so basically you agreed with me that you are not actually using confirmation bias for your scources of information but you still instist on it because reasons.
you must be fun at parties
I use it in my process of politicization if you prefer.
bruh thats literally antithetical to confirmation bias
I see an information > I get a point of view on said information > I know that my sources will usually confirm my point of view > I check my sources and usually that is the case > This is what the process of a confirmation bias is. This is how I can know that I have a reliable politicization.
But to be sure to have a good source, I need a good system first:
The point of a great politicization is to understand how to uses our biases FOR ourselves and not against ourselves and to understand that our environment will politicize us no matter if we agree or not. So I uses this to my advantage and create a space where my sources are always SLIGHLY more politicized than me on different subjects.
When I say "slightly more politicized, I mean that they depict a form of understanding for a concept that I'm not familiar with and usually something that make my own point of view usually more slightly reactionnary than theirs > which I consider to be more ethical
(depending on the contexts obviously).
This system prevents any form of reactionnary confirmation biases to be sent toward me and pushes me naturally toward more understanding while keeping my mindset ethical through a reaction effect that I know will politicize me naturally.
To do that, I'm always staying aware of the slight shifts in the politicization of my sources in order to adjust mine. If for example I'm on twitter and my sources says something that I find slightly more reactionnary that their usual positions. I pause, analyze the content, and keep in my head the fact that I will potentially get rid of that sources later... But sometimes, what I find slightly more reactionnary is actually a form of radicalism in desguise. So I keep an inmind checklist, and when a person or entity gets around five non acceptable checks, I get rid of the sources and try to replace them by someone that challenges my position.
The interesting stuff happens when my sources share something that "feels" more ethical and enlightening, but that I find, really challenging. In such case, I know that there is a possible point of possible self-critic and I focus on that specific subject, usually by adding an external source shared by the previous source on the subject.
This extends my windows of understanding and let me simmer in a rethoric that I'm not familiar with. After a while (a few month usually) I have absorbed all the main arguments and materiality of their point of view and my internal political vision slightly shifts toward that new source.
It's like a relay race, my sources are the runners and I'm the baton. I use confirmation biases only to verify my position. After that, I let the system - that I created - guide me.
This is why I'm so adamant in my beliefs. It's only possible for me to go forward, never backward (
unless I lose my memory ofc)
It probably would’ve still ended up largely populated by Europeans and African slaves. Like we talked about before the natives were wiped out by diseases leaving to large amounts of empty land.
maybe there wouldn’t be wars or disputes between natives and Europeans, but eventually the survivors would’ve probably ended up joining the new euro descendent nations
Diseases were weaponized, without colonization, things would have probably been very different. I think it's fair to say that the values of indigenous people would have aligned quite well with communism.
Then again, without colonization, there probably wouldn't have been any capitalism..
