So tell me, if I consider only the objective non-bias consequences of my actions and then determine which are easiest to deal with according to my current materials and ultimate goal, how does this prove negative or anti social?

What does this mean?

And my point was that the feeling of guilt and shame is a strong negative reinforcement. It is biological and it is there for a reason.

This stands to reason; more bias, personal 'ownership' of concepts, loyalty towards <this> mindset or <that> all piles up to having more to consider. Yes, I'd agree.

I don't think that's the biggest problem with not shedding these bias's. The biggest problem, I think, is that when one isn't aware of the impact and 'sway' their allegiances and emotional ties have, their actions, decisions and words are more a product of blind reaction (usually defensiveness), rather than mature thought, consideration and intellect. They work in the background; like a thief lurking in the shadows, derailing any prospect for accepting new and divergent points of view.

On the other hand, there exists the distinct possibility that prejudice, bias and ideal-loyalty don't really complicate mental processes at all - that they only affect sub-decisions that would have to be made anyway (they just flip one of the lower-level switches in a different direction).

Arrogance, pride and ego prevent us from even being ABLE to admit to personal bias. Then those, in the background, sap our intellect of the possibilities. Wanna see this in action?[INDENT]Start any thread here and in the opening post advocate Socialism, Capitalism, Communism and watch the fur fly (regardless of how innocuously you phrase it). Or even better, extol the benefits of a christian, muslim or atheist lifestyle and it won't make a stitch of difference how logical, reasonable or subtle your points are; 90% of the people reading it will respond based on their 'loyalty' or 'bitterness' bias. I could say that "I wish I could combine the philosophical orientation of christianity with the atheist mindset of criticality" and pow! All hell breaks loose.

You could make it less obvious and *still* watch folks blithely loose opportunities for insight.
[/INDENT]I dont' know the thoughts of others - I can only draw possible conclusions from what I see; and what I see is arrogance and insecurity steering the unenlightened.

Haha... I'll stop ranting (this is an axe of mine) - Thanks

In asking any question, or beginning any debate, you assume that certain answers will be better than others - some are outright correct - others totally wrong.

Like you are going to probably tell me I am totally wrong when I suggest that you read 'Crime and punnishment' by Dostoevsky. But no worries I also just hate it when people say 'read this'.

So let me try and put what he says in a nutshell. Basically, the criminal will ultimately convict himself through guilt and paranoia at being caught. Ultimately, he actually wants to get caught. His conscience subconsciously gives him away all the time. He is constantly lying and covering up his crime. (In the book its murder) He has to become obsessed with fabricating ever greater untruths to cover it up. It becomes impossible to maintain. Everybody realises he did it. And after some time, he desperately needs to live the authentic life of not having to lie all the time.

So it becomes a matter of choice, wether to lie or to tell the truth - and to lie is wrong, and to tell the truth is right.

Or,
are you going to tell me I am wrong?