That natural human bias means you don «t always hire the best candidate for the role.
Not exact matches
We have also noted that in their
natural state (fitra),
human beings have a
bias towards good and against evil.
That liberals are just as guilty of antiscience
bias comports more with accounts of
humans chomping canines, and yet those on the left are just as skeptical of well - established science when findings clash with their political ideologies, such as with GMOs, nuclear power, genetic engineering and evolutionary psychology — skepticism of the last I call «cognitive creationism» for its endorsement of a blank - slate model of the mind in which
natural selection operated on
humans only from the neck down.
Despite our sincerest aim of using science as an objective and unbiased tool to record
natural history, we are reminded that science is a
human construct, often driven by
human needs to tell a compelling story, to reinforce the positive, and to compete for limited resources — publication trends and communication
bias is a proof of that.
Those models are born - again weather emulators,
biased by design at their rebirth against
natural causes and in favor of
human causes of climate change.
Political unrest,
natural disasters and maternal stress are among a long list of traits suggested to lower the male
bias in
human sex ratios [4], [5], whereas during the First and Second World Wars in Europe, a more male -
biased SSR has been documented [6].
In previous postings here at WUWT I have estimated the
human contribution to net warming since 1880 at 0.2 ºC, the
natural cycles and processes contribution over which we
humans have no control at 0.3 ºC to 0.4 ºC, with the remainder of the supposed warming of 0.8 ºC due to data
bias and cooking of the books by the official climate Team.
Authority
bias may be more pronounced in Korea than in the US, but I think it's
natural to
humans to one degree or another and simply amplified or dulled by culture.