When thinking about biases in people and how easy it is sometimes for people to misunderstand or be dishonest about information that’s presented to them, the idea of introspection to me has always been a little bit confusing.
Can you look at your thoughts and motivations without letting your biases as to what’s important/meaningful/relevant skew an honest perception of yourself? Furthermore can someone be aware of all their biases and unconscious motivations without external input from other people? Or can a full understanding of your own unconscious motivations be reached with a variety of other perspectives? (And I guess then it becomes a question of the reliability of their observation and the extend to which their biases intrude).
Aren’t you merely asking if the average person can be a reliable scientist?
Nothing is truly known until it is verified.
Aren’t you merely asking if the average person can be a reliable perspectivist?
Nothing is truly known until it is perceived.
In general, I do think we are ll pretty stupid and insane in different ways.
So, introspection or observation of others, I don’t think it’s very reliable.
However, we may make more or less accurate observation of ourselves or others, sometime, too.
I think the accuracy depends on the degree of awareness, the amount and complexity of core beliefs, and other factors that can block one’s view.
Unfortunately, we are generally not very aware, and we tend to have LOTS and LOTS of silly core beliefs often strengthened by stupid religion and/or local culture.
Reading books can make us even more stupid, as well, instead of making us less stupid as we may tend to think.
Schooling and adults around us don’t help the situation because most of us want kids to be the participants and active supporters of shared delusion.
In this situation, even if the introspection isn’t very reliable, we may want to do it anyway because there is not much to loose (we are already so stupid), and we may become slightly less insane, if we are lucky.
Yes I am asking that. But it’s my understanding that perspectivism doesn’t imply that all interpretations are equally valid because they can be compared to one another. I guess my question is to what extent something internal can be precieved if there is only one perspective invovled, and that what is being sought out for observation is the very thing which makes the perspective what it is.
I could be wrong.
That’s interesting. So in a way being introspective is not a reliable method of personal psychoanalysis but instead a way of dealing with your personal anxieties and neuroses. And it is supported by the fact that we are more aware of anxiety than we are of bias. Perhaps I was approaching the idea with the wrong goal in mind.
It was also interesting what you had to say about books. To what extent do you think other people take advantage of our biases by appealing to our “silly core beliefs” as you said? I can think of examples from history where people have conformed so easily and without resistance when their nationalism or religious perspectives have been appealed to. Do you also imply that a reader must be as aware if not more aware of how they react to a book as well as being aware of what the book has to say?
At any rate there would be a specturm of abilities.
I would think those who are better (possibly good and even accurate) at introspection would have these qualities…
ability to concentrate
willingness to deal with cognitive dissonence and stay with it
willingness to deal with confusion and stay with it
willingness to be disappointed, perhaps even devastatingly
Ability and willingness to deal with and likely express strong emotions
be very curious especially about anomalies (in the mind and feelings)
be very curious about other people and what they say and seem to think and how this relates to their acts
willing to talk to people about these issues, including especially their own introspection, and having intelligent strong introspectors themselves to do this with.
Possibly some working knowledge of psychology and cognitive science, though I think life experience can be equivalent - sometimes having a terminology and can help one notice things - think knowing the names of plant species and how this might affect what one notices in the woods.
So a good deal of courage along with some specific skills and opportunities.
Intelligence can be a help or a hinder, at least the kind of intelligence tested on IQ tests. Especially verbal skills can help someone hide stuff from themselves. At the very least, it cuts both ways.
Hmmmm, you added a bit or more of your coloring to what I said, but that’s fine, as we all do that a lot.
The basic understanding of mine about human stupidity is:
It’s coming from taking something not very sure/certain as if absolutely certain. Certainty trip.
Over focusing on a “seemingly” separate part, and mistaking and believing as if it’s the whole. Over focusing and pigeon hole effect.
Seeing a division/separation where there is none. Delusion of separation
Interpolating something and seeing and believing imaginary big picture. Delusion of connection
When these (and probably some more) are combined, it makes up the madness of sensory symphony and emotional chanting and mind laser show.
Just like the certainty, I think “reliability” isn’t very solid, to begin with.
And introspection is done by the chunk of stupidity, which is our awareness/mind/emotion/sensor mix.
So, it’s already too insane and stupid to hope anything really reliable and there is nothing to gain but there is nothing to loose, either.
In this insane situation, we don’t have to care if it make sense or not, too much, and go ahead and do introspection or meditation or whatever we feel like doing to our satisfaction or to the complete failure.
Either way, some of our stupidity would be used up and broken.
It’s just like continue to ride your old car till its broken and it doesn’t take you to anywhere, any more.
Very simple and primitive/mechanical. But I think we are insane and stupid in primitive and mechanical way.
As for the books, I guess any book can make us more stupid.
Think abut these bible parrots. They did it intentionally (I guess).
But our silly mind is like a parrot, even if we try to be very critical.
And we can be tainted and contaminated by what we read.
Some people seem to like it, though. 
I do think certain people (marketing folks) know hot to use some of our stupidity.
But they don’t know they are just as stupid as anyone else.
So many of them were used by others, in turn.
I mean, people who try to sell us any silly things like politics, economics, geopolitics, religion, drug, lottery, sports event, movies, whatever.
It works to certain degree and then start to fail because they tend to over use the target stupidity. When it’s used up, we feel strange and wake up of the particular cell/hold of the illusion and see the absurdity of it.
Monotheism and other organized religions are slowly using up the type of stupidity, now.
Communism has used up, mostly, and victim mentality is getting dry in many regions, which is a good thing because it was a heck of problem making insanity. A major disease we contracted a few thousands years ago.
I really appreciate of the (over) effort done Jewish people in demonstrating all the facets of the victim mentality.
Playing victims and then victimizing Arabs were really great show case of the absurdity associated with it.
Huge number of population instinctively and subconsciously grasped it.
Do you think observing and reading what I wrote would help you in anyway? Or is it making you more stupid? 
Now, it’s the introspection time for you.
In that case it's no longer a question of. Perspective, but of bias. But can not the perspective of bias be a special form of introspection? Or does it have to be excluded? If there is awareness of personal bias, does it not validate/invalidate its own perspective? In Deleuze & Guattaris's work, the exclusion of familial toward social determinants shows a valid "schizoanalysis" of dynamics involved in the process of validating a trend-with wider ranges of perspective-. In limiting these perspectives to just one, it is presupposed that there is 0 awareness of the existence of this dynamic.
This state of affairs may exist, however 0 insight is a very disturbing one, for sure. In an average situation
The perspectives used are more than singular. Otherwise, by definition, they would cease to be of value as introspection. Statistics come into the picture as to what are the numbers to qualify for an introspective spectrum, where information gathered would be of value.
I hope we are on the same page. If not, it’s probably my fault.