About Biases In Many Forms and Shapes

There's no such thing as an unbiased person. As I explained in an earlier post ("Matter of Opinion"), biases come from different life philosophies, experiences, background and influences. Most of the time they are not intentional, unconscious even. But that doesn't mean we don't have them.

Intentional biases are motivated by interests.

If you strongly support a project, you tend to emphasize its benefits and leave out its bad sides (this can be unintentional too, if you start to believe your own pitch).

Another effect of being intentionally biased is this:
If you are involved in a project which has a direct competitor, you will try to minimize the successes of your competition, or even get involved in trash talking. We've seen this a lot in crypto land, haven't we? At the same time, you will bolster even the smallest improvements of your project and minimize any shortcoming.

I started with projects, but we can very well extend this to various antagonistic clubs, whether they are of social nature, politics (parties) or in sports. This is where biases can sometimes, if not always exceed logic. Can you imagine a Real Madrid fan being happy Barcelona won the title? Or a Barcelona fan being happy that Real Madrid potentially will win Champions League? Regardless of how well either of the teams play.

In politics, those who don't have the power are called the opposition. On most matters, the government has a position and the opposition, well, the 180 degrees one. Anyone thinking what I'm thinking? Of course, that's an intentional bias from both parties. But moreover, that means one party intentionally lies to keep its bias.

Hey, you thought that's the worse, right? Well, maybe not.

Investors...

The only rule you need to remember: all investors are biased!

I'll expand more on this one, because it seems to be an ever actual issue, and the problem is it involves money. YOUR MONEY! Although that's what public administration means too, but it seems less personal.

Investors are of two kinds actually.

The first kind. The small and many, who generally fall prey to FUD and FOMO. They can be intentionally or unintentionally biased, but even if they have intent, their influence is small.

The second kind. The powerful few, the gurus, the experts, who generate FUD and FOMO, AFTER THEY TOOK APPROPRIATE POSITIONS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE TREND THEY GENERATE.

All their investment advice is intentionally biased, manipulative, and made for their own benefit or the advantage of someone close, who will return the favor.

That doesn't mean what investors say is worthless. On the contrary. You just have to filter it through your own judgement, and try to understand the reason why they made a certain statement.

Let's have a short case study.

Warren Buffett, who has been undoubtedly a great investor, keeps issuing negative statements about cryptos every once in a while. The reasons why he does that might be because:

• he is an old-style investor, currently 87 years old, for whom a recent jump (and pump!) from IBM to Apple was considered something extraordinary
• fiat currencies risk to lose some power and influence to cryptos, and that means, at a personal level, his investments will devaluate
• crypto space is still unregulated and he can't invest in it as a big investor (this is more theoretical, I doubt he would invest into any cryptocurrency in the next 10 years, and given his age...)

I almost forgot this: why do people keep asking him, a known traditionalist, about crypto, a component of a revolutionary technology? That's smart!

And to round up investors' biases, Bill Gates also sends mixed signals about blockchains and cryptos. You may want to consider Gates and Buffett are very close friends. Aren't things beginning to clear up now?

I am also a tiny investor. If you ever see me recommend you to invest in this or that or simply express opinions about various investments, use your own judgement, I sure will be biased about them.

On Steem, one thinks the quality of the content is the most important, while another considers rewards are all that matter. Each is biased, because they both matter. Or so say I, who of course, am biased too.