American girl in Italy, 60 years later

1. He indicates that his interpretation is free of bias (implying that anyone who disagrees with him is biased).

2. He specifies that he's being "clinical" and that others are being "emotional."

3. He categorizes any experiences that causes someone to disagree with him as "unfortunate."

4. He doesn't want to "devalue their honest personal feelings" while making it clear that he does not value their honest artistic interpretation.

But credit me with being honest, and having a solid basis for how I see things.

1. He indicates that his interpretation is free of bias (implying that anyone who disagrees with him is biased).

He never once said that. Show me the indications you're referring to.

2. He specifies that he's being "clinical" and that others are being "emotional."

He never said or implied that either, DD.

3. He categorizes any experiences that causes someone to disagree with him as "unfortunate."

That really is a stretch. That's sinking to a new low. Sorry, but it's not even worth discussing.

4. He doesn't want to "devalue their honest personal feelings" while making it clear that he does not value their honest artistic interpretation.

Artistic interpretations are a lot different than their honest personal feelings. They weren't discussing the former, but they were the latter. GMAB.

If you see it differently, that's your prerogative. But credit me with being honest, and having a solid basis for how I see things.

No, I think your thinking and logic is skewed. How honest have you been with me? Not too honest. You've been hiding behind words and implications. And you've never answered my question about whether you could have completely misunderstood him. I ask you now, do you think it's a possibility that you could have completely misread/misunderstood him?

I already answered that question.

DrewDad wrote:

1. He indicates that his interpretation is free of bias (implying that anyone who disagrees with him is biased).

He never once said that. Show me the indications you're referring to.

The slice of life interpretation does not impose elements that come from a peculiar bias.

DrewDad wrote:

2. He specifies that he's being "clinical" and that others are being "emotional."

He never said or implied that either, DD.

(sorry for taking a "clinical" rather than emotional view)

DrewDad wrote:

3. He categorizes any experiences that causes someone to disagree with him as "unfortunate."

That really is a stretch. That's sinking to a new low. Sorry, but it's not even worth discussing.

It occurred to me that Chai and Arella's reactions may be connected to unfortunate personal experiences in their own past. I do not want to devalue their honest personal feelings.

DrewDad wrote:

4. He doesn't want to "devalue their honest personal feelings" while making it clear that he does not value their honest artistic interpretation.

Artistic interpretations are a lot different than their honest personal feelings. They weren't discussing the former, but they were the latter. GMAB.

Mame, I quoted Wandel in my original post. I'll do so again, here, as a courtesy.

Mame wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

1. He indicates that his interpretation is free of bias (implying that anyone who disagrees with him is biased).

He never once said that. Show me the indications you're referring to.

Here you go:

wandeljw wrote:

The slice of life interpretation does not impose elements that come from a peculiar bias.

Since Wandel is the one promoting the "slice of life interpretation," he's saying that his interpretation does not have a "peculiar bias." The obvious inference is that other views do have "peculiar bias[es]."

Okay, I'm not getting this at all. I'll have to go back (damn it) and read it over. But I doubt you're getting his correct inference - your 'obvious' is not 'obvious' to me.

Mame wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

2. He specifies that he's being "clinical" and that others are being "emotional."

He never said or implied that either, DD.

OK, here you go again:

wandeljw wrote:

(sorry for taking a "clinical" rather than emotional view)

Again, Wandel states that his is a "clinical" view, as opposed to an emotional view.

What I got out of that is that HE'S being clinical rather than emotional and it doesn't pertain to anyone else's view. See how we can easily misread things?

Mame wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

3. He categorizes any experiences that causes someone to disagree with him as "unfortunate."

That really is a stretch. That's sinking to a new low. Sorry, but it's not even worth discussing.

I can see why you wouldn't want to discuss it:

wandeljw wrote:

It occurred to me that Chai and Arella's reactions may be connected to unfortunate personal experiences in their own past. I do not want to devalue their honest personal feelings.

Wait a sec - "He categorizes any experiences that causes someone to disagree with him as "unfortunate." Where the hell did you get that? You have not been listening to any viewpoint other than your own. You know what that says to me? You're as close-/narrow-minded as you accuse him of being. WHAT IF THAT WAS NOT WHAT HE MEANT???????

Mame wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

4. He doesn't want to "devalue their honest personal feelings" while making it clear that he does not value their honest artistic interpretation.

Artistic interpretations are a lot different than their honest personal feelings. They weren't discussing the former, but they were the latter. GMAB.

No, they (Chai and Arella) were not discussing how their personal experiences affected their interpretation of the photo. Wandel brought up their experiences, and feelings, and the implication was that their "unfortunate personal experiences" make them unsuited to performing a "clinical" analysis of the art.

NO... he offered the SUGGESTION that past incidences helped colour their view of this photo - which I think is pretty insightful. The fact that their past may NOT have impacted their view is another story... but it COULD have. And likely with most of us, it WOULD have...depending on the photo, the situation, the person, etc. My past impacted my view of that photo. But if your name is DrewDad, nothing from the past would impact the present or future, right?

Really, are we reading the same thread?

Yeah, but we're talking different languages.

That's simply not worthy of credence. You really have to want to be offended to be offended by this.

I think that I have exhausted my store of patience for the evening.

Fudge Factor: A Look at a Harvard Science Fraud Case
Did Marc Hauser know what he was doing?

...

Hauser has admitted to committing “significant mistakes.” In observing the reactions of my colleagues to Hauser’s shocking comeuppance, I have been surprised at how many assume reflexively that his misbehavior must have been deliberate. For example, University of Maryland physicist Robert L. Park wrote in a Web column that Hauser “fudged his experiments.” I don’t think we can be so sure. It’s entirely possible that Hauser was swayed by “confirmation bias”—the tendency to look for and perceive evidence consistent with our hypotheses and to deny, dismiss or distort evidence that is not.

The past few decades of research in cognitive, social and clinical psychology suggest that confirmation bias may be far more common than most of us realize. Even the best and the brightest scientists can be swayed by it, especially when they are deeply invested in their own hypotheses and the data are ambiguous. A baseball manager doesn’t argue with the umpire when the call is clear-cut—only when it is close.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fudge-factor

I have never called you dishonest. Ever.

How honest have you been with me? Not too honest.

Your interpretation is inherently dishonest.

Having thought about this some, I think this is an example of cognitive dissonance.