An apology

I have taken up some controversial topics recently. It is a dangerous thing for me---as these things often lead to heated heads and distorted reasoning. As they are of enough interest for me to write about them, I am especially exposed to the danger of hot heads. It is nevertheless my hope to analyze these from my perspective. The pulse behind my writing is simple--my distrust of popular media.  A reasoning similar to that of Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) would convince one that because of free speech, truth will be out, and lies will be exposed. Unfortunately, it is little more than wishful thinking, and any political theory based on that line of logic, just as EMH, will be a terrible reflection of reality, despite its irresistible theoretical beauty and attraction.

It puzzles me when the mass media coverage are systematically biased,  just as when individuals' expectation are systematically biased in economic setting. We do not have any convincing models for them in economics or political science, but to deny their existence, and build arguments, and recommendations upon them is only the favourite sport of those living in Ivory Tower.  As for me, I will continue to explore their origin, and at the same time will speak up against those biases, popular and deep-rooted as those biases might be.

As I have commented many times people are haunted by confirmation bias---instead of reviewing relevant evidence and updating their belief, they cling to them for too long. They choose to disregard relevant information challenging their belief. As a result, media coverage that confirms their bias will be popular, while those telling uncomfortable truth will not be. The more nuances truth is, most information is ambiguous, and people like to read information interpreted their way (just see how many conservatives like to read NYT?) Media, by catering to public taste, reinforce their bias and prejudice.  Government campaign, of course, plays a role as well. The true picture of course is more complicated, but these are some elements that I conjecture are present.

As a human being, I am not immune to irrationality and confirmation bias. As I get dragged into those controversial topics, I can expect that I will lose my head sometimes. Hence, I do not wish to persuade, but rather, I would rather explain my angle, and wish to see some intelligent and logical replies regardless of their angles. There is one thing I do not wish to see though---the logic representing that of EMH, or unreasonable assumptions that treat people as "noble in reasons" and "infinite in faculty".

There was once a friend dismissed my arguments on Tiber as a result of "brainwash by Chinese government". I wish to point out some facts: I was anti-government in my attitudes and felts that US was the role model until 2007 (as evidenced by my continuous sarcastic remarks in class about the government, online blogs). In the summer of 2007, I went to US as an exchange student. I learned American history (and got a 5 on AP US history), and changed my attitudes toward government in general. I get more disillusioned with an idealist thinking that is in line with EMH, and started to approach the problem from a more realist point of view. I became cynical and more reluctant to trust what politicians say. At the same time, I began to understand what Chinese government did. While I continue to lament the rampant corruption and collusion, I appreciated the difficulty they are confronted with in eliminating corruption, and the dilemma. I continued to dismiss my once firmly-held belief, introduction of democracy will do the job. While I continue to be critical of Chinese government on some policies, I became more critical of those criticisms from US politicians, as I began to suspect they are hypocritical in nature.

You are welcome to point out my systematic bias, but please take the above history into account.