True objectivity, the ability to see without personal bias, is impossible.
But we can try to view from as many perspectives as possible, and we can learn from others how they see things.
How much can you see yourself as others see you?
How much can you see others as they see themselves and each other?
Do you have a flexible, wide view of the social context around you?
Does this ability seem valuable to you?
Would you cultivate this ability?
It's important to know something about our common psychology, because you then recognize your own structure and boundaries better and can take charge of your own nature.
If you don't understand how something works, you can't really own and use it effectively.
In psychology, there are several helpful models. Our ego is the part of the mind that promotes our existence in the world, that defends the idea that we deserve to live well in the world. We protect our egos in various ways. In this model, there are two very popular ego defense mechanisms that are relevant to this discussion:
• When using Projection, one may mentally project in their imagination some qualities that they do not like in themselves onto someone else or a group. This way they can deny that they themselves have these bad qualities.
• When using Displacement or Transference, one may mentally transfer in their imagination some perceived bad qualities of someone they cannot fight onto someone else or a group whom they see as a relatively safe target. The source of the difficulties may be someone who had power over them in their childhood.
When you are using ego defenses, you are certainly not using whatever little objectivity that you may possess in an appropriate way.
Try this experiment:
Identify a well known event that really happened.
Have two students tell a true story about the event. Have the students list in their story several true points about the event.
Have two others make up a completely false story about the event ~ a lie.
Make sure that this false story has at least one obvious contradiction to the true story of the event.
Now ask the rest of the class to discuss the event and the stories "objectively, and without bias".
At the end of this discussion, reveal that one story was true and the other was a lie.
Now the class can discuss the previous discussion about the event.
What happened during the discussion about the event?
• Did the audience accept the liars' story and try to make it a legitimate part of the discussion?
If they incorporated the lie into the story ~ Why did they?
Did they do it to include the people who told the lie?
Could it be that they just did not want to abandon them, so they included what they said?
• Did the audience entertain the idea that it might have been a lie?
If so, did they discard the lie?
If they discarded the lie, how did they react to the students who told the story at that moment?
Group participation often precludes an approach to objectivity.
Many people are willing to accept lies in order to belong to the group.
Quotes
Links