On the Removal of Bias
Bias is a state in which we favor our personal agenda over the search for truth. The results of bias can be seen everywhere; one man’s Steward can easily be another man’s tyrant. As such, we should always endeavor to report facts as we see them instead of opinion, for ultimately, what we take from the information we gather may simply be flawed and incorrect, but the information itself may still be of use. We should always be open enough to entertain new ideas, but these ideas should be the fruits of truth rather than falsehood, lest we sample spoiled goods.
When we approach a topic, we often have an interest in seeing a desired outcome. The people we interact with have their own interests at stake, and further, the people that they have come into contact with have as well. These interests can take the form of anything; a desire for power, revenge, lust, to carry out the will of their chosen god, or even the accumulation of wealth. The possibilities are too numerous to list here, but this is a phenomenon that we should be aware of as researchers. Often in my own research I set out to prove the theories I have already forwarded on a subject, and attempt to find ways to fit new evidence into my existing idea. When I encounter something that makes little sense with what I have already come to believe, I am forced to sit and reconsider the proposal, but many people are incapable of this. Do not fall into this trap in your own research, and always be prepared to create new theories when the old no longer hold. Perhaps your peers may scoff at you for this, but if they do, consider the worth of your peer and the risks they have taken in their own work. How does a primer on alchemy stand compared to the comprehensive history of the Ziggurat? Be bold in your assertions, but always, always, incorporate factual information whenever possible.
Bias need not necessarily be an evil thing. As a follower of Oghma, I am biased against those who perform very private research or conceal their findings. It might be that in concealing a certain discovery, they prevent its misuse. I would of course counter that argument by saying that publicizing it all would know the danger it poses and protect it from being abused, but that is besides the point. I might also wish to write of the efforts of a known follower of Mask, Cyric, or Shar in a completely negative and condemning light instead of in a more thoughtful context. Even a paladin, men and women who have sworn oaths ensuring they cannot lie, may villianize their enemies to the point of speaking their opinions rather than what they know to be true. Many of my biases will be much less overt and unknown to even myself, but as a researcher, I should endeavor to locate them so I know what mistakes to avoid when describing what I’ve found.
The second worry in research is that when we are trying to gain an understanding for events we could not be present for, we must often rely upon eyewitness or secondhand reports. When speaking to a person you may come to understand much about their faith and personality, but when dealing with raw text, it can become much more challenging and frustrating (not to mention the difficulties that translations unaided by divination pose when attempting to gain a sense of the writer’s tone). People will, oftentimes unconsciously, misconstrue information to make themselves appear more favorable, make the situation seem more fantastic than what it was, and even use the interview or text as a chance to further their religious and political beliefs rather than address the issue at hand. Eliminate opinion whenever possible and preserve truth, as one cuts away fat from the meat.
There is no surefire solution to removing all bias from a person, as if we were able to accomplish such, we would cease to be people in many ways. Rather than attempt the impossible and undesirable, we should ask ourselves questions to determine what the purpose of the research in question is.
When evaluating our own bias, we should ask:
1. Will this be helpful or interesting to anyone but me?
2. Would a follower of a different faith see this differently? How?
3. Would someone with different political agenda see this differently? How?
4. Is this fact, or is it opinion?
When evaluating the bias of another, we should ask:
1. Is the information I am receiving relevant to the topic at hand?
2. Is the subject possibly protecting his or herself? How?
3. Is the subject’s faith an issue? How?
4. Is the subject’s political agenda an issue? How?
5. Do I have multiple sources to support this information?
6. Is this fact, or is it opinion?
Advanced Theory: Interviewing Techniques
One of the most illuminating things you can do as a researcher is to speak with others about what they have done and discovered here. It is impossible to be present for every happening, and as such, we must endeavor to develop our skills in gaining the circumstances and facts surrounding the event from others. While there is little I can do to instill the reader with a naturally friendly, outgoing demeanor, I have noted there are techniques that can be employed in the process of this task that can make things go much more smoothly.
If possible, it is preferable to prepare ahead of time for an interview, carefully considering how you word your questions to achieve the desired answer while not upsetting the questioned. Unfortunately, in dangerous places such as this it is not always possible to find the people you wish to speak to, and what’s worse, the death rate here is alarming. Perhaps the best trait for an interviewer is persistence, as it is the only way one will ever gain any knowledge of note from the adventurers that call this place home.
If you perceive that the person does not want to speak to you for whatever reason, briefly consider why. Are they being secretive? Do they not trust you? Do they wish to go elsewhere and kill things? There are different methods for dealing with each of these problems that can potentially be very effective.
If a person is being secretive, it is because they have something to hide. They may be uncooperative and misleading, but this is due to the fact they ultimately seek to protect themselves. You can safely assume the worst about such people and write off whatever explanation they might have provided as false, or use the facts that do not make sense with whatever else you know to try and make assumptions about the truth. At the very least you can be certain this person will lead the vigilant to the truth, and a watchful eye and soft step might be all that is needed past that point.
If a person does not trust you, there are several ways to solve this. It never ceases to amaze me that no matter how remote and dangerous the circumstance people find themselves is, there is always someone selling ale or spirits nearby. The consumption of such has been noted to do away with inhibitions, and few souls turn away a beverage purchased before their eyes. Such liquids may loosen stiff tongues and make friends of the indifferent, as can the gift giving of equipment that you do not need. For the tight-fisted interviewer, flattery and irrelevant questions that allow the speaker to ramble about his or her deeds and greatness may be all that is required to gain an earnest answer to your true questions.
If the person wants to kill things and pillage in general, join them (you’ll likely need the coin and supplies as well). There are few things as bonding as fighting for your very life beside another, and if you prove yourself a useful companion that can help them achieve their ends, why wouldn’t they be willing to spend a few minutes recounting their deeds or answering honestly? There is no shortage of villains on this island, so even the most mercenary intention often does some good in the end.
This work was meant only to be a primer for the uninitiated in research techniques. I hope that as our work here progresses more practical methods for accomplishing the goal of unlocking the mysteries of this place present themselves and that they are shared with all.
Asdon Garlin, Lorekeeper of Oghma