Being objective while still giving opinions?

DaftChris

I had a sociology teacher who stressed that when we had discussions, that while we could give our insight and opinions, we remain objective. Therefore, we didn't use phrases like "I think..." or "To me...". Basically, we didn't refer to ourselves in the first person and keep it in the third.

I understood why, given the subject, but once who you give your own insight, you give voice to something you believe; which in itself has a bias. For example, lets say the subject is whether prostitution should be illegal or not. You think it should and you give objective reasons why (regulated like a business, money in the economy, regular testing, etc.); however you're still coming from your biased perspective on why it should be legal.

Therefore, is it really possible to be completely objective, while still giving your own insight and opinions?

vinlyn

DaftChris said:

...

Therefore, is it really possible to be completely objective, while still giving your own insight and opinions?

No, but so what?

Jeffrey

You can only be perfectly objective if you are omniscient, right? Or could you say you are objective but not correct?

I think we cannot avoid the four mental skhandas. Whenever we see a thing or concept we have feeling saying it is good, bad, or neutral. Then we have different perceptions, like the five blind men and the elephant we are not omniscient. Then we have cittas or our heart and fabrication of the 'world' we find ourselves in. Finally consciousness; I am not sure how that fits in here.

DaftChris

@vinlyn

Just out of curiosity.

David

Don't like to do it while just being told but to me, it seems limiting to state an opinion as truth without acknowledging wiggle room. As soon as we have it all wrapped up, we can no longer see it.

When we say "I think..." or "To me...", we invite other perspectives that we may not have previously considered. This is condusive to growth.

When we say "This is how it is so ______ is wrong" we invite dogmatic debate. This is condusive to division.

I'm assuming we are talking about that which cannot be proven empirically.

vinlyn

I don't really think anyone can be totally objective about almost anything. There's always some previous experience or bit of knowledge that is somehow related.

Let's take my stance on abortion. I think it's wrong, but I don't feel it should be illegal. I have that stance partly because a politician I admired took that stance.

When I interviewed teachers for vacancies, my view of a candidate was always colored by people already in that department.

But, so what. We can still discuss, still make choices. That's life.

Jeffrey

OP, you could be objective in some trivial cases but the four mind skhandas would be unique to you.

For example:

1+1 = 2
the sky is blue

David

vinlyn said:

I don't really think anyone can be totally objective about almost anything. There's always some previous experience or bit of knowledge that is somehow related.

True enough. I try to be objective but to do so ultimately would mean having nothing to discuss.

Let's take my stance on abortion. I think it's wrong, but I don't feel it should be illegal. I have that stance partly because a politician I admired took that stance.

The only way to fight abortion is through preventive education and a more compassionate mindset. Prosecuting a rape victim for aborting isn't going to help and let's look at the extreme case scenario. When all is said and done, should a woman really be forced to give birth to her own sister?

See, now I'm doing my best to be objective by looking at the big picture but the way I see the big picture is still tainted by my own personal bias...

Seems it can't be done unless one is simply reading a fact sheet.

I still think it's healthy and helps us to grow.

We are explorers by nature and an infinite amount of heads is better than one, lol.

genkaku

As someone who worked for a number of years as a news reporter, I will say that "objectivity" is a worthy goal. It's also utter bullshit.

Ever notice how people discussing Buddhism (to pick just one example) may use words like "we" or "one" or "our?" Basically, this is conniving for company and/or seeking to elude responsibility for what is being said. It's the sort of verbal cowardice that I think Buddhists might do well to avoid. As in journalism, I like the rule, "Stand up, speak up and shut up."

Objectivity, to the extent that it means anything, means not being attached to what is said, opined, bloviated about, etc. For example, I like chocolate. I don't like chocolate because you do or don't like chocolate and I am highly unlikely to stop liking chocolate if you lecture me on how bad it may be for my teeth or cholesterol level. I just like it ... no big deal. And the same goes for a host of other things ... it may be a big deal to me, but that doesn't make it a big deal.

Rather than encouraging students NOT to use words like, "I think" or "in my opinion," I think a teacher who had not gone completely off the rails would encourage students to do just that ... to train themselves to recognize and own what is obviously their own in the first place.

lobster

IMHO the only cure to subjectivity is Buddhahood. Objectively I feel the Buddha was not free of the subjective conditions of his time, place and arising.
More objective, independent and awake no doubt . . .
Anyway I hope to be joined in Buddhahood by a few others. What is your planned course of greater objectivity?

karasti

I don't personally get the value in removing "I think" "I feel" "In my experience" from the conversation. I think it's great to stand up for your convictions. But not when it comes at the cost of alienating peopel who might have been opening to listening when you come across as "I'm right, you aren't." As the saying goes, I'd rather be kind than right. Just those couple words say "This is what I believe/think based on what I know, but I'm open to hearing what you know, so please share." It totally levels the playing field, whether you are debating in class, talking to a friend, arguing with a partner or whatever. taking ownership is important. Just because I feel one way, doesn't make it someone else's fault.

lobster

I'd rather be kind than right

Well said. Righteousness and selfless, 'rite speech' and other ceremonial behaviour is a good act.
However those of us attaining Buddhahood this year, will have to do a bit more than attaching ourselves to dress code, speech code based on superficial and subjective honesty. Right speech may entail silence or kindness above our subjective interests . . .

taiyaki

No such thing as objective or subjective. Those are only thought forms.

Any action of body, speech, and mind is arisen due to causes/conditions.

Ignorance is what asserts the subject (subjective view point) and the object (the objective view point).

And both of those dependent upon assumptions.

If you can take an idea out of context and box it up completely separate and independent from everything else then you can be objective while giving a subjective opinion.

But ideas only have relevance to other ideas in relationship to assumed persons and things.

vinlyn

So I guess since your post is a thought of yours, there is no such thing as your post.

Not helpful.

taiyaki

A convention. Apart from the convention where is the referent?
Unless we "give" the referent some kind of reality.
Objectivity and subjectivity only exist in the realm of conceptuality.
Minds "gives" these things reality.

lobster

It is sometimes important to recognise we are all in different places in our practice.
One woman's LOL is another's subjective experience of objectivity.

We have to develop integrity and a certain dispassion and objectivity to our arisings. This for those further along may entail 'being', rather than dualistic observing . . .

In the words of my future self as a Buddha:

Don't quote me! I never said a word!

:wave:

BhanteLucky

DaftChris said:

I had a sociology teacher who stressed that when we had discussions, that while we could give our insight and opinions, we remain objective. Therefore, we didn't use phrases like "I think..." or "To me...". Basically, we didn't refer to ourselves in the first person and keep it in the third.

That dropping of the "I think" is just a word game, designed to mask the true subjectivity of a statement.
It's a linguistic trick to make other people think the speaker is being objective. Sometimes it even fools the speaker.
But there can be no objectivity. We are subjective beings by nature.
The only things that approach objectivity are hard facts... and even experimental results or scientific readings return results made subjective by the way they are measured, by the way the experiment is set up.

One can give their opinions and insight, but the myth of objectivity should be abandoned.
Embrace a broad subjectivity and recognise the that claims of objectivity are essentially a lie.

Says me, using no I statements whatsoever, hehe.

Deepankar

Objective is so much broad iv view of circumstances, places and also individuality capacity. I would guess that it ought be developing common peace and joys without changing others system of faith, belief, trust, dignity and confidence. And also developing charitable and generosity mind field and forgiving. Be joys together and be a loving society.

ThailandTom

I think there are ways around being objective without using pronouns, or even using pronouns. If you can see both sides of the coin and voice your opinion or opinions in an unbiased manner then that would be objective would it not? "I consider this to be how this should be done, but I can understand why some people say this is not the right way because of this this and this"

In meditation however once one reaches bare mindfulness, there are no opinions on feelings or thoughts as they arise because you just observe them for what they are and give them no energy to grow. Bringing mindfulness from the cushion to real life is the name of the game, and how can one live life without addressing each other by names or whatever? Impossible I say

Deepankar

So you can imagine the ultimate awesomic wisdom of buddha providing each bikskhu and biskhuni a unique omnipresent name term as dharma name. And their ancestor is omnipresent, the root of all beings, so dearingful right! And most cultural people had their ancestor name or surname or father name as root, and it does not mean to abolish cultural root but complementing it for secularism needs due to political sensitivity