bias

There is nothing 'honorable' or 'reasonable' in giving a pass to those who want to discriminate.

The world is a place of constant change. If we are open and ready to consider everything while remaining unbiased, we will be ready to accept these changes and utilize them to improve our lives.

The limitation prompting folly " was an attitude of superiority so dense as to be impenetrable.

One journalist complemented another that his article on a dispute, "had made both sides see themselves as they are.

Illusion of transparency: We always know what we mean by our words, and so we expect others to know it too. Reading our own writing, the intended interpretation falls easily into place, guided by our knowledge of what we really meant. It__ hard to empathize with someone who must interpret blindly, guided only by the words.Be not too quick to blame those who misunderstand your perfectly clear sentences, spoken or written. Chances are, your words are more ambiguous than you think.

Someone told me recently that a commentator or some sort had said, "The United States is in spiritual free-fall." When people make such remarks, such appalling judgements, they never include themselves, their friends, those with whom they agree. They have drawn, as they say, a bright line between an "us" and a "them." Those on the other side of the line are assumed to be unworthy of respect or hearing, and are in fact to be regarded as a huge problem to the "us" who presume to judge "them." This tedious pattern has repeated itself endlessly through human history and is, as I have said, the end of community and the beginning of tribalism.

It's not 'over-sensitivity' to ask to be treated with the same dignity and respect shown to others.

When I look at a person, I see a person - not a rank, not a class, not a title.

The old bitterness came up in him and he did not have time to cogitate and push it down.

As a matter of fact, when it comes to seeing, men display two tendencies: they see what they wish to see, what is useful to them, what is agreeable. The second is the tendency toward inhibition; they do not see what they do not wish to see, what is useless to them, or disagreeable.

It appears, from all this, that our eyes are uncertain. Two persons look at the same clock and there is a difference of two or three minutes in their reading of the time. One has a tendency to put back the hands, the other to advance them. Let us not too confidently try to play the part of the third person who wishes to set the first two aright; it may well happen that we are mistaken in turn. Besides, in our daily life, we have less need of certainty than of a certain approximation to certainty. Let us learn how to see, but without looking too closely at things and men: they look better from a distance.

Historical revisionists find what they set out to find.

The professor counsels against retrospective history, assuming that particular pieces contributed to an outcome.

When critics surrender to the prevailing orthodoxy, the author says they adopt the rhetoric of an occupied country, "one that expects no liberation from liberation.

We still thought that we were the only two people in the world who were interested in the right kind of things in the right kind of way. C.S. Lewis

When we encounter personal problems, those things most deeply personal are the most difficult to bring out for our logic to scan.

Perhaps wherever you go first is what you judge everything else by.

He did something he rarely did. He decided not to see things from the other guy's point of view.