"True enough... and yet lack of acknowledgements may have it's own risks. As you say, all depends on the viewpoint... context."
Refusing to acknowledge a view, filled with negative bias, is not the same as ignoring the underlying base of information.
In general, individuals do not collect and process information in a purely rational way. Generally people use very little of the available information because they don't find it useful. Information becomes useful to them when it can be used to confirm some assumption; usually sliced, diced up and served with a spicy bias and cream style sauce. When it is a bias that predicts or expects to find a negative explanation for situations and circumstance, the information available is used to reinforce the outlook; like wise with positive view points. Always followed by a coercive nudge like, 'don't you agree?'
The human influences on our situation, therefore, may be positive and hopeful or negative and destructive but the viewpoint of either can almost always be confirmed by available information, per above rules.
I provided a negative view wrt the outcome of the women's movement, expecting to provoke a thoughtful, if not angered, response. Personally, I know the viewpoint I provided was flawed by an anti-feminist bias. When conventional wisdom becomes extremely skewed, I feel bound to splash in that puddle a bit, just to stir things up. Knowing is personal and personally I know, the world and it's human inhabitants are no different than they've ever been. Most would argue we are better outfitted, I tend to disagree. |
