The year 2015 started with a state election which continues to be talked about even today 2015 end.
The year 2015 will end with a state election which continues to be talked about since 2015 beginning.
The states may be different but the nature of election analyses by "experts" remain the same.
Prior to Delhi elections, the "experts" made us believe lots of things such as
'why BJP will win Delhi election',
'why inducting Kiran Bedi in BJP is a sign of Amit Shah's tactical genius',
'why Arvind Kejriwal will have a tough road ahead',
'why it will be a closely fought battle between the AAP and the BJP'.
Post elections, the "experts" again made us realize lots of things such as
'why BJP did not win Delhi election',
'why inducting Kiran Bedi in BJP was not a sign of Amit Shah's tactical genius',
'why Arvind Kejriwal did not have a tough road',
'why it was not a closely fought battle between the AAP and the BJP'.
The differences in these ex-ante (before the event) and ex-post (after the event) analyses are interesting to note. Even now in case of Bihar elections, such ex-ante analyses are finding their way to various media channels (televisions, newspapers, social media etc.) and many similar ex-post analyses will find their way post the elections.
The differences in the two analyses could be due to a lot of factors, one of which is the presence of 'bias' in the individual carrying out the analysis.
For an individual, it is normal to have sets of beliefs/prejudices/biases.
But for a researcher/political analyst, it is imperative to shed those biases before carrying out the research/analysis.
Juggling between the two facets is not easy and often individual biases find a way to affect the research design and/or the analysis, leading to incorrect interpretations of findings. Presence of biases can and does often lead analysts to present results which they want to present rather than what flows from the analysis.
In case of election/political analysis, absence of individual bias would require a person to be apolitical before starting with the analysis. Apolitical here is defined as someone who has similar (or zero) preference for all political ideologies/thoughts/entities.
An apolitical mind would figure out the flaws in Nitish Kumar's argument of 'Bihari DNA' where he (on the behest of an image consultancy firm) twisted and presented the 'political DNA' allegations of the Prime Minister Modi into 'Bihari DNA' for political mileage.
The same apolitical mind would also figure out that this strategy was reminiscent of the Chief Minister Modi's strategy (on the behest of same consultancy firm) where any allegation on Narendra Modi was twisted and presented as an affront on 'Gujarati Asmita'.
The apolitical mind would figure out that Nitish Kumar is not equal to Bihar just like Narendra Modi was not equal to Gujarat.
An apolitical mind would be able to appreciate views/leaders/policies/actions of BJP in the same manner in which views/leaders/policies/actions of JD(U) (or Congress or RJD or any other political entity).
An apolitical mind would not prefer a result and then tweak the research design/analysis accordingly.
An apolitical mind would not let the potential outcomes of that result (e.g. jibes like "AAPtard" or "Feku" or "Bhakts") to affect analysis.
An apolitical mind would not indulge in rhetoric or fear mongering (e.g. "If ABCD comes to power, it will lead to a clash between XYZ and WUV").
An apolitical mind would not mix facts with opinions and fictions while presenting the analysis (I am not commenting on some 'journalists' here !).
Facts, inferences, judgement, and opinions are different from each other and the apolitical mind will not only be aware of these differences but will make sure these do not get mixed in the analysis.
I am not naming instances from recent analyses as the intention is not to point fingers at the instances but rather to show the common pattern of most of such analyses.
Moreover I leave it to the wisdom of the reader to figure out the instances !
PS: I am apolitical !
Its very pertinent for people to understand that in this era of globalization and cyber age all the information, which flows through various medium in massive manner-both in amount and speed, may not be correct. But the sad part is that it is the inability of the masses to comprehend the matter with substantive critical viewpoint. Their lack of skepticism coupled with multiple cognitive biases makes them susceptible to the cheap tricks played upon them by various power bearers of the society.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main thing which you have addressed well in your post is
"Facts, inferences, judgement, and opinions"
which indeed are very very important and which are often taken at their face value, to be the same. If not at the higher epistemic level, the knowledge with its establishment in justified true belief principle (with the inclusion of Gettier conception) at the very basic level needs to be taken care of while going with such analyses.
But what is not addressed deliberately or otherwise, as it could be out of the scope of the post, is that the biased nature of people has received an amplification from none other than their supposed to be benefactor, perceived as fourth pillar of democracy- media/Journalism which has become partisan and biased in nature- thanks to more capitalist control of media ! This has the potential of doing more harm than good if not checked properly. Media needs to be saved from the clutches of power bearers otherwise it would decimate the whole purpose of its existence. Of course it would change our own perception with time and we won't be able to observe the deficit as their shown truth and our misplaced consciousness would not have much gap.
Masses are helpless, often unaware of the truth and living merely in some kind of false consciousness.
While there is not an iota of doubt that today's leaders have certain kind of moral deficit in their personality, given their cheap, garbage, misplaced sense of ideological attitude and playing on the ignorance of masses, it is us who have made ourselves susceptible to such kind of biases and tricks. Leaders just plays on our inability to extricate ourselves from such delusions and in the process secures their power position and this process keep on going on and on, incessantly.
All election analyses are merely a game or an exercise (either to entertain or to sway the pubic opinion) and reanalyzing, as done by most of the analysts, is nothing more than an exercise being carried out while becoming a victim of hindsight bias in most of the cases. And yet we love to carry it out again and again !
Its very unfortunate that apolitical people are very less, perhaps few in academia, some think tanks and at some other places, and what we have more is like a person who is a-political in nature.
The author has nicely addressed some of the concerns. Keep on writing..public opinion needs a ground level check !
PS: Strictly apolitical, unbiased (in every known sense- thanks to Kahneman) and Not a Marxist ! though sometimes read Marx, Gramsci but more of Althusser and Zizek in recent times.
@ Anonymous: Thanks a lot for your comments ! There is a deluge of information these days, and most are unable (or incapable or choose not to) to distinguish between facts, inferences, opinions, and fiction. When one combines that with the tendency to react instantly (and social media aids by providing a platform to air one's "instant thoughts" instantly), one ends up contributing to the information deluge.
DeleteWhat you say about media is even more pertinent. Who you refer to as the "power bearer" in the Media, continue to indulge in acts bordering sensationalism, irresponsible, and downright abominable. Those days when such acts go unnoticed and more importantly un-commented and un-discussed are gone and the sheer quantity and quality of comments to any media post is a testimony to that.
gift delivery online
ReplyDeletecake delivery online
birthday gift delivery online