Is Personal Bias Justified?

In Jamaica Kincaid’s essay, In History, she describes the idea that when history is put into a “one size fits all” perspective, it is immediately inaccurate from someone else’s perspective. People are actively contributing to their own ignorance when it comes to history by blindly accepting

Initially, the author supports his ideas using the arguments that we need to handle innumerous types of prejudice daily. He cites himself as example of one who had experienced prejudice for being homosexual and Jew. He knows how prejudice works and how it is present in the society in many different ways. However, there are several other reflections the author uses to sustain his points of view other than his own experiences. For instance, one of the reasons for his explanation about the exacerbate prejudice in the United States is the fact that one is free to

America’s history is overrun with oppression and injustice based on race, ethnicity, and other traits that innocent victims have no control over. As a result, the reputation of the United States is forever tainted by it’s dark past, and still practices these surviving habits of hatred. Civil liberty issues faced since the establishment of the country have yet to be resolved because of the ever-present mistreatment, corruption in positions of authority, and the dehumanization of minorities.

One example of bias is all the theorists and skeptics about why Amelia Earhart’s plane disappeared in 1937.

The intended audience for this article is people of Caucasian descent. “Yes, we all have unconscious biases, but white people 's biases support a racist system”(Blake, 4). In America, the Civil Rights movement was about freedom of people of color from white supremacy. While people of color are able to enjoy freedoms that they were not able to enjoy in previous centuries, there are still remnants of racial prejudices that exist. The author argues that while everyone stereotypes, racism continues to persist because of the stereotypes of prominent white persons.

Prejudices exist in every measure, against every person, and everywhere across the world. People are inclined to judge without reason, and often hold conviction to the initial judgment made. Despite worldwide attempts to decrease these preconceptions, people must suffer through being the target on very frequent occasions. In the U.S., occurred the Civil Rights Movement as well as the movement to end Women’s Suffrage. This did not eliminate all biases against those groups, nor did the Americans with Disabilities Act. People are still isolated because of physical

When I started thinking critically about this assignment, I realized that I was stuck. I couldn’t think of a single bias that I could possibly have against someone but then it donned on me that I would have to go deeper and understand that biases can come in many different forms. And since I am not a professional therefore have never provided therapy to someone on a professional level, I am virtually unaware of what my potential biases are. So to solve this problem, I decided to think about my personal experiences and document the ones that caused me to have any sort of negative emotions about.

History can be perceived in many different ways. It could be seen as right, wrong or even inaccurate. We are able to understand these different perspectives through perception and memory. Perception is applied because two people can watch an event take place and have two different stories. Also, memories can be easily altered so what we believe we saw might not have actually happened. Historical bias can be applied to history and the human sciences. Human sciences applies because as stated before, memories can be altered and incorrect; History also is relevant since it’s facts may or may not be concrete.

“You are a racist!” is a phrase that produces anxiety and triggers defensive mindsets, especially in work environments. Are you racist? Are you sexist? Are you bias? The answers to these questions might not be as stress-free to answer as you believe. Is it possible to be biased without the intent to be biased? Yes. There are two different types of biases; explicit bias and implicit bias. Explicit bias is when you consciously believe that certain races, genders, or religions are inferior. Implicit bias is when you think that you are unbiased but actually perform unconscious bias actions. Recognizing implicit bias is no easy undertaking which is why there have been theoretical attempts to avert implicit bias before it materializes. In the modern business world, unintentional prejudiced actions happen every day. In his paper “Context and the Ethics of Implicit Bias,” Michael Brownstein attempts to find a solution to these critical issues. In this essay, I will attempt to explain the theories behind the three ‘ethics of implicit bias’ and what problems arise in each situation according to Brownstein. I will then describe the advanced contextualist approach of Brownstein’s and why I consider his strategy to be the most effective in business settings through my own personal experiences.

In the same way, events of the past are often written and passed down from the point of view of the “victors” and “losers” resulting in very biased and often inaccurate retellings (class notes). That’s where history comes into the picture. A historian who spoke to my youth group defined history very well explaining that, “The past is everything that happened before the present. History is what is known about the past.” Yet, since records of the past are often written by biased “victors” and “losers” history often tends to be biased as well. As will be seen with history textbooks, this can result in

I believe that bias is bad, this has been prevalent throughout my life. Where after the 9/11 which the anniversary will be in 3 day from now, many american muslims were under scrutiny from many americans who were victims of 9/11. In so many of the world’s tragedies, there was bias and scrutiny; things like, The holocaust, The Crusades, Rwanda, The Red Scare. All of them were fuelled by a social bias. I have seen people on social media argue about things that don't even affect the people talking about them. Nearly every war in history has stemmed from a bias in some way or another.

Dehumanization is inflicted upon people due to forced beliefs and instincts that are presented in our society. Universally, any form of government or class structure has a form of media base and the constant cycle of the sociological depiction of its surrounds. This projection about political wrath ultimately influences a person 's consciousness. The institutionalized systems that are created produce desensitized global citizens to the negativity and restraint to a targeted group. When Nour Kteily, Emile Bruneau, Adam Wayt, and Sarah Cotterill conducted experimental research on the dehumanization of racial/religious groups based on differentiating biases. They compared and contrasted the responses of two hundred and one Americans to that of a numerical correspondence to thirteen different nationalities, ethnicities or religious groups. The research was construed by the topic of evolution.

In this paper I will discuss what happens when we allow biases and prejudice to affect our actions toward others. I will then conclude my paper with what we can do to prevent or eliminate discrimination.

Few contemporary authors have had as profound an effect on their genre, society, political debate, or literature in general as Robert Heinlein. Science fiction novelist Ken Macleod suggests that the world was having a dialogue with Heinlein, unfortunately, one of the unintentional ramifications of dialogue is misunderstanding, one cause of this is reader bias (Macleod et al. 231). Bias is most corrosive to readers’ understanding when brought to their initial reading, consequently, they should avoid it for at least three reasons; first, it causes a work or author to be regarded in many contradicting ways; second, it creates an atmosphere in which faulty arguments are made; and third, it results in significant elements of the story being ignored. One caveat, readers should not construe this in such a way as to imply that the arguments presented here are merely about the book itself, so much as being about the overall scope of it in relation to Heinlein and the bias levied for or against the book and him. Of additional consideration is the impact those biases had on the overall message as well as the meaning of the work itself and to further extrapolate this into how bias affects other works.

However, Carr rebuts this, as he states that ‘the belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate.’ This statement explains the misconception that history is made up entirely of facts without the interference of opinion and biases. Carr’s argument is that for facts to become historical facts they must be interpreted and analyzed by the historian. This requires the process of selecting facts, evaluating and interpreting them, which inevitable will contain certain elements of personal prejudices. It is based on this reasoning which he therefore claims that facts can only become historical once they have been selected by a historian and this is what makes them significant. He therefore questions the extent to which a historian could be objective as experience could affect what we perceive as being important, meaning that historians are determining what the facts of the past are according to the own biases and agendas, whether they are consciously or unconsciously aware. Hence emphasising Carr’s point that history is an interpretation. He uses several examples to explain this for example it was the historian that decided Caesar crossing the Rubicon was a significant event whilst ignoring the many others that crossed it before and after him. Thus,