Objectivity can be a shield to hide biases behind. How and what is defined as objective can also be influenced to achieve certain outcomes.
To take it outside of a political context, lets look at an ‘objective’ review of a consumer good. Specifically the Consumer Reports car review metric. They created a list of attributes, and assign a numeric scale to everything. Each point has the numeric scale defined such that it at least aspires to be ‘objective’. In that sense a car scoring a 84 is better than one scoring 76.
And there is a bunch of categories. But what metrics get measured are decidedly not objective. It presents a certain bias in what is important. By choosing what metrics to use, and how many to use, it influences the final scoring. To be more specific they use a single category for things like emissions and environmental factors, but have half a dozen for interior trim and finish. So this ‘objective’ review heavily favors luxury vehicles, and especially SUVs, over economic cars. Because to the scoring metric better speakers, leather seats, high end center console panels, etc far outweigh things like fuel efficiency. Massively so. So this score presents a very specific and certain editorial perspective, and masks it behind a single ‘objective’ numeric score. One they say ‘we have clearly defined the criteria on what is important, and measure everything equitably, and so our score is that one car is objectively better than the other’.
But the fact is, for me, those priorities are flipped. I don’t give two shits about some of the frills, but I 100% care deeply about the cost of maintenance and fuel efficiency. But I am a sophisticated and knowledgeable enough person to see the scores for what they are. I can break down the criteria and see how they overweight certain factors, and underweight others. I can see how one car with a higher rating would be, to me, the inferior vehicle for what I care about.
So objectivity, as it is presented, is a myth. It can be, and usually is, good to assess your priors and strive to remain neutral to the data before drawing conclusions. To strive for objectivity when possible. However to claim absolute objectivity can be a deeply damaging and incorrect thing. Because how objectivity is defined can hide pernicious and persistent biases, so much more to address because those using them are presenting this façade of objectivity. And too often it creates feedback loops. Something like the long standing arguments about how black people feel pain differently, or how hospitals and doctors would be less likely to prescribe pain medications to a black patient exhibiting the same symptoms as a white one, in the name of some ‘objective’ notions about how different groups experience pain, or how certain groups are more likely to be looking to abuse pain killers.
