When we are affected by cognitive bias, we can misperceive things. This misperception can be due to our memory system, our observations, or other human weaknesses.
The principle shows similarities between Philosophy and MetaPhilosophy, but upon deeper examination, there are stark differences between cognitive bias in philosophy and cognitive bias in metapsychology.
Philosophical vs. MetaPhilosophical
Philosophy teaches us the psychological aspects that can influence our perception of something.
Example:
〰 Case Study: We know that a vehicle is fuel-inefficient but appealing to our heart, and this can complicate daily finances. However, the choice is still made for the appealing vehicle despite its fuel inefficiency.
- 👉 In META, we do not highlight such things but rather more fundamental questions like, "Is there an example of someone with a limited budget buying that vehicle and facing maintenance difficulties or not?"
An even simpler example that will surprise us when seeing the difference between viewing cognitive bias and overcoming cognitive bias from the perspectives of philosophy and metaphilosophy:
〰 Case Study: I need to buy this and that, oh yes, don’t forget, this is also important, and this also matches my expectations, the favorite food I've been looking for, and not to mention, this one must be delicious.
How does philosophy handle this❓ More or less... makes one sick? On a diet? Or even better, don't be wasteful, bla bla bla...
- 👉 MetaPhilosophy❓ Not only considering the philosophical approach but also a META approach, such as this... does our family also like it?
More fundamentally, which might not be considered by some philosophers (not all philosophers):
- 〰 Philosophy: Don’t chase perfection; nothing is perfect, so stop trying.
- 〰 META: Chase perfection, because we can achieve it gradually and that is perfection.
This perceptual difference, which can occur due to personal weaknesses, can be responded to differently by both parties (philosophy & meta).
Or...
- 〰 Philosophy: Prove directly until it can be touched.
- 〰 META: There is no direct proof except in the sense of being perceived directly without an apparent object barrier, because even if any barrier is involved, we can never truly touch it; rather, there is an electromagnetic barrier between our hand and the hand of another person being touched (there is always a space we consider empty).
THE ESSENCE❓ In META, the perception is more realistic because it reaches fundamental depths.
IF WE FORMULATE IT SIMPLY❓
RELATIVE DIMENSION
Generally, philosophy recognizes "logical fallacy" & "cognitive bias" or other things from the dimension of wisdom (philosophy = love of wisdom) based on daily life. Even when they delve deep into thought or contemplation, it is still within the relative depth.
As if saying, "let's play deeper not just on land," then they dive into the deep sea. Deeper... then dive into ocean trenches, deeper... drilling land down to meters. Let's go deeper... then exploring interstellar space.
UNIVERSAL DIMENSION
META, not just exploring interplanetary space, or drilling the earth or diving deep into the ocean, or even dissecting the brain, researching the depths of brain nerves.
- 👉 NOT JUST PHYSICS (physics is still used), but up to quantum physics and even deeper.
This is why some philosophers are quite surprised to see the depth of scientific knowledge at the quantum physics level, while on the METAphilosophy side, this is ordinary.
SO OBVIOUSLY, UNDERSTANDING AND OVERCOMING COGNITIVE BIAS ALSO INVOLVES THE DEPTH OF QUANTUM PHYSICS OR EVEN DEEPER, THE UNIVERSAL FUNDAMENTALITY (which will also be realized by scientists later).
More Simply...
PHILOSOPHY OVERCOMES AMBIGUITY BIAS by determining which branch to choose to avoid complications (polemics).
- Good Side: Able to overcome polemics, but the deeper you try, the more complexities you find, thus overcoming one polemic
👉 But accumulating more complications (polemics)
META OVERCOMES AMBIGUITY BIAS by seeing what is behind the branches and then rising up to clarify the branch that reduces complications.
- Good Side: Able to overcome polemics, because the deeper you try, the more simplicity you find, thus overcoming many polemics
👉 However, it cannot be just thinking or even better, by contemplation, but also requires humbling the ego.
PHILOSOPHY STRATEGY
- NO MATTER HOW DEEP, IF IT IS ONLY RELATIVE DEPTH, the deeper we ask, the more difficult questions we add, because the answer lies not in absolute depth, and philosophers think that deep questions and critical thinking will provide answers that still lie within the relative playground, NOT CONVERGING BUT EXPANDING.
META STRATEGY❓
- You can already predict it yourself, ultimately requiring His help. We cannot delve deep without getting trapped in playing in different playgrounds but within the same relative playground, except with His help to truly enter the universal meta-depth that converges without adding complexity.
THE SIMPLE SCENARIO... should be... the deeper you ask (still in context, not expanding) the more it converges ✅
AND NOT... the deeper you ask (but with less strong contemplation, so the questions expand) thus more questions arise, but not converging ❌
SO COGNITIVE BIAS really needs to be overcome to avoid...
- QUESTIONS EXPANDING OUT OF CONTEXT WITHOUT REALIZING. Not only does it cause misperception, but the next questions assume that the deeper it gets, the more focused it becomes, while in fact, it expands (because it does not understand the context due to cognitive bias).
- To avoid misperception of the situation, thus being able to adopt a realistic attitude.
FINALLY, IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT PHILOSOPHY DOES NOT ONLY PRIORITIZE RATIONALITY BUT RATIONALITY THAT UNDERSTANDS ITS REALISTIC SIDE, NOT JUST RATIONALITY THAT IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS REALISTIC SIDE.
