The Subjectivity/Objectivity Problem

.

WHOSE BOX OBJECTIVELY DESCRIBES OTHER BOXES?

If we're going to look at boxes that contains people's thinking, like the Chalkboard Project, how exactly do we do this so we know we are objective and not just constrained in our own thinking by another box that is as blind to things as the other boxes we are analyzing? We must begin with at least an objective description of the thinking boxes that control people’s thoughts. But even this first step of an objective description itself is fraught with problems.

Which box do we know to be truly larger than all the other boxes such that we can assert it is the best own to use as a container for the lessor boxes? Don't we fall into the problem of simply having to subjectively assert that our box is best so that then we can go on to pretend we are objective in our thoughts about others' boxes?

I said the Chalkboard Project. is an example of Inside-The-Box-Thinking. Since CP is still in infancy, that assertion perhaps needs to be interpreted as more of an hypothesis yet to be demonstrated than a fact. But the real problem is how do know it is limited to a single perspective and not itself including a broader view of other perspectives? How do I know I am more objective in my analysis than they are? Perhaps they would just as easily accuse me of ittybitty thoughts. Whose thinking box is bigger? We’ve got to face the problem of the source of these thinking boxes, the subjectivity/objectivity problem. The problem is a general one and comes up in many forms. Usually it remains implicit, sometimes it pokes through.

For example, this month’s Atlantic had a piece including some history of journalism touching on partisanship in the media. The CBS Some good thoughts come from the blogosphere debates about whether blogging or the media should clarify their political bias and write from a perspective or whether they should try to be "objective" and unbiased in their reporting

DISCLOSURE

The thinkers in the blogosphere I’ve highly regarded for their respect for rational and factual analysis such as Powerline commonly think that having a bias isn’t necessarily bad if the respect for rational discourse and the facts is maintained and if there is disclosure. A comment from John Hadjisky to Winds of Change.NET: Everything's A Commercial extends this principle of disclosure to paid versus unpaid blogging. As he looks at the issue within the general problem of how bloggers should deal with moral blindness in blogging he says:

"It will be hard, but the basic idea is quite simple: disclosure. Demand it of the blogs you read...provide in the blogs you write. Once we have an expectation of disclosure, the same give and take process that works reasonably well debugging the MSM will expose blogger foibles just as readily."

"We shouldn't set as our gold standard 'free commentary' any more than we should set as our gold standard 'objective journalism'. Every paper, and every blogger, will have a certain take on what is worth commentary, and what is not, and how to give equal time to "the other side"—or not, if it is an advocacy piece one is writing."

"What I'm saying is, I'd rather read two blogs or papers, each with a declared point of view, than one blog or paper that claims to be objective. In my experience, the closer writing gets to "objectivity", the less able the writer is to lay out a coherent narrative or story. The story is what makes people read all the way to the end, and more importantly, it's what helps the mind retain the ideas and information in the piece. The mind likes stories, and has to work much harder to simply recall a balanced collage of objective facts that don't fit together well."

"The reader can always get balance by seeking out the other side...whereas, a reader not interested in the other side will simply gloss over the parts of an "objective" piece they disagree with."

COMPARISONS BY RECIPROCITY

It is not mere assertion of moral superiority of one’s ‘objective’ position but the active comparison of one view to another that establishes a superior and inferior ranking. But comparison necessarily infers a third position at work that does the work of capturing each of the positions being compared. So it would seem that the ability to describe another’s position objectively would entail describing it so objectively that those who hold the position would agree that it is an honest portrayal. So in describing and analyzing positions, we can tell when a writer is using non-objective language that is biased in some way because those holding the position will disagree with the portrayal. If I wish to be objective, I must insure my descriptions, for example, describing liberals as "tax and spend big government types," are ones that liberals would agree objectively capture their position. So are we objective if we describe liberals as tax and spend big government types? Our test is to ask them if this is an accurate description.

Another example. If we describe an conservative legislative program as "tax breaks for the rich," would this be an objective description? Our test would be to ask conservatives.

OBJECTIVITY AS A PROCESS OF TRYING TO REMOVE SUBJECTIVITY

Objectivity means we remove our subjective bias in describing something such that our description reflects only the actual qualities of the thing we are describing and not our own perspective. It is not that there is no ‘grain of truth’ in our subjective references. To call liberals "tax and spend big government types" does contain a reference to an historic propensity for liberals to seek government solutions to societal conditions. To refer to "tax cuts for the wealthy" does refer to an objective fact that those paying the most in taxes do receive larger reductions in their tax bills than do low income citizens. But in both cases, the labeling also adds a subjective component to the objective component by its choice of ‘loaded,’ subjectively chosen words to refer to the object of thought.

In both cases, it is not that the labeling is wrong so much as it is not the language the opponents would use to describe their position. Liberals probably don’t think in terms of how to increase the size of government. They think in terms of how to use to solve a "problem." (Scare quotes can be a bias technique but in this case, I want to use the quotation marks to note that labeling something as a problem is an integral part of the favored solution. Poverty is a condition, not necessarily a societal problem. It tends to be defined by the political class as a problem when they believe government must do something about it.) They focus on the ends, the social condition such as poverty, they are trying to solve, not the means of solving it using government. Government is not their goal but it is their means to their goal. But the opponents, of course, focus on the aspect of the expansion of government which is true but not necessarily relevant from the liberals point of view. While we all may agree poverty is not necessarily good, we fundamentally disagree on the means for curing it. At heart, most if not all public policy issues are only issues because the disagreement is about means, not ends.

POSITIVE SUBJECTIVE BIAS

With labeling, the converse is true as well. Writers may use positive subjective labeling in describing a favored position just as they may use negative labeling to describe the opponent’s position. Instead of attacking others opposing ‘big government’ solutions as ‘heartless,’ we can present our own view with a positive subjective bias as ‘compassion for the poor.’ Again, the test is to ask the other side if they agree with the label; is that the way they would describe our position? Do they think the program really does exhibit compassion for the poor or does it increase dependency on government? It’s not so much that "compassion for the poor" is incorrect as it ignores its "big government" component of the means implicit in the goal. Another example: which side of the reform debate is about saving the public education of the lower class from destruction by current conditions? So bias is the two-fold attempt to use subjectively negative labels for the opponent’s position and subjectively positive labels for our own favored position. The way out is comparison of the two by seeking agreement form the other side for the characterizations of each side.

THE PROCESS OF MOVING TOWARD OBJECTIVITY

Objectivity doesn’t mean numbers, and subjectivity doesn’t mean judgmental reasoning. Objectivity means adapting thought more closely to the object being known by removing more of the distortions of our subjectivity. It means finding replacing more subjective methods of describing things with more objective methods.

The task of objective description of the various thinking boxes that shape people’s values, facts, solutions, and reasoning itself requires that we use some thinking box of our own; and we use such a box either implicitly or explicitly. There is no privileged ground, no purely objective thinking box, within which we can view and describe other people’s thinking boxes without any subjective interpretative aspect. But we can replace subjective judgments with more objective methods of description that attempt disclosure and use comparisons, and multiple perspectives. We force our subjective to become more objective by subordinating it to a method using comparisons that seeks agreement from multiple perspectives with our own perspective. We remove ourselves from the assertion of a privileged position.

The process of comparison and multiple perspective forces us to expand our box so we are less dependent on subjective assertions driven by our personal values, forms of thought, selective facts, and biases by seeking a thinking box based on a more widely shared system of values, facts, and forms of thinking. As soon as we talk to others different from ourselves and we attempt to reach agreement as to objective descriptions of our various thinking boxes, this attempt forces us to coordinate the multiple perspectives and moves us towards more objective and verified descriptions of thinking boxes. We don’t get rid of subjectivity. We transform its personalistic techniques into more objective methods others can also use and thereby move toward common agreements. We replace its subjective methods of assertion with more sharable methods that allow for common agreement. It means honestly attempting to understand others thinking and to confirm our understanding with them. To understand doesn’t necessarily mean subordination of our thought to others but it does mean we don’t simply reject, or worse, actively distort other thinking boxes in an attempt to prove ours as best. If our thinking box is the most advance and the best, it will emerge as more true from a process of objective investigation and understanding of the various perspectives.

NEXT—MOVE BEYOND DESCRIPTION TOWARDS EXPLANATION

We need to find out more about the thinking of CP. We are a long ways from having an objective description of it. But even if we obtain agreement in some objective descriptions of the various thinking boxes, we still have a long ways to go before we can explain why and how the various thinking boxes arise inhuman thought and remain so stable.