07-04-2024, 03:05 PM
I started playing this "game". I had even compiled a few exploratory questions and supportive links.
Six of them.
But then I started to really look into the links without the presupposition that my questions were actually racist.
My first question: "Is walking racist?" Well sure enough, there was a story about walking that talked about racism. Okay, next. "Is cooking racist?" Same thing. Several stories about cooking and how racisms can rear it's ugly head.
Therefore, I am not going to post my thesis I had compiled, because I don't like the game, because it tries to couch the cards in a way that leads to a foregone conclusion.
So here is what I did, for parity. I used the same questions, but changed to "Is walking white supremist?" "Is cooking white supremist".
And gee, golly, wow, guess what happened??? I got the same abberations, that is, stories that seemed to play into or support MY STATED CONFIRMATION BIAS.
So, the scientist in me is placated, because I've
1. created a hypothesis
2. created an experiment to test it
3. tested the hypothesis
4. formed a conclusion based upon the data
This has been a really interesting experiment for me. I now think that it is akin to pareidolia, where we perceive patterns based upon our own perceptions or paradigms.
Great experiment, thank you!
Six of them.
But then I started to really look into the links without the presupposition that my questions were actually racist.
My first question: "Is walking racist?" Well sure enough, there was a story about walking that talked about racism. Okay, next. "Is cooking racist?" Same thing. Several stories about cooking and how racisms can rear it's ugly head.
Therefore, I am not going to post my thesis I had compiled, because I don't like the game, because it tries to couch the cards in a way that leads to a foregone conclusion.
So here is what I did, for parity. I used the same questions, but changed to "Is walking white supremist?" "Is cooking white supremist".
And gee, golly, wow, guess what happened??? I got the same abberations, that is, stories that seemed to play into or support MY STATED CONFIRMATION BIAS.
So, the scientist in me is placated, because I've
1. created a hypothesis
2. created an experiment to test it
3. tested the hypothesis
4. formed a conclusion based upon the data
This has been a really interesting experiment for me. I now think that it is akin to pareidolia, where we perceive patterns based upon our own perceptions or paradigms.
Great experiment, thank you!
