...acceptable on a discussion board and that certainly seems to be the case here. But this poster, M & M, suggests that one-sided arguments, which offer no enlightenment in his view, might be the main, yet I do not see that. It appears that there has always been open exchanges, some more convinced of their position than others, but yet we all enjoy the viewpoints even if we don't agree...otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

Just what is 'ignorant bias' in this context? It is a definite leaning towards one's side of the picture or understanding; but to categorize a strong belief based on certain knowledge as ignorance is certainly unreasonable or unfair if the opposite viewpoint is never challenged with facts, logic and reasoning. This poster offers NONE of those arguments, only attacking one's views without any presentation of a different or better approach to understanding or examination based on available information.

I would like to see this one offer an examination of some of the information, resources, ect., he refers to and demonstrate how these have been twisted and selectively culled to fit an agenda. That sounds more reasonable,
wouldn't you think?

I also would like to understand just what is meant by 'to fit an agenda!' What is he suggesting is to be accomplished by such a term? Brainwashing lesser intellects?? Bringing disapproval down on the discussion board? I can't imagine what is meant by any one of us having an ulterior motive as such a term seems to imply! Perhaps the thought of presenting any information or logic that might expose a hero like Wonder Wyatt might be there but I would suspect that is meant in jest only!

M & M could dig up some examples of this determined undermining going on and show us what it is he fears in these open exchanges. That would help to 'clear the air' considerably. When has any of us made efforts to suppress information, rather than present it, often in careful quotes, so that it can be examined. Are none of us allowed to form a conclusion based on the evidence or lack of it we see so that it can be weighed against common understanding, which may be right or may be wrong? How do we determine that if we don't view it from our own angle. Everyone tends to do that until something is offered to cause them to reconsider their conclusion. You might call that bias if you choose; it is not a dirty word. Most people tend to lean in one direction or another based on what they think they know.

M & M says he wants opposing views...but he never shares them or refutes them. He just complains that forming one's own opinions based on what is available to you is a liability to others in the group as they are apparently not sharp enough to stand their ground with their own conclusions. So exchanges of the kind we all have been doing are now insulting to all of you on this board. Your not able, apparently, to surface from the 'polluted waters' of an agenda of ignorant prejudice!

I don't think I even know what the heck I am talking about anymore, so I shall leave you all swimming in a Sea of misinformation formulated for some nefarious purpose I have not really had explained to me yet. Perhaps Olds can help me out because I think I am babbling. He can straighten me out pretty quick.

Someone attempt to decipher this mess, will you? B.J., you could ask your Professor again and see if any of this makes sense. I am befuddled!