Instead,
human bias seems to have led a small number of counties to become far more likely than others to follow through on a death sentence.
Not exact matches
All
humans have selection
bias, but religious people
seem to have it at a pathological level.
But you
seem to be missing a very important point: nobody will have the knowledge and experience and not develop a
bias one way or the other, it's just plain
human nature.
Here's part of the problem: Scientists are
human, just like you and me, and they occasionally defend wrong ideas because they propagated in a time where some novel but wrong papers / books were written, and
seemed right at the time, and the consensus accepted them, because it agreed with their
biases.
The basis of this research and the resultant list may
seem rather
biased as
humans have used only one type of intelligence — working intelligence — to gauge dogs on the smart meter.
Whether we broach the perimeters of exploratory physics at CERN or try to reconcile logic with mental illness and addiction at home,
human life
seems incapable of shaking its
biases, coping mechanisms and eccentricities.
For
humans to live comfortably within the earth's limits, it
seems likely that renewable energy technologies will be a big part of the equation — though, if looked at without
bias, they also come with a big footprint of their own.
In my notes I wrote: «don't really know what's coming next, but need to seize on this opportunity, you plus Watson, the assistant who knows all of the research / knowledge in your domain;
humans can't do this alone, ability,
biases, etc.» Although, it
seems I also commented: «fascinating and terrifying.»
Both resilience - building strategies and attempting to reduce or remove the negative factor by focusing on it are useful and complement one another, but it
seems timely given the apparent literature
bias in this review, for future studies to focus on the positive end of the
human functioning spectrum.