Biased.

Perceptions threaded with time, paradigms becoming biased with strongly opinionated people, and the procession of such biased belief succeeding and being inherited through generations. Going with this belief is known as ‘common sense’, going against the odds of it, is mutiny against your predecessors which lead to being called a traitor of belief, or a perpetrator of disbelief. How common do you find people in favor of such defiance, unless some witty powerful human of influence comes to say otherwise?  How often do we see something like that happen?

Sometimes theories by people, who have learnt and practiced a certain subject, are widely accepted. Their area of expertise is that subject of consultation and asking their opinion is what we think is the ultimate source of knowledge and result we can get about that subject. But their intellectual capacity is restricted to a certain amount. They might know out of the ‘ordinary’ about the subject but will never know everything about it. But with power comes pride, and with pride, comes influence. A person’s pride reflects influence and that pride is what gives confidence to the subject’s existence/non-existence.

Nowadays word of mouth is taken more seriously than ever. Nobody will accept something someone says from a person who most people don’t know, more than accepting something someone says from a person who most people do know. The power that is being mentioned here comes through a vast connection of people and sources that might intend to lead us on a path because they want us to follow it.  All paths are lead by someone, and all paths guide, are illuminated by knowledge and are also a source of common biasness. Most people, without considering the rights and wrongs of the path, will tend to follow it, because they know most people who are following it. Irrational biasness I would call it. Rather unwise, impulsive and risky.

In case scenarios of ‘Irrational Biasness’ religions, societal standards, culture, tradition, political point of views are all what confine our course of action to follow a directed path, even language. We speak a language, made by us that we have naturally come to believe in. We were taught the language we speak in because it is commonly accepted, because it is what ‘most’ people speak. We cannot create a new word in the language to make our point because we are not experts because those who first communicated this language very well seemed to be! We cannot come up with a language of communication today because people don’t usually come up with it or more or less, won’t understand it, therefore we shouldn’t. Honestly speaking, we are not even sure of how our language came into being because it just did. Ever thought how phone could have been spelled as ‘fone’ because it sounds like an ‘F’, how puns, adjectives, idioms and other dramatic/grammatical devices established by early communicators or later language experts might exist, but words we create based on logical connections will be grammatically incorrect because they are not widely accepted and so, cannot be incorporated in our language? That is how the world really works. At one time among the most all time dim-witted quotes was one stated by the US commissioner of Patents in 1899, Charles H. Duell: “Everything that can be invented, has been invented”. But considering how the order of biasness works in language, could it be more efficient to say that “What could have been defined in language, has been defined in language?” (In context of spelling and grammar) Not so dim-witted in this context, is it?

You can see or hear, how these set principles and standards in our languages only, like spellings and grammar, are what we have come to believe in because a few people defined them as what they are, and without reason we have to accept them as they are because, you’ll be going against common sense if you didn’t. And what is common sense? Common sense is what people commonly believe, which might be irrational or unreasonable, but what has come to be accepted generally because most people have come to accept it; ‘biasness’, in other words.  But then as Dan Brown said it, “Wide acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity.” Yet we seem to think otherwise.

It’s a simple idea.  We are born inclined to biasness that never was defined as to why we should follow such course of action that most people follow. Never were we given a reason to be inclined to what we are made to be following, because, perhaps it didn’t seem to be necessary at the time, and yet, when such biasness comes in the form of conflicting ideologies within societies, where one doesn’t agree with the other, they say “We are not inclined to do what others our doing. So what if they are doing it, it doesn’t mean that we should too.” How often has that sentence played the role of dictating our lives?  It is now what I define as ‘denial.’ We were taught to be biased and then we are told that we shouldn’t be? We were taught to irrationally become biased, and now we are told that we should have a reason to be? Inclined and having a birth right to be irrationally biased doesn’t mean we lose the capacity to reason with our purpose, ideas, actions, words and reactions. It’s just that, when some biased concept doesn’t convince us very much, we move on to another trail of purpose which might be someone else’s biased track, but for us it might temporarily satisfy our context of inquiry on terms of reason and curiosity. Never forget the fact that one form of rationality for us might not be biased but for someone else it might be, therefore we should realize, that the biasness trap we have already fallen into, which exists throughout the perimeter of this Earth, is defined differently for everyone, and there are grounds of rationality and irrationality that exists within them, which we should seek and find in order to satisfy the contextual inquiry of rationality in one’s belief.