Bias = | Truth - µ |

Also know as a measurement of accuracy (Oh I’ll never use math again I said....in 1983)

So the adage: his truth, her truth, THEIR truth and THE truth ... Is why we need judges, juries, mediators, policy, procedures, critical conversations Trust..and dare I saw....instant replay cameras ; ) utilized to get as close as possible to THE TRUTH.

Also in the space of an event/occurance there are multiple perspectives. Perspectives drive personal reality.
Example: 4 ppl witness a soccer match from 4 different locations near the field.
From those 4 you may get up to 4 different accounts of what occurred during the game...all of which have some level of truth. But just because 2 of the 4 describe different things doesn't mean theyre being untruthful...it May simply mean their vantage point and perspective had an impact on what they observed.

Drives me nuts when people use the phrase "my truth"...theres only the truth, there are not multiple versions of it.

A fact is the truth, my truth is a semantic way of of saying my opinion. ( usually the opinion is just as wrong as the statement)

You make an excellent point! A coworker of mine is colorblind, he asked me once about a color coded drawing, I told him to follow the red line and he said which one is that? I said the red one...he said which one, I said the RED one! Then he looked at me all stern and said, I'm colorblind. I felt about two inches tall...we joke about it now!

Lol. That's funny

One of operators is color blind. I trust him more than the rest because he trusts the color meter I have to set up. Others will complain if the readings go out of spec. It must be the meter!

How does one judge what the truth is and where they are on the spectrum of truth and untruth?

The truth is a measurable location when doing a MSA. (Measurement System Analysis) the farther away from the truth is called a bias and that is a measurement of accuracy when using minitab to correlate your data. (Still thought it would make a funny meme while sitting in class)

So you're talking about objective truth I take it. I'm not sure anyone is 100% unbiased.

I don't make religious memes. I did make a meme about a mathematical equation used in manufacturing when making sure your process in in control using SPC and MSA.I don't come up with the terms for the values, but I did find it funny.

Yes I figured you wouldn't be talking about spiritual or moral truths. So what about the news. That's always biased even if they claim that aren't, lol

I read many news sites. I understand that when I read a liberal site that it will skew the message to the left, but I also read the right leaning sites that do the same. I think for myself and don't ignore news I don't agree with.

But I have watched mainstream news change over the years I do know something about it. My father is a retired newspaper publisher and has cover politics most of my life. Once upon a time the news division was not meant to turn a profit, but that changed in the Reagan years when more and more corporations began expecting their news divisions to turn a profit too.

Enter CNN and headline news. The first 24 hour news station. Problem is there wasn't enough news to make money. Enter the pundits. Talking heads spewing whatever came into their heads minus research or fact checking. Sadly the public has eaten it up.

Too many only listen to the pundits that share their preconceived ideas of how the world is. Most of them are full of shit and only exist to sell ads for their corporation. Truth mostly no longer matters to them because of it. The if it bleeds it leads of yellow journalism has now become if they scream about the other side it leads.

Take the news of the Republicans storming the Congress's closed committee hearing claiming they were being locked out. How many pointed out many of the idiots doing that stunt were on that committee and had every right to be there, but chose not to be for the cameras?

Go farther back to Newt Gingrich. He mastered the camera by standing up and giving these long ass speeches in Congress in front of the CSPAN cameras. What they didn't show was he was alone in the room. Unopposed, he fed bullshit to his audience eager to be told wanted they wanted to hear. (Remember when he claimed you couldn't cheat on your wife and serve in government to force Clinton out? Only to have to leave for the same reason?)

I also remember how the media helped Hillary Clinton (Hated voting for her, but I cannot vote for a republican anymore. With an exception. Weld is a good man and would make a good president, but he isn't insane enough to appeal to the primary voters) defeat Sanders as they will attack Warren this election. The Corporations fear true reformers. You should expect them to help Biden as much as possible as he is a corporate Dem. Keep the status while doling out a few handouts here and there.

Wooh that was a long read. But totally on point!
Only one thing... the media also hurt Hillary Clinton prior to the '16 election. They ran stories on the email "scandal" with,extreme frequency, persumably to boost their viewship and subsequently their ad revenue.

Yes, but that was after hurting Bernie's campaign. (I've met him and he is the same person today as he was 20 years ago) Once Hillary secured the nomination, the same defenders of her quickly pivoted to going negative because ratings. Nothing, but a money grab.

So are you saying the media:
1. FIRST, Simultaneously Helped Hillary and hurt Bernies campaign
2. And once he was no longer a contender, they increased the frequency of negative stories @ the email "scandal" for a money grab?

Bernie & Hillary were neck & neck at one point, yes?
Why would they initially "help" Hillary over Bernie? And exactly how did they do that?
Different perspectives are great to hear out. Keeps one from being in an echo chamber.

Hillary was and is a status quo candidate. Private fund raisers with powerful insiders hidden from the public. Wonder why? I did. But Bernie has always been an upset the apple cart type of guy. Fighting for us little guys so of course he was smeared just as you can expect Warren to be smeared. Healthcare that isn't a cash grab for the wealthy? Usury laws that prevent banks from screwing us over and getting away with it? Corporations hiding they tax liabilities, but still using the infrastructure we have to pay for? Nation parks no longer for us, but oil companies? Well time to smear those that actually fight to keep America for Americans. It's profit time!

And they turned on Hillary not because they thought she would lose, they turned on her because of revenue. Most thought she was going to win and were hoping for years of Republican led attacks that would keep people glued to the news and therefore more ad revenue.

Sorry to sound cynical, but the truth is there. Strip away the our side your side crap and see how they actually voted and what that means for you. Tax cut for the wealthy? Well that's less tax money coming in and therefore less money going back to the states as aid. State's now have less money because of it and cut aids to cities and towns. Cities and towns have to balance their books and that means raising revenue from the residents. How? Higher taxes on homes, new "fee" that use to be covered by those old home owner taxes. Trash pick up? Use to be included, school sports and art and music programs? Paid for mostly by that state aid, now if you want it you have to pay extra. Hell some of my towns have added a view tax to homes that are on the water or over look mountains. Why? So the rich can have more.

You seem to think and write like a scientist or researcher..digging a bit deeper than most -looking at #'s/ $/ cents and and seeing the connections and possible implications . That's laudable.

I did know some of what you wrote- but not all. Thanks for sharing. Politics in inherently emotional (This is not to say emotion has no place in it. ) and touchy and encumbered by flawed arguments and false narratives...it helps when one can look at it systemically and logically.

In response to the post that contains: "I had a customer buying a fleet of cars for his company. What did they do? They went into... "

I'm unclear about WHO went into the "rich people's homes" and WHY?
What was the take away suppose to be from that?

If a person from say, a tenement apart. in the Bronx NY or Chicago, IL went into a home in the suburbs of say, a southern town in GA or TX - would or could they not find alot of "wasted space" alot of "wasted back yard" and "more than enough pictures to hang in a small art gallery much less, a tenement?"

Point being- who gets to say when enough is enough?
I totally get you on cars they don't drive and homes they don't step foot in...that seems kinda ridiculous...but isn't the "ridiculousness" predicated on a RELATIVE comparison?

If you compare home A to home B and determine home B has "too much whatever"
You could draw the same conclusion is you compare home C to home D..as above.

But if you compare home A to say home "A-1" well... maybe the homes and the "things" in and around them dont seem to be TOO much.

Now- on the other hand- IF you compare services that you believe should be delivered as human rights and for the common good rather than as products and for the individual's good- you have an ideological difference that may manifest itself in different political viewpoints about... you guessed it....health care. Now,That I understand. (personally agree with the former, but also understand that currently the industry is a for-profit business and that's why it's often compared to other "for-profit businesses" like restaurants and Disney lands)

So again, what was the take-away from the "car dealership and rich people's homes" comments?

Last bit. I use to work for a dealership (My union job got sent south for some reason) and I had a customer buying a fleet of cars for his company. What did they do? They went into rich people's homes and told them what they had there. The rich have so many homes that they often don't step foot in each each year. They have cars they don't drive and artwork they don't look at.

The guy once found a Picasso in a crate leaning up against the furnace. The owner literally forgot they had bought it.

:-)

I'm not even biased. I don't take sides. I'm neutral and ever shall be.

In this instance it is a mathematical equation. Had nothing to do with people.

Nani?!

Mean

Ya could have just said that....

It was in the title

'_' I guess I'm stupid when it comes to that stuff.

Answer to early question (thread was at it's end)

The Gentleman's company was paid to go into the extremely rich people's homes by the extremely rich. It literally was they job to inventory the belongings as these people own so much that they lose track of it.

And when is enough enough? How about when your isn't enough begins to take away from everyone else. When I entered the work force the average CEO pay was a mere 40 times that of the average worker. Pretty large huh? Now it's measured in the thousands of times and according to the CEOs it's not enough because their jobs have all the risk. You lnow, life time health insurance, access to the company jets, millions in severance, etc....while I lost my job due to the CEO moving it south. I got a week's pay for each year employed. They got rid of me two weeks before my third year.

I'm not anti-rich, but the problem is they pay way less than everyone else in taxes because they can afford to buy the votes to change the tax laws. Then as many of them are the owners of the media, they control the narrative. (More and more sources of media are now owned by fewer and fewer corporations and you better believe they have an agenda.)

Ok I get that--about the CEOs earning so much more. I wonder if they compared the salaries' of employees and executives by disposable income and proportion used for needed goods, would it help advance the argument and awareness of inequality ?

I also have an aversion to corp. exec and corporate led gov. -specifically those corp. that have been allowed to become monopolies. I'm sure you can name a few easily. And yes, i agree, they have agendas. And yes, I agree, the media helps advance those agendas based on it's ownership.

I guess the bigger question is what can we do about it? Not saying there is nothing to be done..just wondering "out loud" cause an open dialogue is good, action items are better.

IMHO-
There is a 21st century rise of monopolies (market share stealers) that is a repeat of the Robber Baron days of the 19th century...and it's happening because most of us have either forgotten that history or haven't been taught it. Monopolies steal power from the people and crush home grown values.

This is a modern robber baron era. The problem is it now easier than ever to misinform the masses about it.

What can you do? One vote. My congressman is Richie Neal. I will never vote for him again because he chose big pharmaceutical over his constituents. I will be very vocal locally about too.

But the biggest thing is not to get angry when someone doesn’t agree with you politically. The powers that be know if they keep us hating each other they can do whatever they want. By being civil to each other we can then work together, support candidates that promise an America that supports Americans. And if they vote otherwise, work together to vote them out till someone does.

I literally am too serious of person...