top of page

The Dangers of Dismissive Bias

Updated: May 7

There is a lot of information out there and it is increasingly hard to determine what is real and what is fake, what has been exaggerated and what has been stitched together creating a collage of truths and/or untruths. Obviously there has been enough collective experiences of distrust of some corporations and systems to cause people to ask questions. And we should never stop asking questions.

The best way to navigate the onslaught of information is to maintain a mindful level of love and compassion and an ever vigilant awareness of personal biases. With personal biases comes the potential of dismissal of alternative perspectives which doesn't actually shield anyone from "false" information, it actually perpetuates a rigid and stoic mindset and hurts feelings. An easy way to spot bias? If you are only looking far enough to prove yourself right, you are being bias. And you are more than likely looking at the world with blinders on. But that's just my personal opinion, one I'm not trying to convince you of.

Who the hell do I think I am anyway?

As a creative, I'm the type of person who when told there is one way to do something, will try and or consider every other way, test if the one way presented is in fact the only way as well as is that "only way" the only way for me. This has been a running theme in my life, a personality trait, a way of processing and self discovery that works for me (as far as I can tell). I have always been the sort who nibbles on all the info, tastes it, considers its origins, disects and displays it, applies it to other things within my experience, weighs it to see how it balances within the world as I've observed it, all before, if ever, declaring it as a belief.

For me, my actual beliefs are very few and this helps to serve me when discerning and assimilating information. It also helps me remain as detached and therefore unbiased as possible. I consider myself a "what if" person.

It is also my experience that a lot of people are not like this. Most prefer to not engage in "what ifs", to find a personally and socially acceptable credible source that confirms their own bias and assumptions and stick to it. They are the, "it is what it is" people.

So why can't we all get along? Well, we can. If we recognize that all the types of thinkers have their processes when dealing with an onslaught of information.

Processing times will vary.

If you've personally arrived at a place where the information you've assimilated has solidified as a belief of a truth then the next step is some confidence that if your truth is the truest truth, eventually those whose processing/assimilation times differ from your own will eventually arrive at the same conclusion. It's not up to you to force or bully or passive aggressively belittle and or attempt to humiliate anyone on their own path towards truth. It's actually counter productive because instead of being a loving compassionate and patient peer, you are perpetuating an oppression upon the kind of minds who help to evolve us from the way things are to the way things could be. Without which we would never have been able to fly. In fact, every technological and otherwise thing/concept/progression we have today came from the kinds of minds who dared to continually think and ask, "what if".

Blatant dismissal of anyone entertaining theories is like telling Einstein and Tesla that they were crazy and illiterate and crazy for all their thoughts and imaginings and for considering things that hasn't been peer reviewed.

I'm not trying to say that mine is the kind of mind comparable to those of our past greats who dared to move forward against a tide of nay-sayers. I don't consider myself an expert nor do I assume to have any of the answers but the general tone I've been noticing of the social functions of today are pitted within an aggressive, "I'm right and you're wrong" landscape. If you don't care to find out what led a person to consider alternative motivations within the global landscape that's your prerogative but don't inadvertently support a silencing of the conversation. Truth exists within the consideration of all the perspectives and the rarity of everyone believing the same thing is real. Consideration is not acceptance and we should always consider.

If we are to assume anything...

What if we didn't assume someone sharing alternative information is sharing it as a declaration of their personal beliefs? What if instead we assumed they were simply considering information? What if instead of engaging in the kinds of dialogue that promotes a divide we were to initiate a conversation from a place of compassion? What if we minded our own business and didn't take alternative perspectives as a personal attack against our own so we feel the need to have to defend our position no matter who we trample?

What if we found ourselves unified by our differences?

What if we chose love instead of fear?

What if

60 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page