can drop the pretenses of the world we live in to see it for what it is, and those who cannot.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the ego of the individual in question.

How does one accout for bias without using their own bias in the test?

Is "bias" in this study nothing more than "wrong think" as the creator of the study sees it?

Or is there some objective standard?

One example was gun control, and whether smart/dumb people demonstrate political bias.

How is that tested for, exactly?

Presumably, anyone who would create such a study must see themselves as intelligent, too, which according to their own standard, would make them more biased than others.

Also, the author of this video (the person who wrote the script) claims that intelligence is a measure of the effectiveness of pursuing a goal.

IMO, that is a REALLY stupid definition of intelligence.

Intelligence is a measure of the ability for abstract thinking, versus concrete thinking (what "could be" or how "this relates to that," versus "what is," or "this is this, and that is that").

The author can claim that a computer can be "intelligent" because it effectively processes 1's and 0's, but that is just a machine operating the way intelligent humans designed it. It is not actually intelligence, per se.

He says, "Rationality is intelligence in pursuing objective truth." No, rationality is the use of logic (reason) to identify objective truth. One does not need a high degree of intelligence to figure out how to get from the house to the grocery store.

"I want food, the food is over there, I need to get over there." Sure, there is SOME abstract thinking involved, but not on the level that it takes to figure out how to build the car in the first place.

The less intelligent person can figure out how to use something AFTER someone smarter figured out how to create it; but they can't create it themselves. And they don't need to, because they have a different role in society.

The less intelligent person might have other skills that make them the world's BEST at using something, but they could not figure out how to create it in the first place. For that, one needs abstract thinking ability.

He then gets into "rational" vs. "Irrational" beliefs. BUT ... rational/irrational according to WHOM?

The entire thing looks like bias. No doubt, we all have bias.

But the REAL difference is the level of cognitive dissonance.

If a person believes something and is confronted with evidence or a logical argument that refutes that belief, will the person cling to their belief or consider the new evidence, and possibly amend their current belief?

MANY people, regardless of intelligence level, have difficulty doing this. Others can do it fairly easily.

Many highly intelligent people have their identity wrapped up in something that causes them to not be able to control their cognitive dissonance. A university professor might be very intelligent, but if his training is all centered around believing things that turn out to not be true, he wll have a very difficult time dealing with the new evidence.

"It is difficult to get a man to believe something, when his salary depends upon him not believing it." -- Upton Sinclair

THIS is what makes the difference between those who can drop the pretenses of the world we live in to see it for what it is, and those who cannot.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the ego of the individual in question.

How does one accout for bias without using their own bias in the test?

Is "bias" in this study nothing more than "wrong think" as the creator of the study sees it?

Or is there some objective standard?

One example was gun control, and whether smart/dumb people demonstrate political bias.

How is that tested for, exactly?

Presumably, anyone who would create such a study must see themselves as intelligent, too, which according to their own standard, would make them more biased than others.

Also, the author of this video (the person who wrote the script) claims that intelligence is a measure of the effectiveness of pursuing a goal.

IMO, that is a REALLY stupid definition of intelligence.

Intelligence is a measure of the ability for abstract thinking, versus concrete thinking (what "could be" or how "this relates to that," versus "what is," or "this is this, and that is that").

The author can claim that a computer can be "intelligent" because it effectively processes 1's and 0's, but that is just a machine operating the way intelligent humans designed it. It is not actually intelligence, per se.

He says, "Rationality is intelligence in pursuing objective truth." No, rationality is the use of logic (reason) to identify objective truth. One does not need a high degree of intelligence to figure out how to get from the house to the grocery store.

"I want food, the food is over there, I need to get over there." Sure, there is SOME abstract thinking involved, but not on the level that it takes to figure out how to build the car in the first place.

The less intelligent person can figure out how to use something AFTER someone smarter figured out how to create it; but they can't create it themselves. And they don't need to, because they have a different role in society.

The less intelligent person might have other skills that make them the world's BEST at using something, but they could not figure out how to create it in the first place. For that, one needs abstract thinking ability.

He then gets into "rational" vs. "Irrational" beliefs. BUT ... rational/irrational according to WHOM?

The entire thing looks like bias. No doubt, we all have bias.

But the REAL difference is the level of cognitive dissonance.

If a person believes something and is confronted with evidence or a logical argument that refutes that belief, will the person cling to their belief or consider the new evidence, and possible amend their current belief?

MANY people, regardless of intelligence level, have difficulty doing this. Others can do it fairly easily.

THIS is what makes the difference between those who can drop the pretenses of the world we live in to see it for what it is, and those who cannot.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the ego of the individual in question.

How does one accout for bias without using their own bias in the test?

Is "bias" in this study nothing more than "wrong think" as the creator of the study sees it?

Or is there some objective standard?

One example was gun control, and whether smart/dumb people demonstrate political bias.

How is that tested for, exactly?

Presumably, anyone who would create such a study must see themselves as intelligent, too, which according to their own standard, would make them more biased than others.

Also, the author of this video (the person who wrote the script) claims that intelligence is a measure of the effectiveness of pursuing a goal.

IMO, that is a REALLY stupid definition of intelligence.

Intelligence is a measure of the ability for abstract thinking, versus concrete thinking (what "could be" or how "this relates to that," versus "what is," or "this is this, and that is that").

The author can claim that a computer can be "intelligent" because it effectively processes 1's and 0's, but that is just a machine operating the way intelligent humans designed it. It is not actually intelligence, per se.

He says, "Rationality is intelligence in pursuing objective truth." No, rationality is the use of logic (reason) to identify objective truth. One does not need a high degree of intelligence to figure out how to get from the house to the grocery store.

"I want food, the food is over there, I need to get over there." Sure, there is SOME abstract thinking involved, but not on the level that it takes to figure out how to build the car in the first place.

The less intelligent person can figure out how to use something AFTER someone smarter figured out how to create it. But they can't create it.

The less intelligent person might have other skills that make them the world's BEST at using something, but they could not figure out how to create it in the first place. For that, one needs abstract thinking ability.

He then gets into "rational" vs. "Irrational" beliefs. BUT ... rational/irrational according to WHOM?

The entire thing looks like bias. No doubt, we all have bias.

But the REAL difference is the level of cognitive dissonance.

If a person believes something and is confronted with evidence or a logical argument that refutes that belief, will the person cling to their belief or consider the new evidence, and possible amend their current belief?

MANY people, regardless of intelligence level, have difficulty doing this. Others can do it fairly easily.

THIS is what makes the difference between those who can drop the pretenses of the world we live in to see it for what it is, and those who cannot.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the ego of the individual in question.