Hey Pals, Certainly not me!

“Keep away from your pen and note book and try to forget all that you have learned so far and be like a clean slate so that you may write fresh on everything you read and hear in this class," the teacher commanded as soon as he entered the classroom. Although this instruction caught us off guard, we eventually became used to recalling what he taught us without taking notes. After that initial experience, however, it became second nature to read and listen to everything with an open mind and without holding any preconceptions from earlier experiences. That is now my catchphrase!

So to say, a journalist and a judge is expected to portray an event objectively, free of personal feelings. Imagine that one is a judge of Master Chef quiz show. There may be foods that one subjectively dislikes, but while evaluating dishes, one must set aside one's personal preferences and be objective about what one consumes, making judgements about factors like how it is prepared, seasoned, and how the ingredients blend together. Similarly a journalist or a judge bears the responsibility to evaluate an event fairly without any personal emotions attached to that.  

But is it possible to have an opinion that is objective and unaffected by emotions or "other limitations"? My pals, not at all!

 It is obvious that personal prejudices permeate everywhere. When a news photographer frames an image, editor writes editorial, they are guided by their implicit notion. Just as one carries baggage from one’s ancestors, so a news writer also implicitly compelled to write what the management wants, politician wants or even persons from underworld demand. Gradually it becomes apparent to me that we all have a kind of grounding somewhere which we cannot over-skip. We feel proud when a member from a legendary musician's family said without hesitation that he is the conceited torch-bearer of his family lineage. ...

Humans must contend with the unavoidable idea of their own consciousness, which is weighed down by knowledge and life lessons that cast what they are, since, one does not exist in a social vacuum, one is bound by the cultural ideas that defines one’s identity. However, the issue with us is that we are all wearing blue glasses, which means that anything we see is seen through blue lenses, even though the object is not actually blue. As a result, the term "subjective" frequently encroaches on our field of expertise and raises the danger of inaccuracy.

John Locke did a good job of illuminating the most basic type of contradiction between subjective judgement and objective reality. When one dips one hand in ice water, the other in hot water for a short period of time, and then submerges both hands in a bucket of relatively warm water. What happens, the one hand feels freezing and the other feels hot in a while. The seeing mind can therefore maintain two different impressions of the same item at once. Or, a more likely scenario, two individuals could go outside, with one characterizing the temperature as frigid and the other as comfortable. 

However, it is presumed that in order for a statement to be considered scientific, it must be unbiased and accessible to outside observation. Whether or not someone can see a red brick that is 10 inches long, 5 inches wide, and 3 inches thick, but it still possesses those characteristics.

An indisputable aspect of the universe is gravity. No matter how much one thinks they can fly, if they jump off a building without any support, they will land on their feet. The objective statement, "the world is round" would still be true even if everyone believed it to be flat. Similar to this, one would shout out, "Get off the road; a large vehicle is coming!" while standing on a major highway if the other person turned around and responded, "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me."  So unless things change, the individual will soon be crushed under the wheel of that truck. It is clearly obvious that subjectivism is a flawed ethical philosophy. Like a toothache, a subjective statement cannot be confirmed. It becomes very hard to measure morality when it is viewed as a matter of personal taste, such as "I prefer chocolate over vanilla" or "I detest television news." 

Everyone may have their own personal interpretation of any work of art or literary work, but because morality is concerned with public life, it cannot be judged if it is subjective. For instance, Socrates disagrees with the sophist's relativistic view of justice, contending that it has a mathematical conceptual framework and that ethics, like geometry, is a precise and objective endeavour with unbiased standards for truth and correctness. 

Simply said, thought conveyed through an object differs from idea expressed by pure thought. The empirical statement like "this is a bag, a bus, a bicycle, or a train" helps the user to do particular actions. Similarly, one with the ability to learn might initially consider the uttered-sounds as appearances when hearing a foreign language, but later on one moves past the sound to identify the objectively significant words. Nevertheless, if two balls or two apples are taken away from the equation 2+2=4, four balls or four apples the result is nothing but pure equation.

Recently there was big disarray regarding history text book where certain data were introduced as if to rewrite the history. There is nothing like black and white in history — a new concept is emerging now-a-days. Someone regard stories of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata as part of Indian history. The other historians argue for the use of substantial evidence, particularly archived physical paper records etc. to provide a greater understanding of the objective events. And there are some sceptics about history's ability to know objective reality in a meaningful way. The storyteller is restricted to his own mental theatre since people's memories are not accurate and may bias of specific ideologies. This is due to the fact that one of the most significant facets of human knowledge is connected to people's dual nature as subjects and objects within objective reality. The perspective defines who one is —  a terrorist for British and a patriot for Indian. The term "objective" is used in grammar book to describe words that serve as the beneficiaries of activities, which are the subject of the sentence: "The dog is eating the rice."  The dog who is the recipient of the rice is the subject and rice is the object, which can be altered in the statement, “rice is soft”.

A claim of objectivity that involves many perspectives is inter-subjective. It's possible that anything can be considered lovely if everyone agrees with this assessment. Inter-subjective disagreement, despite plausible arguments, points to mistake, whereas agreement, to some degree, points to truth. What could such a system be, though, given that every method of evaluation appears to be founded on individual perceptions?

The table itself is an objective reality as the sum of all conceivable experiences of it, even if one does cease to exist. However, the experience of the table at this particular instant is a subjective reality. Thus, biases cloud our thinking, shape beliefs, and affect the judgements and assessments that people provide on daily basis. 

Although many individuals like to think of themselves as logical and rational, the truth is that we are constantly affected by our cognitive biases. True, when I first consider the possibility that we all harbour prejudices, I immediately think, "Certainly not me; after all, I grew up in a family where acceptance and diversity were fundamental principles." That claim serves as evidence that the subjective component cannot be eliminated. This is not to argue that people are doing it on purpose. They are biased merely because they are attempting to make sense of the complicated environment in which they live. The statement "Immigrants are taking our jobs" is bias filtered through the lens of the perceiver's culture, norms, aspirations, values, standards, and expectations, filtered in a biased manner.

Gender bias is pervasive in many ways, including among female lawyers, female pilots, and male nurses, contractors and general managers are not supposed to be women in the building sector. Age, religion, weight, appearance, disabilities, accents, gender identity, sexual orientation, single parents, stay-at-home parents, kids with pink hair, people with tattoos and piercings, people with specific bumper stickers on their cars—the list goes on and on—are just a few examples of the many places where we see implicit bias. These biases can have an impact on how a politician assembles their cabinet, allocates their portfolios, etc. As a judge, one should endeavour to make sure that judgements are supported by relevant facts, but in reality, implicit biases might exist that the judge is not necessarily aware of it. If one is not a member of the community that rents the majority of the apartments, one attempts to avoid it, even though the individual is not racist or prejudiced. 

The proverb "trust your guts" may not prevent us from recognising unconscious bias. A hiring manager might choose to choose a job applicant only because they attended the same institution, succumbing to "affinity bias" because of their comparable interests, histories, and experiences. For the sporting market, as an example, a product designer tries to convince others of his product vision by contacting athlete friends who might be willing to back the idea, even though market analysis suggests that there is little demand for the product. 

Look at the way people comment on a piece of artistic creation. The person X underrates modern art because, for him, "they’re ignorant," and the person Y overrates modern art because, for him, "they’re creative." —  are two distinct, divergent viewpoints. For me, there is no better way to exemplify implicit bias than this.

While it is hard to completely erase a person's own prejudices, one can minimise by exposing one to a variety of cultural and social contexts. The slogan, ‘don’t judge’, works wonder when one goes with simple narration only. The phrase "Murder Boo!" and the adage "Murder is wrong" have the same meaning.

Friends! It is true that our knowledge of another person’s subjective states can be called "objective knowledge," since it is presumably part of the world that is "object" for me, just as my subjective states are part of the world that is "object" for the other person. Following this explanation, "objective knowledge" would be knowledge of anything other than one’s own subjective states as there is replicate taste of cuisine as of one’s own mother. As a result, I do not disagree with the Buddhist belief that unfiltered thinking, or unbiased thinking, is a myth, at least for common people like us.