The Consequences of Bias

[TEPaul]

Everybiasedman:

Whoa--what a post. Impressive. Email me too if you wouldn't mind, all in the name of my continuing education.

Pat:

I'd advise you to read that post a couple of times and keep an open mind while you're reading it.

[EMANON]

Bias is good and is especially fun for debate and drunken discourse but,...

Everybiased dude..  you seem to come from a soft science background.   Please leave the universal platitudes like "all scientific conclusion is a leap of faith" off the radar screen and your philosophical/psychological posting.  I don't believe it survives the sunshine, and it hurts your otherwise thoughtful arguements.  Those with some rationality bias may immediately discount the whole for that one statement.  

Now, is my bias too personal? Not intended.  

If science didn't work conclusively, you wouldn't be participating in a computer network based discussion group and water wouldn't flow under the force of gravity.

[Everybiasedman]

EMANON, if you can prove that water will ALWAYS move under the force of gravity, then I will buy what you are selling. It seems reasonable and rational, which is important to those who want to latch onto the reasonable and rational, but it is still a leap of faith to project conclusiveness into the future. Sorry, no way around that. Many have tried to make that argument, but as a proposition, it comes up short at the end of the day. I hope you are not missing the point of my post. I am, ironically, trying to get people to give up for the moment their preconceived, yes biased, notions about BIAS-- you know, as they say, think outside the box. If those with a rationality bias want to discount what I have to say, it would not surprise me. But they only help me prove my point by missing my point. A closed mind comes from all sorts of biases. Like I said, it is best to recognize that and move on from there.

[Michael Moore]

On this topic, many people are familiar with Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolution, which introduced the now- hackneyed expression "paradigm shift".

Much, much better is his earlier book The Copernican Revolution, which gives a detailed example of this kind of shift in thinking. The book is about how the theory of heliocentrism was introduced and eventually adopted, and the religious, social, and political responses to it. I recommend it to those of you who had a strong postive reaction to Mr. Everybiasedman.

[Paul Turner]

Here's a thread from the old DG on the courses of Jack Nicklaus, a time when a certain individual thought the DG was even more biased than it is now.  

I see a perfectly civilised thread with plenty of interesting viewpoints, very little bias and it never degrades into an incessant argument.  I wonder why?  

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/board/ubbhtml/Forum1/HTML/005206.html

There's another thread on Fazio, from way back, which I'll dig out too if I can find it.

[Paul Turner]

Here's another thread, Fazio this time.  Again it's perfectly civil apart from one "unknown" who criticises Fazio unfairly.  

The reaction from the biased crowd?  His view is politely questioned by Mike Cirba.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/board/ubbhtml/Forum1/HTML/002047.html

[THuckaby2]

Reading the old thread re Nicklaus, what's even more enlightening is that Gib did eventually go up and play Mayacama and gave a very favorable review.  I've yet to hear anyone say anything negative about that course, including the great missing Armenian!

Those who have played golf with Gib can understand why he is is predisposed to not like courses designed by Nicklaus, anyway... it's the same reason I am predisposed to love them...

Gib - low, low, low draw
Huckaby - high, high, high fade

Notice how I avoided the "b" word?  

Gib does make a valid point in any case - the "high fade or else" shot requirement does seem to appear all too often on JN courses.  But it seems in his more modern designs this isn't the case.... it's sure not like that at Cabo del Sol Ocean, or Mayacama....

Whoops!  Sorry to get back on the JN track.

TH

[EMANON]

Everybias dude,

For what earthly reason do I have to prove an absolute like the force of gravity?   Let’s get real.  Let's just read the putt.

I understand your points, but your approach, just like others proferred, get in the way, by trying to bring absolute ending closure to a never ending dilemma on the bias topic.   That’s why I think bias is good and healthy for a DG.  It brings passion and at least the opportunity in voicing one’s thoughts and in seeing others in print, to be persuaded otherwise.

Premises lead to conclusions which lead to deductions.  I think you have mixed up deductive reasoning with the inductive type wherein hypothesis and evidence lead to an inductive premise surrounded by uncertainty.  I learned this 40 Years ago when it was taught as New Math.  Deductions or inductions lead to new definitions of boundary.

I only seek truth and knowledge, so I hate the popular use of the “outside the box” thinking concept being portrayed so loosely today.. Am I biased, damn right.  Who said I was ever in a box in the first place?  Is it simply too easy to state that, just like some saying "hey, you’re biased!"  

By its normally accepted premise, the “box” really defines the bell curve distribution of most folk’s thinking, i.e, the group which falls within 1 standard deviation of the mean or norm, that’s ~68% of folks, 2/3rds if you will, are critics.. go out to the right on the bell curve another std. dev. and you get realists and implementers, and another std dev. to the right and you get to the % number or less of dreamers and idealists.  On the other side of the bell curve you’ve got the late adapters and then the percentage who will never accept.

If a GCA poster will never accept something without universal proof, then I say ignore them until they go away or lighten up.  It is not unlike some who offer simple truths and comments, only to be ignored or not engaged by the moderator or the ever present Doyens of the DG, because they are an unknown unqualified voice or virtual apparition haunting the thread?

The consequences are many, the rewards within grasp if we keep it civil and away from approaching the absolutes.

[Tony Ristola]

There is a tilt on GolfClubAtlas.  It generally goes against the grain of the 80's and 90's architecture hype.  It offers an alternative which just wasn't or isn't mainstream.  It questions a lot of what has transpired during the current and last generation of architects.  

If the focus here is narrow, if the majority of participants aren't sucked in by hype, but look through it, if they question and analyze and come to different and somewhat similar conclusions, that's fine.  If someone seeks to take the "biased views" to task I only have seen it welcomed and debated strongly.  That's not just good, it's great and why GolfClubAtlas.com is a greater service than all the magazines combined...the opinions aren't shaped or softened because of potential advertisers, or the threat of being sued.

Bias is good?  Perhaps discrimination is a better word...discriminating between great, very good, good, average, fair, poor, and brutal.

Suck out GolfClubAtlas.com from the golf course architecture equation and you're left with little pure discussion...honest opinion.  

The bias here is a tremendous service, one which every member of a golf club committee can and should be plugged into...and it's free to boot!

[Slag Bandoon]

Some biases of mine.  I like greens to be hard and not-so-fast.  I like greens that have action in them.  I like wind. I like the architect to hide the water from play.  I like to dream. I like kettle corn.  I don't like the pro game much and think they should play with 10 clubs or less.  I hate my tee ball drive skills.  I like my fairway shot with 5 wood - sometimes.  I like planning golf trips.  I like provocative art.  I like Guinness.  I like to walk and hike.  I would like to work in golf course construction.  I like women that smile.  

  I like rambling on and on...  apparently.

[Everybiasedman]

Emanon, We agree. Bias is good. If you think I don't think that, reread my posts.

We don't agree however that gravity is absolute. It is "probable" that gravity, as generally defined, is going to act upon the universe in a consistent and predictable way. It cannot be proven absolutely into the future. (By the way, I am not confusing deduction and induction, for what that is worth. Also, for the record, I believe that those who have the notion that gravity is absolute fall inside the bell curve. It seems reasonable to assume that gravity will always be what it appears to be, but there were people who thought that the earth was flat at one point too. The universe is expanding, or so it seems, and the other forces in the universe are far greater than gravity. It could be altered or impacted by those forces. It could be different than we think to begin with. As an example, and I am simplifying this a bit, at this point they believe that black holes are the result of a star's gravity being so great as to pull its gases into itself instead sending them outward. That seems to make sense. But they don't know for sure and maybe never will. Sorry to digress.)

I don't know if you are reading me right or not. I hope you are. Aside from my comments about science, we seem to be in agreement. Bias is here to stay and I am all for recognizing it and factoring it in where relevant. You know when they say, "Consider the source." That means factor in the bias of that source. I applaud your remarks, "Am I biased, damn right."

As for those who want universal proof before they will accept things, like I said, you can never know all the facts. So that is a tough bias to have and to then get anywhere, but it is as legit a bias as any I suppose. After all, if one buys into the value of rational discourse, then one buys into the logical conclusion that rational discourse has to be played out to the very end. Anyway, like I said, factor it in and move on with the discussion. I think we are on the same page.

[Slag Bandoon]

Constant Variability and man's part in it...   Knowledge is like the waves from a pebble tossed in an ocean.  As the waves expand and journey, they encounter endless and variable unknowns.  Each answer compels further inquiry but it is the individual that must choose the questions and what avenue of approach.  

"The only thing that stays the same is that everything is changing."  Unk

[Everybiasedman]

Slag, Well said.  


I like a lot of your biases too. I am biased toward scientists who read Keats. But I like those that read only data sheets too. "It" is all good, if we know where "it" is coming from.

[ForkaB]

Slag

I think the quote is from Henri Bergson:

"Il n'y a pas, sauf le changement, des choses qui changent."

Or something like that........

[TEPaul]

Slag:

Your 4:11pm post is definitely out of the same mind we all knew and loved that you originally exhibited on here.

[Slag Bandoon]

Richard,  You really do love Paris.  Thanks for giving credit where credit is due.  

 

  

  

[TEPaul]

Everybiasedman and EMAMON:

Would you two guys mind getting the hell off this website and hieing on down to some intellectual philosophy site?!?

You're making my head hurt and you're giving me a very serious inferiority complex!

[Slag Bandoon]

Slag:
Your 4:11pm post is definitely out of the same mind we all knew and loved that you originally exhibited on here.

Tom, Have I fallen from favour?  Just goes to show that the more I learn the less I have to say. Another problem is that I learn something every day but forget two things.

and I know you're kidding about telling folks to leave to another site but here's a good one for (pseudo) intellectuals and theorists and the generally obtusely opinionated in the world of science, religeon, politics, etc...  

   www.sciforums.com  

Odd thing is, as I eventually found out,  it often has questions that require facts and I'm not one to go for that kind of static.  I much prefer the topic of golf architecture as there are, as appropriate for this thread, opinions, notions, biases, ideas and very little facts to attack my concretely dogmatic beliefs.    

"Don't confuse the issue with facts."  Ronald Reagan

[TEPaul]

"Just goes to show that the more I learn the less I have to say."

Slag:

I'll tell you a startling fact. That remark, without question, applies to the best architects today.

PS;

Hold on--I hadn't read the rest of your post. Sciforum.com requires FACTS! Let's tell Pat about it and maybe he'll go over there and leave us alone. You're a goddamned genius Norbert!

[Steve Lang]

Hey EMANON,

Is it true that you're NO NAME spelled backwards ?  WHat kinda of odyssey are you on?  We can't be having TE Paul experiencing headaches.. how will he reach his daily typing quota?

[Everybiasedman]

TEPaul, Okay, I am OUTTA HERE! But I am taking the secrets to my Relative Theory of Relativity with me.  

[EMANON]

Evrybyas dude.. Yes agreement.

TEPaul, I have enjoyed your lighter mood the last month or so.  The winter hibernation or reflection on the snow covered links seems to have altered your state for the better.  Now what about PM jr?  Amazing humility from a Doyen!

Steve Lang, Only when I walk backwards little grasshopper.

Extraordinarily yours,
Emanon