Do you believe you answer questions impartially most of the time?

I don’t tackle questions on subjects I don’t know enough facts about; therefore I steer clear of most of what you would call “hard” questions. I wouldn’t answer questions on any of the topics you have given in your examples because I just don’t know enough to answer fairly.

I don’t try to keep my bias and emotion out of my answer. If they wanted unbiased, unemotional answers, why would they even bother to use a social/collective type Question and Answer site. That would be the place for Wikipedia or a professional “help” site.

I would rather someone not answer impartially. I want knowledge from experience.

The few topics I’m overly emotional about I try not to answer.

I try very hard to be fair and logical, and by that I don’t mean unbiased. We are all biased in some way or another. The trick is to be aware of your bias.

I answer purely on instinct, why it’s almost like I put little or no thought into them whatsoever ;¬}

It would depend on the question of course, but I am guessing that you don’t mean the questions looking for opinions since they, by their nature, are asking for biased answers.

I try to answer to the best of my knowledge and will try to say if it is my opinion, my own experience, or if it a piece of evidence that I have picked up from somewhere.

I think that unless someone is linking or giving a full reference, you always have to take what they say as being opinion or biased. It’s up to the reader to verify.

It depends on the question. Sometimes I try to remain impartial, other times a more emotional response is required. I think with most questions though, there isn’t a black and white answer. You have to weigh up the pros and cons. The answer is in the grey. If I think I have something to add to a more difficult or controversial topic I will answer. If not, I won’t. Depends on my mood too. If I have just got home from work or I am tired or just not in a good frame of mind, I probably won’t want to answer any really challenging question.

Nope- I’m insanely biased on all issues, regardless of how little I might know about them.

I once hacked into to a vicious enemy’s Facebook account, because they dared try to tell me that blue isn’t any better than brown!

Ahhh, hells no! On the rare occasion that I try to answer intelligently I always include my personal bias so everyone will know the correct way to feel! ;-)

All my answers are fact based and often full of my own opinion formed from my own life’s experiences. Take it or leave it.

I may not be impartial, but I always try to be rational (even when doing so is viewed as insensitive or unkind.

It really depends on the question & if I think there is a valid reason to answer it, i.e. I’ll ask myself……Is the author of the question just being a smart arse looking to get a rise from asking dumb questions? :-/ in the hope he gets a dumb answer they can then dissect & ridicule..
If I think it’s a genuine question I will answer honestly, impartially if possible….. It depends on the question… As to how involved I get, if it hit’s a nerve then I get stuck in……. :-/

No such thing.

It depends on the question. If it is an opinion question, I give my opinion and then try to back it up with reason or data. Sometimes in an answer I might state an opinion, and within my answer even give the logical other side, kind of the devils advocate thinking it through. Many times I actually admit a bias as I answer the question,

I am a wonderful,fair and balanced judge.
Wonderful,I tell ya! ;)

I am absolutely impartial. Born to it. You can absolutely trust any answer of mine as the correct answer. Accept no imitations.

YES I AM IMPARTAL!!! ALWAYS!!! LIKE WUDAYATTA!! I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU WOULD EVEN QUESTION MY IMPARTIALITY!!! You are a low down, mean, wasp killing kind of person to even suggest otherwise. Isn’t that right @wundayatta?!

Yes, @Dutchess_III. I am impartial. Completely impartial. I do not let my rose colored glasses get in the way of my superclear vision. I can show you my prescription to prove it, if you want. Well, ignore the part about the astigmatism. Sight is overrated, anyway. So, to tell the truth, as far as that wasp-killing business, without a picture, I never saw it. You are right as reign, @Dutchess_III!!!!

That’s right! And they better not forget it! You left your super vision glasses here, btw.

We are what we are and we know what we know – being impartial is absolutely impossible. The reason we pick questions to answer is based on our own knowledge, history and experience… There are too many influences in life to be truly impartial about anything. It’s a big claim to say “being impartial is absolutely impossible” but I cannot think of one example that disproves the statement… open forum…

“All writer’s are propagandists.” I just try to make my opinions and biases obvious.

My pet peeves… I don’t believe have much to do with any sort of question.
I don’t see emotions as bad in answers—lathering them up to beyond what they were, sure; it makes you rigid. But the original emotion, good and appropriate momentum. (And ignoring them, unhealthy.)
I also don’t see logic as the only way to answers, or always giving the correct answer; and it’s just as maleable as any of our minds’ abilities.

As for bias—pretending to be unbiased is lying, and irritating to anyone trying hold a conversation. I know someone who does this in my real life; they claim they only ever answer logically, and so have always the superior answer (which, by various logic paths, is an illogical statement anyway.) They discredit any other type of thought from others, deny they have any other type of thought themself, and when they have an answer, it is the answer, counter-logic doesn’t even matter. They “win” by sheer immobility.

So no, I’m not impartial, either. But I do answer honestly. And I try, if I see a question or answer(s) I’m responding to leaning towards a particular style/mode, to match that.

Nope. I usually state my bias clearly for all to see.

metza metz

It really depends on the day and my mood.

@Bellatrix I think with most questions though, there isn’t a black and white answer. You have to weigh up the pros and cons. (Not picking on you but your answer to me spoke more of the general sentiment but with more reason why). There is a lot of questions that can be seen as not being black or white; which means they are gray, it determined by if it is favorable to you or not. If it be discovered that was an Al Qaeda convention was taking place in Somalia. 98% of the leadership was attending, and the pirates were hosting and providing security, if the US decided to quickly dispatch a jet and nuked them, to the US it would be a great coo, to the innocent people caught and killed in it or those who have a radioactive cloud drifting over them it would not be.

If someone had a plan to use bullfighting to feed their hungry village and earn revenue off the fights to build schools and wells for fresh water etc. Would you weight the actual good it would do if presented in a clear manner how it would all work or simply not care if it would feed 5 village worth of children because you are an animal rights advocate or you simply don’t like bullfighting? In short if an issue or process showed itself to be more efficient, cheaper, more profitable, etc but was something you personally loathe would you still blast it off your hatred of it devoid of any facts?

(not picking on you, you just had the clearer voice to me)

Thinking is not my forte.

Hi @Hypocrisy_Central it’s cool, I’m not feeling picked on. In your first example, I would say exactly. There isn’t only one side to this question and therefore, while my initial response based on my background would be, great! They have taken out some of the key leadership and potentially had a big breakthrough in terms of preventing future terrorist attacks. However, we then learn that the nuclear bomb killed 100s of innocent people, has poisoned the farming land around that area for decades (perhaps centuries) to come and this will in effect mean nobody can live in that area now. Of the people that did not die immediately, they will face radiation sickness and may die or will face long term health problems and any children born in a wide reaching zone will most likely have physical disabilities. On top of that, the action has led to such great resentment, that the leaders taken out will now be replaced by a whole new batch of people who hate the US and their allies and who are determined to act against them. When you consider all this, no the action probably wasn’t sound in my opinion.

To me it’s all about looking at the bigger picture as well as responding to my own initial emotional response. I don’t always think to this level, I don’t always have sufficient information to analyse each question posed. That’s one of the benefits of a site like this in that people will often make points I wouldn’t consider and by the end of a thread, I may have a new view on the topic or at least a more informed view. Won’t always change my mind but I will likely have learned something.

I won’t go into the second example because I have to go out soon and I want to read some more posts. I hope I responded clearly to your point though @Hypocrisy_Central and thanks for asking.

@Bellatrix Yes you did, as I wish many would do, much better when one can have a back and forth less snarling and fang bearing.

Thank you @Hypocrisy_Central.

I am pretty big on examining all angles to a situation, but…there is no impartiality for me when it comes to honesty, integrity and doing the right thing IMO. Mostly this applies to relationship type questions, otherwise I always try to keep an open mind.

Perhaps even in seemingly obvious questions of morality, well…if there is any truth to reincarnation then maybe it IS all PERFECT! Maybe everyone is destined to play out their karmic retribution. So really, maybe we are all just spinning our wheels against the karmic wheel anyway. haha