To Be Objective

We have the idea that being objective is a good thing.  We say, "We need to look at this objectively," and "It's important to hear an objective opinion."  We also admonish others to "be more objective" when they are relying more on emotion or personal bias to reach conclusions.

So, isn't that what being objective means?  We remove ourselves from personal prejudices and small-picture influences in order to make the best decision, come up with the fairest solution.  Being objective means being impersonal, not considering only our own best interests, but the interests of other parties involved, or the group as a whole, as equally or even more important.  However, telling somebody, "You need to be more objective!' also has the meaning of "Stop disagreeing with me when I want to be right!"

Is it even possible to be truly objective?  In the discussion, the consensus was no, with the prime example being journalism.  There are many romanticized stories about reporters telling only the facts, especially in the past, but we can find innumerable examples of news stories pushing the reader to make one conclusion or another, from any age.  Even photography isn't completely objective, since the photographer decides to take the photo at a certain moment, from a certain angle, focusing on a certain point.  Then, only certain shots are published.  It may well be that most reports and stories are not transmitted with the intention of influencing the public; the reporter may wish only to inform, to give the cold, hard facts.  But one fact is this: words mean things.  Not only their dictionary definition, but the feeling that they produce when read or heard.  This is the reason literary figures choose some words over others, and why some words are used in news stories while their "synonyms" are not, even if done unconsciously.  The lauded "journalistic objectivism" does not seem to exist in reality.

A detour into subjectivism occurred during the discussion, in which it was mentioned that to be subjective, one has to acknowledge the facts, but the best way to get what you want is to be completely subjective, that is, interpreting reality in the way that best suits you.  Having material or social power makes it then more likely that others will accept your interpretation, and "create" the reality that leads to your achieving your goals.  Statistics and numbers seem like an antidote to subjective and manipulative interpretations in science, but we were able to come up with a number of situations in which the numbers, while true, were interpreted in ways that made their meanings shift; a couple of examples are crime rates, abortion, and climate statistics.  The interpretation of these numbers appears to have its basis in our emotional reactions to them, since we want very much for certain things to be true about our world and tend to ignore or dismiss evidence to the contrary.

At this point, an argument was stoked by an assertion that fundamentalists of any stripe or idiots.  Another participant indignantly refused to accept that Catholic fundamentalists were idiots, since "99% of humanity" was Catholic in the past.  He also refused to accept that believing in invisible flying elephants was akin to believing in angels, effectively demonstrating how our prejudices, conscious or unconscious, steer our interpretations of facts into the realm of pure subjectivity.

The comment was made that the only objectivity that exists is that which can be measured with a standard.  The standard itself is a subjective measurement of reality, but it is as close as we can get.  This may be the reason for the existence of such inflexible fundamentalists.  They have created a standard and are rigorously applying all of reality to it, finding it (reality) utterly lacking.  They have a deep-seated wish to have a leader, unwavering, sure and steady, who will guide their every step so that they don't have to waste their time considering all the possibilities and consequences.  These fundamentalists are not necessarily religious.  From what I've read, the same could be applied to Randian Objectivists and political ideologues of many stripes who do not depend on a deity for their authority, but rather "reason".

What about the morality of objectivity vs. subjectivity?  While it is impossible in practice to avoid subjectivity, the problem I have with it is its unshareableness.  You can tell me what you see and hear, but I don't see what you see or hear what you hear.  I can only interpret the words you use to describe it.  There is normally a certain standard for what words represent, but that standard is hardly universal is constantly changing.  Words are poor deliverers of objective fact.  But that's a matter of my subjective opinion.