Maggie's Farm

It is amazing to me how those social science practitioners that wish to re-engineer society wish to do so on the basis of starting over in an 'unbiased' way. Unfortunately, humans are bias generators from the start: our bodies have bias built right into them.

When reading an analog meter (those with a physical hand which will move when measuring an external stimulas and thus register a reading) there is a problem of canceling out the bias of one's eyes. Each eye is off-set from a common center and that offset causes something known as 'parallax'. Learning to read a meter requires shifting your head and blinking each eye closed to see if the needle shifts from its apparent reading between each eye. Once the needle does not shift, you have cancelled out the parallax and you can get the proper and accurate reading from the meter.

That is a biased off-set allowing you to adjust your vision so as to remove bias and find the actual thing you are looking at in its proper context. The purpose of mental bias is just that: to allow one to shift their perception of something and see if they are giving it an accurate description from their framework of thought. If one finds one's conception differing and at odds with what is actually going on, then bias is interfering with getting a proper mental basis for handling whatever it is that is being examined.

We call these biases: societal values that encompass morals, ethics, mores, values. The problem of 'discrimination' is the use of it as a label for all things of one class that we have been told must be adjudged separately and individually.

The process of getting a jury together is not one that is unbiased, that is impossible. It is the art of trying to weight a jury so that bias cancels out and proper weighing of actions can be done from a neutral stance arrived at by the jury members. Removing 'prejudice' from such proceedings and preconceived ideas from a case is one goal, but even when that cannot be achieved a weighting of individuals that will balance pre-conception of the case again allows for a neutral stance to be found. With a culmination of case on case, society learns of the workings of the justice system and will re-examine its stance on crimes and punishments when necessary and judged by the greater society that such needs changing.

At that point the various values are to be reflective of the larger society so that proper definition of crimes and punishments can happen.

Those that try from a scholarly side that all such notions are contrary to 'progress' need to actually define that concept, as what is described is 'progress' based on bias, prejudice and discrimination between activities and the source of those activities being individuals. That is something that has larger value as it is a integral part of society as a whole, and trying to remove that from society causes corrossive behavior to go unaddressed and hands power to punish society to those less accountable. The corruption of PC thought punishment is in that it punishes thought, which is described as something done by all individuals, without recognizing that it is 'activity' that then determines the wanting of an individual to carry out thoughts.

Thought control, so as to remove the basis for creating better society and put it in the hands of the few and self-determined, is authoritarian and totalitarian in its outlook: by removing freedom of thought, freedom itself is attacked. Even worse, when no societal norms are applied to activities, and all crimes are seen as *the problem of society*, then the accountability of the individual to society is lost. This latter activity puts those who have proven incapable of regarding freedom for others as a sacrosanct ideal as something to be upheld, back into society before a debt to that society has been paid. In previous times this was used to describe the decay of the Roman Empire into 'degeneracy': being unable to define what civilization was and what it was not.

Starting at square one for society by removing all prejudice, bias, and discrimination then puts us in a state that is known as: the law of nature. This is characterized by the strong ruling over the weak and, usually, 'red of tooth and claw' goes with it. I do not see this as 'progress', but then I am biased, prejudiced and have discrimination about activities and define the character of people by what they do.

I am, apparently, living in the wrong century, expecting these things to matter.