pages/site/garden/objectivity/index.md

---
public: "true"
slug: "objectivity"
title: "Objectivity"
prev: false
next: false
---
<script setup>
import { data } from '../../git.data.ts';
import { useData } from 'vitepress';
const pageData = useData();
</script>
<h1 class="p-name">Objectivity</h1>
<p>629 words, ~3 minute read. <span v-html="data[`site/${pageData.page.value.relativePath}`]" /></p>
<hr/>

<details><summary>Referenced by:</summary><a href="/garden/scientific-constructivism/index.md">Scientific Constructivism</a></details>

Objectivity is a myth. All we have are our subjective experiences, which are shaped by our environments and it's [Social Constructs](/garden/social-constructs/index.md).

When a social construct becomes sufficiently ingrained within society to the point it's not recognized as a construct, it can begin to be considered an "objective truth", which can lead to harmful results.

These social constructs form echo chambers around the entire society. In this way, echo chambers fractal within each other. That's not inherently a bad thing, but it's often difficult to recognize echo chambers from inside, and we're all ultimately inside at least one.

> "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." - Noam Chomsky

In practice, the idea that objectivity doesn't exist doesn't really impact anything. Our shared experiences are similar enough that our truths about most every day things are compatible. Where this most applies is when there's an argument between two people who are reaching different conclusions despite the same level of knowledge about the topic. In theory, you could probably find a shared common ground and determine that specific logical step in which you diverge. That divergence may be explained by our subjective perspectives on the world, mixed with our personal values. However, a side may _claim_ their side of the divergence is the correct one due to some "objective truth". This is simply not so, but is all too often used to justify bigoted arguments.

Zoe Bee, in [The Language War of Politics: How Metaphors Shape Our Thinking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pPNV_B-Hpc), discusses how reality is subjective and shaped by our experiences. This is framed by how metaphors take advantage of this concept to direct how we think about the tenor (the subject of the metaphor).

## Economics

["Objective Economics" Isn't](https://c4ss.org/content/59895) discusses how objectivity doesn't exist (at least in the context of economics), and how those who claim there is are doing so maliciously.

> Yes, neoclassical/marginalist economics — and the Austrian economics to which Carroll predictably adheres — is technically “objective” in the sense that it’s a set of rules that objectively produce the same results from a given set of inputs every time. But the axioms of Austrian economics are, in themselves, trivially — or even circularly — true. What matters is the application of those axioms in a manner sufficiently sophisticated to generate meaningful statements about complex economic phenomena. The assumptions governing that application, and even what questions to ask, reflect value judgments. Any economic paradigm involves such choices, and the choices made will render it more relevant for some purposes and less relevant for others. Those choices are unavoidably political.

They discuss how claiming objectivity is used to add credibility to an argument. However, these "objective" arguments are only true within a specific framework of rules and restrictions, which they only suggest but don't prove matches reality. They effectively erase important context that are inconvenient for their politically motivated argument, and by doing so deliberately draw wrong conclusions.

## "Dress is not an art project. It's a language, and you're babbling incoherently"

CJ the X discusses in [How Jordan Peterson's Suits Taught Me Fashion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpHFcylNGqg) how the idea that art is subjective hindered his ability to learn fashion as a teenager. He uses the above quote to articulate how contemporary values replacing the oppressive but comparatively well defined fashion values did him a disservice. He was essentially no longer able to learn and get advice on fashion other than through his own individual experimentation. He compares it to a language, where you can learn the grammar and vocabulary, but still be unable to make sensical sentences unless you understand the how and why people put these words together - like understanding the different articles of clothing, but not the why and how they get paired together. Arguing for fashion as a language, and that despite its subjectivity there's still necessarily a learned social component, enables people to be able to teach fashion without feeling like their just upholding old bigoted values. It's also a brilliant argument for why [Social Constructs](/garden/social-constructs/index.md) can be and are useful.

He also describes the history of fashion's values, and how previously there was the idea of a singular "objective" sense of fashion, and that those who disagree are just incorrect. Essentially that meant the goal of fashion was to look like how the elites look. He argues that today fashion is still trying to look how the elites look, but now the elites are fractured - academic elites have their own fashion from, say, the elites of hip hop. This actually sounds a lot like Butler's argument for [Gender Performativity](/garden/gender-performativity/index.md).