Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
That's because we are arguing about two related but distinct things. You are concerned with the existence of bias. I'm concerned with the objectively proving the scale of the bias, which already assumes that it exists. Furthermore, it has occured to me after some thought that my method is flawed because while I have defined what significant is in terms of the discussion, I havent defined at what marketshare the determination is based on. Which means its up for interpretation or subjective, which means that the entire method cannot be objective. Ultimately, subjectivity is the main issue when talking about human nature. Most of the reasoning I see in this forum is not rigorous enough. |
Hey man, props to you. Way to keep it civil though it was touch and go there for a while. One thing we can agree on is that the reasoning on this site is sub-par. Not sure I hare your desire for rigorous formal reasoning, but solid thinking is always a plus.
As for the subjectivity of bias, some other guy has already mentioned many of the same things I would say, I'll just add one more thing to consider. It is possible to start with the same problem, and come to two opposite conclusions both based on rational decission making (in the sense of rational meaning that "it makes sense").
For example: Should we port game A to the Wii U? Argument 1: Game of this type has sold poorly on the Wii U before, therfor it is too risky. Conclusion: Do not port. Argument 2: There are no real big games of this genre on the Wii U, this is a good opportunity to expand our audience for a relatively low cost. Conclusion: Do port.
Both of these arguments makes sense, the extent to which one makes te most sense is determined in a large part by bias. For example, you have indicated that you wowuld probably think argument 1 makes most sense, Zero999 will probably think argument 2 is the most reasonable. Obviously, this rabbit hole goes very very deep.
