Should the views of these authors be considered the final, authoritative word on the issue? Of course not. Yet they represent a serious,informed contribution to the public debate, and no analysis that ignores them can be considered fair and responsible.
The worst aspect of bias is that it often occurs innocently, without one’s awareness, and not just among students. Even professional scholars can commit this error. (That is why you should test the views of authorities for impartiality.) To avoid biased selection of evidence, begin your investigation by seeking out individuals whose views oppose your bias and then go on to those that support it. Also, choose the most reasonable interpretation, regardless of whether it flatters your bias.
Double Standard
As the name implies, double standard consists of using one standard of judgment for our ideas and ideas compatible with our own and an entirely different—and much more demanding—standard for ideas that disagree with ours. People who employ a double standard ignore inconsistencies, contradictions, and outrageous overstatements in arguments they agree with, yet engage in nitpicking when evaluating their opponents’ arguments. Even their vocabulary reflects the double standard.
The very same behavior is called “imaginative,” “forceful,” or “forthright” in the case of an ally and “utopian,” “belligerent,” or “mean-spirited” in the case of an opponent.
The error of the double standard is also common in issues of free speech. Many people who are outspoken proponents of free speech for ideas they agree with are eager to silence those they disagree with.
To avoid the error of the double standard, decide in advance what judgment criteria you will use and apply those criteria consistently, even if the data in question do not support your view.
这些作者的观点在这些事件中都应该被当做最终的，权威的措辞吗？当然不。但是它们在公众辩论中表现出一种严肃的，有见地的贡献。没有分析指出忽视它们可以被认为是公平和尽责的。
偏见最糟糕的方面是它时常无罪的发生，让人无所察觉，且不止在学生间。甚至专业的学者也可能犯这种错误。（这就是为什么你应该检验权威观点的公正性。）为了避免偏见对于证据的选择，通过找出与你偏见相反的人们，然后继续找出支持你观点的人开始你的调查。并且选择最有道理的说法，不管它是否迎合你的观点。
双重标准
正如这个题名意指的那样，双重标准包括用一种标准判断自己的观点和与我们思想相兼容的思想，用一种完全不同的——更加苛刻的——标准对待和我们相异的观点。持有双重标准的人们忽视了他们论证中自相矛盾，前后不一致和蛮横的夸大其词，却在评论与他们相反观点时百般挑剔。甚至他们的词语中都映射着双重标准。非常相同的行为对同盟来说被称作“有想象力的”“强有力的”或“直截了当的”，对于他们的对手，则是“乌托邦的”“好斗的”“自私的”。
双重标准的错误在自由言论事件中也很常见。许多人对于自己赞同的思想是直言不讳的自由言论倡导者，却急于让他们不同意的观点沉默。
为了避免双重标准的错误，提前决定你要使用什么判断标准，并且一贯地运用这些标准，即使这些问题数据不支持你的观点。
