Cognitive Bias and Rational Ambiguity

Cognitive Bias

Cognitive bias is this type of bias, that has real evidence and proof to support it.

It’s actually quite common to see cognitive biases in people. For example, Trump. Trump has severe cognitive biases according to his criticisms towards media and Democratic Party.

He called most presses just fake news, because the proofs to support these presses being fake news are actually there. There are evidence to indicate that CNN being fake news, MSNBC being fake news, Router being fake news. You can’t debate the fact that there are details and evidence to support their compromised veracity.

Cognitive bias comes from seeing these details and evidence that constantly support one’s view.

Somehow, it is yet hard to say that cognitive bias is true or false. A truth can be defined as true because there is a proof to support it being true. Cognitive bias is based on this so cognitive bias can be seen as true.

So when I try to term cognitive bias, such view can either be called “a bias”, or “a truth”.

But what’s interesting about cognitive bias is that, if you zoom out to the whole picture, you’ll see a distinct difference between the truth you’re seeing, and the truth laid open to the public. Trump has been scoping into the miniscule fields too much that he’s already lost his “senses”. If he really got one. 

So to me, it’ll be more of a balance of truthfulness. For news, a press does have some fake news in the past, the overall, the real news being reported are more than the fake news. So when you are seeing the whole picture, the press is not likely to lie about their stories.

And frankly, cognitive biases are quite common in life. Because cognitive bias is just a theory, being enforced, by a proof, and subsequently, becomes a truth. Such process of identification of truth is completely the same as how normally a truth is established. However, the catch here is simply that when the theory is being enforced by a proof, the conceiver of such theory is constantly seeking proofs that support the theory. So, flat-earthers are forever just flat-earthers because they only believe that, a round earth, is a lie told by the government. And this is when we call somebody narrow-minded because, well, they kind of are.

I’d like to suggest that a good way of looking at truth is simply being open-minded. Because if you only see one side of a truth, it’s like a tip of the iceberg, if you can zoom out, and see the whole picture, you’ll have a much better understanding of the truth you are seeking. But frankly, in life, no one ever reaches 100% truth as far as I concern. We all live a life that is based on the preconceptions and our beliefs towards certain things, and that is probably the reason how cultures are born and formed. 

The procedure of getting a cognitive bias is quite simple: First, you only need a pre-notation of something. Then, you meet evidence that are actually supporting this notation. And then, you believe whole-heartedly that this notation holds true because of the previous evidence. So, you kind of get into a mode where you spearhead yourself into the proofs that are just supporting the notation. And then, you can’t get out of this mode because such reality seems so real to you. And then, you keep enforcing yourself with this notation and evidence that are supporting it. Now, finally, you have a cognitive bias that even yourself can’t really distinguish it from truth. And such cognitive bias becomes truth in you.

What I would like to point out is that the formation of cognitive bias is also very likely dependent on a person’s concurrent mood, i.e. emotions. If the person is angry, he’s very likely to walk into the trap he set for himself. If the person is insecure, or scared, he’s also very likely to become cognitive biased.

 

Rational Ambiguity

Rational ambiguity is this subfield of rationality. Rational ambiguities reside within the realm of rationality because, they are, actually, rational. And indeed, they belong to rationality.

Rationality is one of the major founding blocks of western civilizations, as you can see how important rationality is.

But today, we assert ambiguity into rationality, and see what happens.

Rational ambiguity is designed to not give a result. They are like mazes set forth inside the cosmos of rationality, you may once awhile stumble upon them, but you might as well never get out of them.

Rational ambiguity firstly looks extremely convincing and rational at front. It’s like this maze that you are going into.

However, the catch is that, your preconception of such rational design is not going to help you to solve the this problem. This maze, has no out. It is designed to trap you inside, and designed to have a dead end so you can not go back out.

The process of trapping you is extremely fascinating and rational, that’s kind of the reason why you firstly admitted yourself into the maze.

I would say, rational ambiguity is rare inside the rationality realm, because they kind of make sense and kind of not make sense. We want everything inside rationality to “make sense”right? But rational ambiguity doesn’t “really” make sense.

Only people with highly articulating and rationalizing abilities can impose rational ambiguities on others.

And when you encounter these ambiguities, do not try to tackle them at all, avoid them at all cost.

The best way to solve ambiguities is to just not solve them at all, or that, the best way to solve ambiguities is, identify them first, then avoid them. 

There is another word relates to rational ambiguity, “paradox”.

Paradox utilizes two completely contradicting ideas and makes them to attack each other, so in the end, you don’t get anything. There is no result in a paradox and yet again, you probably will find yourself inside a trap.

Rational ambiguity is designed not to make you rationalize them, but to just, sense them. Like comets and debris in the universe, there is not much point encountering them, but to just avoid them as much as possible. You would not want to crash your cruiser.

So, the idea is quite simple, you need to see if people want to trap you first. Because if you can see the nature of these things, it’s quite easy to break them or let them self-collapse without much doing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.