Sentences with phrase «what human bias»

Not exact matches

What they can do, however, is analyze without the interference of human emotions or external biases.

Human nature being what it is, even if you're dedicated to taking emotion out of your investing, you're likely still subject to inherent biases.

Study of Scripture through the filter of man's biases results in the type of man - centered ideas proferred by Baden, like «God learns to accept their inherently evil nature», and humans «are the only species that can give him what he wants — which, in the view of Genesis, is bloody, burned animal sacrifices», and «it is, rather, our job to make ourselves uncomfortable that he might be appeased.»

Now, could it possibly be that the reason the answer is out of reach is because the bible was written by numerous, imperfect human beings, under the influence of their own religious biases, and all those writings have been complied, hundreds of years later, by men of equal imperfectness and religious biases, so as to render any logical discussion about what the hell was their intention in writing what the wrote, completely implausible?

Given what the Bible says about the deceitfulness of the human heart, humbly acknowledge your own bias and limitations.

Well from what I have read the bible is mostly made up human man, (that had prejudices, biases, failures, fears) there is alot of interperation by the person who preceived or believes they translated the wording correctly.

But what really matters, he believes, is getting at, «the implicit bias we are all guilty of,» how, «when a cop sees a black guy in a black neighborhood running away, that bias kicks in because they're human, like all us.»

Evolution biased the human mind to attend to some types of information over others — often the exact opposite of what teachers wish children would learn

«The surprise to me was more about human psychology and what we look for and how biased we are in what we look for.

The polygrapher, who is only human, can have a positive or negative bias about the subject that will color the interpretation of what's on the needles, so there is a lot of work to make it objective.

«The task before us was to set up experiments that would show errors and biases, and those mistakes would tell us what was really going on with human cognition.

As archaic humans, Neanderthals and other hominin species migrated out of Africa, what followed was a wave of size - biased extinction in mammals on all continents that intensified over time.

Scientists say this bias may be what enables humans to work together in large numbers — even with complete strangers — in ways that other species do not.

«But human trials of sitagliptin have been limited to date because they have lacked important tools like a placebo arm and allocation concealment (in which researchers do not know what the next treatment allocation will be, further preventing selection bias in testing),» said Loomba.

We also don't know what the real publication bias was in human trials, so it's hard to compare what has changed.

Figuring out what kind of car to buy on Cars.com is straightforward, but us humans are messy bags of flesh, full of ego, bias and emotional detritus that makes the job of pairing us up with life partners (and to some extent one - night stands) seemingly impossible.

Human and institutional behaviour cause biases in stock prices that give rise to what is known as the value premium, namely that value stocks beat growth stocks.

Blame it on recency bias: the human tendency to put more emphasis on what's just occurred while ignoring the longer term.

Or you come to school one morning and the principal wants to see you because a parent of one of your students has accused you of political bias because you taught what scientists agree about: that the Earth is getting warmer, and human actions have had an important role in this warming.

* The role of the US in global efforts to address pollutants that are broadly dispersed across national borders, such as greenhouse gasses, persistent organic pollutants, ozone, etc...; * How they view a president's ability to influence national science policy in a way that will persist beyond their term (s), as would be necessary for example to address global climate change or enhancement of science education nationwide; * Their perspective on the relative roles that scientific knowledge, ethics, economics, and faith should play in resolving debates over embryonic stem cell research, evolution education, human population growth, etc... * What specific steps they would take to prevent the introduction of political or economic bias in the dissemination and use of scientific knowledge; * (and many more...)

It is the wealthy other half that are the problem, and are also the same group which don't need to be hardwired to instincts developed thousands of years ago, and which ought to be able to use intelligence (what the human species supposedly prides itself on) to override instinct and cognitive biases, when it can be objectively demonstrated that such instincts and biases are encouraging destructive behaviour.

The video, featuring the science writer Joe Hanson, explores a vital body of empirical studies on human risk misperception, showing how a rational view of long - term or diffuse threats is obscured by «status quo bias,» our «finite pool of worry,» our tendency to value tribal connections over reality through what researchers call «cultural cognition,» and other characteristics of what I call our «inconvenient mind.»

What Anthony et al have shown with the surface stations project is that cherries used to be forbidden but are now welcomed, as they serve as «enablers» that show that human (biased) judgment must intervene to coax out the «true» data.

This same bias leads to the ascribing of «goodness» to old ecosystems (ie old - growth forests) whereas they are merely what we humans prefer.

Free from preconception and bias, what can we really know about the theory that humans cause global warming?

[And then you look at who the respondents are, nearly all, if not all of them are dedicated to finding human induced global warming and you realize that what you're looking at is a biased opinion.

And the inferences aren't derived from observation, but model outputs — models that can only do exactly what (human, hence systematically biased) programmers tell them.

My own personal bias is that conspiracy ideation, and offering hyperbolic rhetoric is not disproporationate on one side of the climate wars compared to the other, and further, that what we know about human psychology and cognition would make such an outcome implausible.

Besides human input of CO2 (easy to default to this, confirmation bias, can't think of anything else so this is the answer)-- what other factors could explain?

A person could argue that this primary focus on human influences predisposes the IPCC to finding these very influences, because IPCC panel members recognize only evidence that supports their already - decided conclusion (what researchers call «confirmation bias»).

But in this world, with humans full of cognitive biases, green should probably take the time to make sure that what they are saying isn't being obscured by the way it is said.

Add a universal human affliction — confirmation bias — and the fit becomes too perfect: law schools tell prospective students what they want to hear, and sure enough, they hear it.

As humans, we are biased without knowing when we are and in what situations the bias may show up, which is commonly termed as «unconscious» or «implicit» bias.

Judges have a great deal of discretion in what they do, and human biases creep into their decision - making as they see more and more cases of a particular type.

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.»

While it is human nature to want to «win,» both lawyers and doctors have an ethical obligation to be mindful of potential biases and external motivations, and do what they can to negate them.

So, what the learned, but possibly biased (remember, the 50/50 rule pro or con here) Judge has publicly stated as reasoning for the continuance of Dale's suit is, in «my» own words, that... «In my mind (according to how I personally see things in my own biased mind (I am human after all) from my own psychological / political perspective re how I want to apply the wording of the law in this particular case), Mr. Dale has the «legal» right to continue with his lawsuit because I, being the sole judge of the presented facts and tactics of persuasion as presented by both sides in this dispute, side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason (s):