Point Out My Bias

[integral]

19 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ask it what a perceptual bias is and if all perception is at some level inherently biased.

Also, the fact that I prefer food and not shit for breakfast is not really something I choose. The fact that I don't prefer AI slop is not something I really choose either.

Yeah, I remember we had this conversation at some point with Leo, and he was very particular about definitions, and accused everyone of making words useless by generalizing them. Or extracting the pattern and applying it to domains that we shouldn't.

The pattern of bias, its core, can be applied broadly the way you're doing. But we've created words for each of those specific applications.

It was in the conformity thread.

Edited 2 hours ago by integral

[CARDOZZO]

Bias toward being special, super-intelligent, wise, 1:1

Why?  

[Xonas Pitfall]

A connection between bias and consciousness! 🌞

Bias can be understood as a kind of “glitch” or asymmetry in consciousness, in which one particular aspect of our experience receives more attention, consciousness, prominence, or significance than another.

Bias is a disproportionate allocation of consciousness within reality.

[Carl-Richard]

33 minutes ago, integral said:

The pattern of bias, its core, can be applied broadly the way you're doing. But we've created words for each of those specific applications.

Which words are you talking about? It's clear that "cognitive bias" involves bias in judgment, "perceptual bias" involves bias in perception, etc. So what is bias then? A distortion. What does the distortion fundamentally come from? Partiality.

Where can we expect distortions due to partiality? Preferences, likes vs dislikes, making a judgment, forming an opinion, seeing things from a perspective over another. And it's not just "expect" as it's a potential: it's a constant, only about degrees and types.

Seeing something from one perspective literally limits you from seeing it from the other perspective (unless you take the other perspective at another point in time). Seeing the front of your hand means you cannot see the back of your hand. You can't see them both at the same time.

And while that is a perceptual example, abstract cognition is an abstraction of, you guessed it, perception. Taking on a perspective cognitively can involve seeing say the concept of child labor from the perspective of biology or from the perspective of 21st century societal norms.

You will see that thing from quite different perspectives, and what you see will be quite different. You can't see them both at the same time (unless you're say some systems biologist that integrates the two fields). They give you a limited, a partial, picture of reality.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[integral]

27 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Where can we expect distortions due to partiality? Preferences, likes vs dislikes, making a judgment, forming an opinion, seeing things from a perspective over another. 

I think those are all separate bias categories that can affect his epistemology and we should point them out.

Like, he enjoys mono-no-aware club style music. it's a preference, Does it distort his evaluation of beauty? Type: aesthetic bias

It would be hard for someone with his music preference to see the beauty in heavy metal music.

And to what degree does it effect him?

Edited 1 hour ago by integral

[integral]

37 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Which words are you talking about? It's clear that "cognitive bias" involves bias in judgment, "perceptual bias" involves bias in perception, etc. So what is bias then? A distortion. What does the distortion fundamentally come from? Partiality.

Where can we expect distortions due to partiality? Preferences, likes vs dislikes, making a judgment, forming an opinion, seeing things from a perspective over another. And it's not just "expect" as it's a potential: it's a constant, only about degrees and types.

Seeing something from one perspective literally limits you from seeing it from the other perspective (unless you take the other perspective at another point in time). Seeing the front of your hand means you cannot see the back of your hand. You can't see them both at the same time.

And while that is a perceptual example, abstract cognition is an abstraction of, you guessed it, perception. Taking on a perspective cognitively can involve seeing say the concept of child labor from the perspective of biology or from the perspective of 21st century societal norms.

You will see that thing from quite different perspectives, and what you see will be quite different. You can't see them both at the same time (unless you're say some systems biologist that integrates the two fields). They give you a limited, a partial, picture of reality.

I see that you're pointing out how consciousness works and you're going meta-bias. These are really good points and it is how bias tends to work. 

Quote

 

The Epistemic Perspective & Bias Framework (EPBF)

To evaluate whether a statement or viewpoint is overly biased, you run it through three sequential checks:

Axis 1: Identify the Type (The Lens)

What conceptual, aesthetic, or biological framework is generating this view?

• Perceptual / Biological: What raw sensory data is being prioritized or missed? (e.g., physical form, immediate environment).
• Aesthetic / Taste-Based: Is an arbitrary preference (like music or style) being used to judge objective quality or depth?
• Ideological / Conceptual: What paradigm is being applied? (e.g., purely economic, strictly non-dual, strictly scientific, or anti-mainstream/non-conformist).
• Identity / Ego-Based: Is the view being defended to protect a specific self-image, role, or philosophical "brand"?

Axis 2: Measure the Degree (The Rigidity / Blindness)

How wide or narrow is the field of vision?

• Level 1 (Integrated / Multi-Perspective): The person acknowledges their lens. They can explicitly state, "I am looking at this through X framework, which means I am intentionally ignoring Y, but here is why it's useful." (Low distortion awareness).
• Level 2 (Blind Spot / Partial): The person is unaware that their framework is a choice. They treat their localized lens as if it were neutral or absolute truth, but can be reasoned out of it when confronted with evidence.
• Level 3 (Dogmatic / Fanatical): Complete closure. Any counter-argument is met with a defense mechanism (e.g., Leo's tendency to say "You just don't understand the depth of it"). The distortion is maximum.

Axis 3: The Exclusion Check (Carl-Richard's Hand Rule)

What is this perspective actively blinding the person to?

• Since looking at the front of the hand means you cannot see the back, ask: What is the necessary opposite of the claim being made?
• If someone claims: "Mainstream science is entirely a circular, bureaucratic waste of time," what perspective are they blinding themselves to? (e.g., empirical incremental self-correction, practical engineering success).
• If someone claims: "Everything is pure illusion and consciousness," what perspective are they blinding themselves to? (e.g., the biological reality of physical suffering, form, and structural mechanics).

- ai summary

 

• But Leo is already at the level of multi-perspectible so his biases are being covered by other partial perspectives all trying to fill each other's gap.

Edited 1 hour ago by integral

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, integral said:

I think those are all separate bias categories that can affect his epistemology and we should point them out.

Like, he enjoys mono-no-aware club style music. it's a preference, Does it distort his evaluation of beauty? aesthetic bias

It would be hard for someone with his music preference to see the beauty in heavy metal music. This would be a valid bias.

I remember I sat in a car once on an excursion trip with our biology class at uni with three other people and the driver put on Cannibal Corpse - "Make Them Suffer", which he put on ironically and said "it sounds entirely fucked haha, imagine listening to this as if it's normal". And that was before I had started listening to like really heavy metal, and I was thinking "yeah it does sound fucked, but I'll probably listen to it in a few years seeing the trend of listening to heavier stuff over time".

And wouldn't you know it, I've listened to some Cannibal Corpse more than a few times the last years. And there was of course things about the music I didn't get back then that I get now, both from a more purely aesthetic and feelings-based level (resonating with the sounds) but also just from reading through the music history and the evolution of metal as a genre.

And that is constantly evolving: even just as recently as a week or so ago, I started to understand where CC's sound (and more generally "brutal death metal") really originated from (which is the band Suffocation). And it was if some jigsaw puzzle rearranged itself in my head after that and I started to "get" the sound in yet another new way. All in all, tons of added perspective changed how I perceive the music.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

@Carl-Richard The question is, What biases do I have that I ought to correct and eliminate? I am not asking about my bias for kangaroos and strawberry ice cream.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Carl-Richard The question is, What biases do I have that I ought to correct and eliminate. I am not asking about my bias for strawberry ice cream.

Definitely your taste for strawberry ice cream, that shit's wack.

I don't know, up to you. I already put forth some of the "cons" of insularity. Whether you care enough about that to act on it is again up to you.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Jirh]

Contemplating bias vs. preference made me realize that bias implies and assumes a center while preference doesn't. So for someone to be biased, they need to deviate away from some sort of balance or middle ground that's neutral. 'Preference' is a broad word and is much harder to define.

For Leo, I think his center is truth. So when he asks for perceived biases, he's probably looking for hidden ways he could be deceiving himself and deviating away from truth. For him to be completely unbiased would be a state of total lack of self-deception.

[integral]

@Carl-Richard Reminiscing on heavy metal music, Such a carl thing to do. 😌

On the last point, A perspective has infinite depth, You could always learn more down one path, But when do you know to stop or its sufficient?

A perspective is always incomplete, It'll be interesting if at the end of every perspective it all loops back onto each other.

[Jirh]

Also preferences typically have pros and cons. They're about trade-offs.

Bias is a pure con. It's a blindspot in consciousness.

[integral]

6 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Contemplating bias vs. preference made me realize that bias implies and assumes a center while preference doesn't. So for someone to be biased, they need to deviate away from some sort of balance or middle ground that's neutral. 'Preference' is a broad word and is much harder to define.

For Leo, I think his center is truth. So when he asks for perceived biases, he's probably looking for hidden ways he could be deceiving himself and deviating away from truth. For him to be completely unbiased would be a state of total lack of self-deception.

Also preferences typically have pros and cons. They're about trade-offs.

Bias is a pure con. It's a blindspot in consciousness.

Nice, That's a good way to put it. 

[Terell Kirby]

On 10/26/2026 at 6:43 AM, Leo Gura said:

Think before you post.

Great disclaimer.

Firstly, thank you for being open to feedback, shows a lot of maturity. Few biases I’ve noticed throughout the years (not to be taken as criticism):

Psychedelics: clear favoritism to this as ultimate spiritual path towards God Realization. I personally believe this to be the case, but also recognize the effectiveness of psychedelics is largely dependent on sober realizations and contemplations done ahead of and in between trips. Changing your state is essential, but not everything when it comes to expanding consciousness. 

Survival: you’ve actually done pretty good with this one in acknowledging both the intelligence and necessity for survival. But you tend to place it in the bucket of corruption, but it’s only corrupt relative to what you deem True, Noble & Good. Survival is God, though limited form that results in a lot of evil shit. Still that evil is Truth in its essence and existence alone.

Conformity/Group think: you are anti conformist and it makes unique as well as your teachings. Similar to survival, conformity and group think is also intelligent in its design (though it largely leads to stupidity). Could site more healthy examples of conformity and it’s necessity in human development. But then, this work is highly individualistic, counter to collective mind viruses, so I understand this bias. 

Meaning/Purpose: I highlight this one because I actually don’t yet understand if you have a bias here, though it seems like it. You acknowledge the futility of life purpose and meaning in the Absolute sense, but also encourage followers to pursue it at times.

Science/Metaphysics/Ontology: Everything dealing with sense making. There are many tools and methods for sensemaking when it comes to epistemology, some more effective and true than others. Your bias is championing the sensemaking apparatuses that are most aligned with Truth. However, there’s not much calling out how those methods are limited and how lesser forms can actually function better for societal aims and social cohesion. Of course social cohesion doesn’t seem like something you’d ever prioritize over Truth, it’s still worth noting.

Edited 31 minutes ago by Terell Kirby

[Wilhelm44]

Bias against alternative healing modalities.

I know you said you have tried some with mixed results.

But if I was you I would still experiment more. 

There are actually some intuitive healers out there who are the real deal.

And it's not a case of just going for one session.

Plus not all of them are New Age wacky, some of them are serious people.

How many times has mainstream doctors given you medicine that didn't really work.

But that doesn't mean you should stop going to the doctor.

 

Edited just now by Wilhelm44