The main real-world topic used in that class to illustrate a lot of this stuff was "peace in the middle east." For example, no matter what was printed in the NY Times it was perceived as obviously skewed as being either wildly pro-israel or wildly pro-palestinian... depending on the affiliations of the people reading it. Literally the same article.
The idea that everyone deeply believes that media (or other people/organizations etc) are deeply skewed/biased, yet the nature of the perceived bias varies in _opposite_ ways depending on their personal beliefs, is kind of depressing.
The meta-theme I sort of got from that class was that social psychologists like Dr. Ross genuinely got into the field wanting to change the world and help people to end wars etc. through applied social science. However, the more research they did, and the more they really understood the deep, deep psychological factors driving things like conflict in the middle east, the more they realized that this is a lot harder than they could have ever imagined. (fwiw, that is purely my personal take on the class, but there was definitely a tone underlying the whole thing.)
The part about everyone reading bias into a statement immediately reminded me of the recent thread on language advocacy, discussed at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1105087 . Being objective is hard!
Corporations and the government take advantage of this all the time by claiming that anything that goes wrong is the result of "a few bad apples," when in reality the causes of the problems are mostly systemic.
Of all the cognitive biases that are used to maintain the status quo and allow those with power to exploit those without, this is probably the most effective.
I believe the opposite error is also often made. I suspect many a time governments or large corporations act in ways which people interpret in situational terms, as a reflection of some underlying plans and strategic goals, while in reality it's just a decision made by some person at power based on their individual beliefs and personality traits.
One interesting point a proffessor of mine once made on the topic: The phrase "If I were them, I would.." is meaningless. If you were them, if you had an identical upbringing and identical genetic material, you would behave exactly as they do.
I think your professor misinterpreted the phrase, I always assumed its usage meaning something like this: If you blasted that stupid forward to pieces and teleported me on the soccer field ten seconds ago I would have passed to a different player.
Yes. It may be funny to observe that a phrase literally means the opposite, or is meaningless, etc., but generally there is a real meaning which everyone understands.
There is a point, though, to the professor’s criticism, and it’s a subtle one.
The teleported soccer fan probably wouldn’t be able to pass the ball to any player at all. No problem, he says, I will just imagine myself in the same physical condition as the scolded player. But would that be enough?
If you want to be good at playing soccer you need to know about tactics and strategy, you need the experience of hundreds of games. Can the soccer fan just imagine himself having all that and still be sure whether he would have passed to a different player? Probably not. Why would all those changes to his brain keep the part intact with which he just decided which would have been the best pass?
I might be committing a fundamental attribution error by concentrating too much on the brain side of things, though. Situation can be the other and maybe even more straightforward reason why the teleported soccer fan would probably fare not much better than the player. The fan has a bird eye’s view, multiple camera angles and instant replay, the player doesn’t. The fan is sitting in the pub, the player is running around. And so on.
You might want to be careful when using this phrase, then. Maybe yell something like: “The optimal pass which maximally increases the chance of scoring a goal would have been to pass to that other player, you idiot!”
that doesn't help with predicting what you would do, though, does it? (also, i'm not sure how qm resolves the mind-body problem, and the article you linked to doesn't explain, as far as i can see - qm does suggest that there may be something special about the mind, since it may be what makes observers special, but qm is still "physics", so it doesn't explain a non-physical mind (it may help resolve the question of free will because it could introduce indeterminism, but the problem of free-will is not the mind-body problem) (on the other hand i'm not clear why you introduced the mind-body problem at all, as it's not really the issue here...)).
The main real-world topic used in that class to illustrate a lot of this stuff was "peace in the middle east." For example, no matter what was printed in the NY Times it was perceived as obviously skewed as being either wildly pro-israel or wildly pro-palestinian... depending on the affiliations of the people reading it. Literally the same article.
The idea that everyone deeply believes that media (or other people/organizations etc) are deeply skewed/biased, yet the nature of the perceived bias varies in _opposite_ ways depending on their personal beliefs, is kind of depressing.
The meta-theme I sort of got from that class was that social psychologists like Dr. Ross genuinely got into the field wanting to change the world and help people to end wars etc. through applied social science. However, the more research they did, and the more they really understood the deep, deep psychological factors driving things like conflict in the middle east, the more they realized that this is a lot harder than they could have ever imagined. (fwiw, that is purely my personal take on the class, but there was definitely a tone underlying the whole thing.)