How Biases Are Choices

Biases limit my ability to select from a wide range of options down to just those I feel I can defend. This fools me into believing I’m making a free choice from all the available options.

However, I’m actually defending as few options as necessary to make me right or, at least, not wrong. Over time and practice, this becomes a pattern of behavior that narrows my perspective, turning choice into confirmation of rightness.

Perhaps it’s impossible to make a “free” choice when my need/fulfillment is to validate my rightness. Because rightness tends to feel like wholeness, I don’t feel limited by bias. I feel justified – whole! That which I validate validates me!

Biases – a Twofold Defense

One side intended for and the other against. This alludes to paradoxical thinking, in which I fight for what’s right by defending against what’s wrong. Bias weights one side over the other.

Could choice actually be a form of defense? When I make a choice, I also create a defense for that option and against others. Perhaps my defense is present before I make the choice. In that case, I’m double-defending my selection with bias.

For example, when I choose vanilla over chocolate ice cream, I have a preconceived reason. Maybe I think the vanilla tastes better than the chocolate ice cream because of a bias.

Bias offers complementary defenses for and against that must validate each other for me to consider each as an option. That is, what I like and don’t like counter and so validate each other. Even weighing one over the other, the end result is validation of separateness, which appears as my choice!

“Why” is at the root of my biases, which I defend as truths. This sets the stage for proving biases as truths. Thus, more than affecting my choices – biases ARE my choices.

Intention and the Power of Agreement

Agreement could be understood as an act of interdependent alliance of constituent agents sharing a need/fulfillment reality. The concept of constituent agents validates the concept of separation from wholeness. Is this intentional?

My first agreement is to serve my intention that requires me to validate separateness. One way is through agreement that validates separateness while my intention rewards me with a sense of wholeness.

In order for an environment of agreement to exist, a means for mutual fulfillment of needs must also exist. Needs and their fulfillment constitute a system of mutual service validating interdependence. Which means, agreeing constituent agents serve one another in an environment of interdependence.

All this to defend a world of separateness to satisfy an intention to achieve wholeness.

Agreement and Common Beliefs

Agreement stems from and leads to common need fulfillment to achieve validation of common beliefs. Those agreements are purposeful in the establishment of defense of their mutual intention.

Being right is a group effort! Being right is the goal of perspective to be believed as truth by virtue of a preponderance of agreement. This endows authority upon agreement.

The need to be right exceeds the risk of being wrong. This need validates the fear of vulnerability that the natural world won’t tolerate. That lack of tolerance imposes a need to defend against being vulnerable by favoring rightness.

Being wrong is conducive to death. When we convince ourselves we are right, we generate a need for agreement to protect against wrongness. The authority of agreement builds a sense of confidence that defends the defense of rightness with assumption.

A sense of rightness is the reward for defending separateness, particularly when assuming a united purpose. Although defense separates, agreement creates a sense of solidarity experienced as wholeness evidenced in assumption.

Thus, satisfying the intention to be whole.

Expectations, Assumptions, and Illusions of Choice

In my bubble of limited awareness, I assume I’m living my life by making choices. Because of my well-developed senses, I can learn and know what’s best for me. I can know what to embrace or avoid. I interpret these perceptions in terms of the choices I’ve made to validate separation.

For example, “I am me and not others” appears to be an assumption based in choice. I don’t need to choose what is true… it just is what is! In this case, perception is not choice – rather, assumptions based on choice.

When I defend a no-choice position, I discard any options that could be relevant to a choice. A choice can cover many solutions that validate one specific intention. Yet, choices aren’t choices when they are intended to be used repetitively and on the same issues.

Punishment and Reward in Limited Awareness

In classical (Pavlovian) and operant (Skinner) conditioning, a subject learns to behave in a certain way through a system of punishments and rewards. In nature, an individual interacts with their environment in this way and learns how to adapt.

I must assume I can create wholeness within limitations. That’s to believe that if I do, have, and/or be enough limitation, I’ll achieve wholeness. That’s a world of hope. And a paradox!

I feel motivated to seek for and to validate more separateness. In the mastery of separateness I might then be initiated into the experience of wholeness. My service to my intention meant I could get a sense of wholeness as a reward.

Options

My only options in this dimension of separateness are how to defend it. Yet, I must seek separation to find wholeness by comparing them. Since I cannot attain the unattainable – I’ll settle for a substitute – an illusion of wholeness.

What if all that – environment, systems, and conditioning – is within me. As the perceiver of my universe, I might act/react as conditioner of my own behaviors. I may be more in charge of my world of limited awareness than I once thought!

I wonder if I develop much of my definition of wholeness by trial and error. Another way to learn is by observation, which allows for choice by association.

Trial and error development sounds a lot like conditioning. Freud observed that we tend to seek pleasure and avoid or escape pain. That’s a perfect setup for conditioning by punishment and reward in a system of learning by trial and error.

When I behave in compliance with my conditioning, I feel good – I get a dopamine blast as a reward, I feel whole. Conversely, I suffer a punishment for misbehaviors and feel separate.

Who applies that punishment or reward? Nature? My society? What if it is my own intention?

Defense and the Assertion of Truth

I intend to be whole. That intention validates my belief that I am not whole now. Assertion of that intention limits my awareness to less than whole – lack in the form of needs and wants.

I live in this limited awareness bubble. My limiting intention: which is to defend the limits that separateness demands – which I may be unaware.

The relationship I have with my intention is one of rewards and punishments. That intention rewards me with a sense of wholeness when its needs are satisfied.

I define the wholeness I seek in terms of defense of my intention that limits awareness. That definition can appear as rightness, satisfaction, purpose, justifications, and other limiting defenses that validate the myriad representations of separateness. My definition limits the definable to how I define it.

Assertion of Truth Defense

My perception that I am limited proves to me that I am. It does not, however, prove the assertion that I am limited. Rather, it’s just an assertion of truth that proves its defense.