Who Has Point-Of-View Bias

Who Has Point-Of-View Bias?
Practically everyone.

Some people have more POV bias than others, however, and some have less.

Point-of-view-bias is about how we see things from our OWN point of view, combined with our ability, or LACK of ability, to see things from someone else's point of view.
Stephen King is a world-famous writer of fiction, mostly horror, and in my humble opinion, exceptionally talented at writing from many different points of view. If his character is a very large man who grew up on a Bayou in the deep American South, for example, he is able to effectively and believably write from that character's point of view, as if he is "standing in that man's shoes". As if Stephen King was actually able, for a time, to BE that person, and express how that man sees the world, what he thinks, and what he feels.
If his character is a small, young woman from the Midwest who grew up in a poor household, he seems to be able to transport himself, again, so that he is "standing in that woman's shoes", as if he is writing from HER point of view, expressing how she sees the world, and what she thinks, and what she feels.

Stephen King seems to be a very rare talent; there are precious few writers who seem to be able to suspend their own point of view in order to write so effectively from the POV of the opposite sex, or from the POV of a person of a different race, age, class, ancestry, or region. He may not get it 100% perfect all of the time, but his average is pretty impressive.

Most people, writers or not, seem to fall short of Stephen King's talent for objectivity and for transporting themselves to someone else's point of view.
There are countless tales, stories, poems, tomes, and modern films and shows, as well as Advertisements, and also songs and "musicals", that reflect the BIASED POV of the writer/author. When the writer is purposely expressing a certain POV because the story or character is specifically written that way, then the flow is not interrupted or skewed; it's appropriate. But when they are purporting to be of a NEUTRAL, HUMAN point of view, but are actually writing as if all "humans" are male, or white, or black, or Baby Boomers, or Hispanic, etc. etc., then the flow is interrupted and cock-eyed for EVERYONE EXCEPT those who share the writer's personal BIAS. 

There have also been years, decades, even centuries of non-fiction texts (science, religion, philosophy) written in quite biased POV, that have been touted as "Neutral", "Neutrally Human", or even "Scientific". 
For an easy and obvious example, the "big three" Religions all have texts that are written quite obviously in male AND male-biased point of view. Much of the texts are written as if "Human beings" are MALE, and females are "other", instead of BOTH males and females being considered "People" in the same way.

When a person with a BIASED POINT OF VIEW says or writes the words "WE" or "US", they are NOT referring to ALL of the people who are also in their group. They are ONLY referring to the people who they think of as being JUST LIKE THEMSELVES, usually in a physical way.

A person who lives in BIASED POINT OF VIEW often has skewed beliefs about other people. For example, it's common for women who have female-biased-POV to believe that ONLY WOMEN share their array of feelings, interests, fears and motives. They may believe that ONLY WOMEN really care about children, or they may believe that ONLY WOMEN JUST LIKE THEMSELVES really care about children. They might actually believe that no MEN could ever really appreciate Romance, or gentleness, or deep emotional bonds with other people. They might actually believe that men would not BE ABLE TO LEARN HOW to really take care of other people, or how to keep a house clean, or perhaps other things such as how it feels to be treated badly or abused by other people.

Males who have BIASED POINT OF VIEW might actually believe, for instance,  that women and girls don't have the capacity to feel the rush of adrenaline that one would get from going fast on a bike or in a car, or that only MALES are ABLE to learn and understand what it's like to be proud of learning how to rebuild an engine or play a guitar. There have been male-biased writings that imply that ONLY BOYS and MEN can UNDERSTAND the bond between humans and dogs, or the feeling of ultimate FREEDOM that one can find being "one with Nature" or "in the Wild", or that "finding one's fortune" or seeking success is only something that MALES even think about. 

It's easy to find writings of all kinds that are written in blatantly biased Point of view. Rock music, for example, is LOADED with male-biased point of view, and that's very unfortunate, since the "movement" of Rock Music had purported to be about Personal Freedom for PEOPLE, not just freedom (or privilege, or the freedom to denigrate others) for ONE GROUP of people, and NOT for another group. Many girls and women who were musicians and fans of Rock music find out the very difficult, spirit-crushing way that there is a huge amount of ANTI-FEMALE and female-exploiting and belittling material in many Rock songs, and in the world of "Rock music" in general.

Racially biased POV is rampant as well in all kinds of writings, art, music, and non-fiction texts, from all points of the globe, from nearly all ancestries and all "colors".

Biased Point Of View is very common in humans; see how many Native American Tribal names mean "The People" or something that implies "The Real People". That's a common phenomenon to find ALL OVER the Earth, throughout the Human Species. "Only those who are like ME are the 'real people'."

Humans will OFTEN see others as either "Like ME", or "Not Like ME", and therefore "US" or "THEM", and they'll use nearly ANYTHING AT ALL as identification for that purpose. So "US" might be those of the same SEX as they are, or those of the same ancestry, or those of the same HEIGHT, or who went to the same SCHOOL, or who have the same academic degree, or who LIKE THE SAME SPORTS TEAM, or THE SAME BAND, or who LIKE DOGS, or who DON'T LIKE CATS, ....etc. etc. etc.... etc........  

It's much less "jarring" or emotionally damaging to individuals when they are aware BEFORE HAND that something is being presented or carried out in a certain BIASED POV, or that the people in a certain GROUP are all in a BIASED POV. For example, before trying to join a local "club" like the Masons, one usually finds out that they are "male-only" membership, and therefore a female does not try to join, and subsequently get humiliated. Or the "Ladies Auxiliary" is aptly named; a young man is warned off just by the name itself, and will probably not think of including himself in the group.
For an example of the potentially quite damaging kind of BIAS that people COVER UP and present as NON-BIAS:
In America, MANY, MANY Public Schools STILL implement budgeting, classes, and extra-curricular programs that are very biased toward one RACE or one SEX, or toward BOTH one race and one sex, depending on the region. These are PUBLIC SCHOOLS, so many children are under the very-American assumption that the ADULTS in their town actually care about each of them EQUALLY and GENUINELY, and unfortunately many of their parents are also under this very naive assumption as well.
So when the children find themselves a student in a school where there is blatant BIAS AGAINST THEM and FOR OTHER KIDS because of their race, ancestry, or sex, after having been told that it was all "fair" and "non-biased",  they can really suffer some serious emotional trauma. These children have been blindsided in a very harsh way; no one told them that they would be treated as if they didn't MATTER, as if they are unimportant and even "in the way" to the adults whom they expected fairness and REAL education from. After all, it's Public School, which means all of the adult citizens in the town, especially property owners, PAY FOR IT. Therefore, all of the students should expect equal, fair, and supportive educational experience. ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S REQUIRED BY LAW THAT THEY ATTEND. 
 
Biased Point of View in human beings is extremely common, but that doesn't mean there's "nothing wrong with it" , just because it's so common. It's Biased Point of View that is responsible for the actions that have OPPRESSED and ENSLAVED various peoples around the world from the beginning of recorded history.    

Personal Attacks Vs. Intelligent Discussion: Go-To-Weapons For Insecure Bullies

ad hominem

"You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird."
~(Logical Fallacies)

Making People Smaller, Weaker, and Unimportant

Making People Smaller, Weaker, and Unimportant is one of the Narcissist's main life hobbies, and one of the ways they get through life and get things they want.
Emotionally healthy people don't need to try to make others into something "lesser" in order to makes themselves look "greater" or "worthy", they operate with what's REALLY THERE.

So if an emotionally healthy person is in a Dance Class with an exceptionally talented dancer, they simply accept the person's exceptional talent and give credit where it's due. Even if they feel an occasion twinge of jealousy or envy (and it would only be an occasional twinge), they wouldn't ACT on it, and they would recognize it for what it is; their OWN insecurity issues. An emotionally healthy person is likely to be inspired by the other dancer and try to learn from their skill or their passion.

For an emotionally healthy person, that very talented dancer's ability would be kept separate from the dancer's personality and social behavior, they wouldn't see them as one and the same. They wouldn't try to pin "arrogance" or "snottiness" on the dancer when it doesn't exist, just because they feel intimidated or out-shined. By the same token, they would not EXCUSE arrogant or bullish behavior from that dancer either, just because the person is so talented, or because they think they're "cool".
The fellow dancer's ability would not be ENMESHED in the healthy person's mind with the fellow dancer's personality and behavior. 

However if a Narcissist is in a Dance Class with an exceptionally talented dancer, they would make everything about it personal. Narcissists are not capable of neutrality, OR real student-hood, or professionalism. They LEAD with their EMOTIONS, and their actions and behaviors are DICTATED BY their emotional reactions, which rarely or never include "empathy".
A fellow dancer with exceptional talent (or apparent physical attractiveness, wealth, or 'status') means the Narcissist will EITHER try to be the dancer's "buddy", OR they will try to DIMINISH the dancer somehow.
There will be NO neutrality.

The only reason a Narcissist would not engage in either trying to buddy up to the person or trying to diminish the person would be FEAR of consequence. If the fear factor is small or absent, then the "games" WILL commence.  

So the Narcissist might try to create a situation where they just "happen" to end up alone with the fellow dancer, or they just happen to be there when the fellow dancer needs assistance or emotional support, or they might even sabotage the fellow dancer so they can be the one to stick up for them or "rescue" them; all ploys to try to get the dancer to trust them or bond with them.
OR,
The Narcissist might devalue them from the get-go and insult them, humiliate them, counter everything they say, make fun of their dancing or appearance, and also try to get others to believe in their devaluation of the fellow dancer.
The most common go-to manipulation is to spread a belief that the targeted person is a morally "bad person", and not NEARLY as "nice" or "honest" or "genuine" as they seem.

One of the favorite smear campaigns against either female or male targets is telling others that the target person said something BAD about them. "She said you were too fat to dance." or "He called you a slut." or "I didn't like what she said about you..." ... ...
Implying that the target has insulted or attacked another person behind their back is probably the most common way that manipulators successfully turn people against a chosen target, or against one another.
~Narcissists will even purposely set a target up during conversation, trying to get them to say something that they can use against them later - either about themselves or about someone else. For instance the N. might "lead" the target about how Nancy said this or that and is a terrible friend, goading the target to agree with them for as long as it takes; when the target finally says something like "Okay I guess you're right, I guess Nancy is a jerk..." that's all they need; they'll go back and tell Nancy that the target was talking "smack" about her and called her a jerk.
WHY would a person go through all that setting up and goading, when they could have simply told a bold-faced LIE? ~Because most people with Narcissism are usually obsessed with JUSTIFYING everything they do, so they need excuses for the things they do. They can't FEEL "innocent" without having an excuse to justify whatever it was they did.
It sounds "juvenile" because it IS "juvenile".

Some favorite smears against male targets might be about how arrogant he is, and how he thinks he's "so great". Other favorite made-up smears against males may include "He's lazy", "He's a thief", "He's a drunk", or "He has a serious gambling habit, and spends more at the track than on his family", or "He's bad news", "He's not 'manly'", "He's light in the loafers", "He can't fix anything".

It has to be something that others in that particular group will react to negatively.

So if the whole group smokes pot, for instance, saying that the guy smokes pot and is therefore "bad" is not going to work. It has to be something that they'll all JUDGE him for negatively, so most of the time a Narcissist has to MAKE SOMETHING UP that's PURE FICTION or EXTREMELY EXAGGERATED (such as turning his occasional lottery ticket purchases or his occasional casino visit into a "serious gambling problem").
It's important to note that accusing a man of being sexually promiscuous (slutty, whorish) does not seem to work in smear campaigns, nor does telling everyone he cheats on his wife, OR that he has a problem with anger or rage, especially against women. That's because our cultures are male-biased and anti-female biased, so a man who is sexually promiscuous does not get a "whore" label slapped on him, a man who cheats on his wife is often give a "pass" because, after all... "he's just a man, he can't help it"(so much for males being the superior sex)... and anger and rage have been implanted in the cultural mind as "privileges" of males, especially against women. (Until, that is, one of them rages at a person who's doing the slandering, and then all of a sudden it's a serious issue.) 

However, things that people DO LIKE to judge men negatively for (such as "not being manly enough") work rather quickly and easily for smearing purposes.
Men who are single are targeted much more frequently than men who are married, because men who are married appear to have more of a support network, and appear to be more supported by the community. Narcissists are much more likely to target people who appear to have less of a support system.

Some of the favorite "go-to" made-up smears that people like to direct at female targets include "She's so stuck-up", "She thinks she's all that", "She thinks she's better", "She thinks she's so smart", "She's a 'Diva'".
Also, "She's a slut/whore - she 'sleeps around'", "She sleeps with other people's husbands", "She drinks", "She does drugs", "She's bad news".
"She's an angry person", "She's unstable", "She's ditzy", "She's crazy", "She's a bitch", "She's a bitch to her mother", "She's a drain on her family".
"She's a bad mother", "She's a bad wife", "She's a bad cook",
"She doesn't take care of herself", "She's ugly", "She's fat", "She has bad taste"
"She talks too much", "She's opinionated"
"She thinks she's tough"
"She thinks she can do what MEN do"

There are more smears that work very easily against women because more people are biased against women in the current era, and actually welcome the chance to single out, diminish, or sabotage women whom they envy, resent, or are jealous of.

(For example if you were to take a male political candidate and a female political candidate, both of whom were equally "hated" by a certain group of people, the specific SMEARS the group would use to diminish each of them would be tailored to their GENDER, they would NOT really be about what each person really DID or DIDN'T DO. So the female candidate would be called names like "bitch" and smeared with sexually oriented smears like "slut" and "whore", and the male candidate would be called names like "asshole" and "snake oil salesman". People tend to try to SKEWER females more severely, regardless of the actual events or behaviors, because of their own deep-seated personal issues.
If a person WITHOUT prejudice were to express anger or even hate toward both a male and female candidate, they would not use terms that imply the person's gender (or race, or hair color, or anything else about the person's body) ).
People who are riddled with prejudice focus on things ABOUT people like their sex, race, looks, ancestry, or religion, and call names and pigeon-hole people; people who are not riddled with prejudice are only focused on what a person actually said or did (REALLY said or did) without skewing, diminishing, or inflating any of it.

It's also important to note that Smear Campaigns don't work unless others participate.

Taking Sides: Woody Allen

"Who's Side Are You On?" Ever notice that most people assume that there always has to be "sides"?

In any discussion or "debate" between any groups of humans regarding bullying, abuse, or unfair treatment, those who are actually also bullies will always take whatever stance serves THEM personally.

For example with this "Woody Allen Debate" going on now, those who are biased for Woody Allen because they like him or identify with him in some way (same age, same sex, similar disposition, similar ancestry, etc.) will most likely automatically "take his SIDE".

And whoever does NOT like him for whatever reason (even if they don't know him personally) will probably either side AGAINST him and say he's guilty, or they'll just be indifferent and ignore the whole thing completely.

Those who are biased against Mia Farrow for whatever personal issues they have will of course say she's making up the allegations of abuse toward Dylan, or making a bigger deal out of it than it is.

ALSO, those who are biased FOR abusers in general, usually because THEY are also abusers and bullies and that's how they get what they want in life, will side adamantly AGAINST Mia Farrow, and against the allegations, and typically say that she's completely making it all up, and that Dylan was too.

REALITY is that no one who wasn't actually THERE can say either way what the "truth" is, so taking a SIDE for or against anyone in this case is simply about one's OWN personal issues, biases, and identity. There are no human beings on the planet other than Dylan Allen and Woody Allen who know for sure what happened and what didn't happen.

The media and followers of the media who are "taking sides" are just doing the thing they always do, making a frenzy out of something serious, and making very serious judgments about something they have no way of knowing any factual information about, just so they can be part of the "gang" to VILIFY either Woody, Mia, or Dylan.
And if they're doing it to people they don't even KNOW, you can imagine how severely they do it to the people who are in their own lives.

Reading, or Just Skimming Articles And Blogs?

There is a common form of arrogance that has seen exponential growth in modern times; most people who are afflicted like to call it "A.D.D."

But it's not "A.D.D.", it's just plain old arrogance, combined with a good dose of presumptuousness, and a rather large dash of laziness.

We glance at a headline, and maybe skim the first paragraph, and actually tell ourselves we've read and digested the entire article. And then, very confidently, we loudly and exuberantly express our oh so very educated opinion about the article... and often AT the author of the article... that we didn't.actually.read.   We skimmed it, we glanced at it, we already HAD a biased opinion BEFORE we glanced at it, which of course will not be changed or swayed, especially since we didn't.actually.read.the.article.
If we're feeling ambitious or we want to keep up in a discussion about the topic later, we might read through a couple more paragraphs. But the whole article? Who does that?

I'll tell you who does that; people who live in reality-land, who don't have delusions of believing that they somehow possess a Super Power of thoroughly reading and comprehending an entire article AND the writer's point of view just by glancing at a few of the words, and looking at the author's PICTURE.

I would love to see actors doing Shakespeare on Broadway doing that with their script, or film actors on a very expensive shoot...
"What do you mean that's the wrong line? I read the first part! It must be right!"

Or a musician in the Philharmonic Orchestra who only pays attention to the first page of a piece, and throws the rest on the floor... "I'm a Virtuoso! I don't need to actually LOOK at the music! I can just automatically play it after glancing at the first page!"

Or one of the physicists at Cern who only read the title and the first paragraph of the experiment they're about to perform... because of their excruciating genius, they just psychically absorb the rest of the paper without having to actually READ it..

How about if we allow all medical students to obtain their degrees and licenses because they got the first part of their exams right? Sign me up...

I think maybe we could resolve it all by allowing Police Officers to train for about a week, and then graduate them and issue them service weapons because they SAY they "get it", and put them on the street. How about that? That might be fun...