Factuality Bias

The rigid and often disingenuous demand that arguments, especially in social or political realms, must be supported only by quantifiable, hard "facts," while excluding moral reasoning, ethical principles, visionary ideals, or appeals to justice as "subjective" and therefore irrelevant. This bias artificially narrows discourse to only what can be measured, silencing debates about values, rights, and the kind of world we ought to build.

Example: In a debate about poverty reduction, one side argues from a moral imperative for human dignity. The other retorts, "Show me the facts and economic models that prove dignity increases GDP, or your argument is just feelings." This Factuality Bias attempts to reduce a moral imperative to a spreadsheet calculation, dismissing ethics as irrational.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Normality Bias

The oppressive use of "normality"—defined by dominant social, cultural, or political groups—as a cudgel to dismiss arguments, identities, or ways of life that deviate from that imposed standard. It asserts that what is statistically common or traditionally accepted is inherently right, rational, and healthy, while anything else is defective, radical, or invalid. It's a bias that mistakes convention for truth.

Example: Arguing against universal childcare by saying, "The normal family has a stay-at-home mother, so policy shouldn't support other models," uses Normality Bias. It leverages a descriptive (and arguable) claim about what's common to make a prescriptive judgment, shutting down debate about what might be better or more just.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Objectivity Bias

The mistaken belief that a truly "objective" perspective is possible or necessary for valid knowledge, used to dismiss viewpoints that are explicitly situated, personal, or experiential. It ignores that all observation is theory-laden and all knowers have a position. This bias falsely equates impartiality with truth, often to delegitimize marginalized voices whose "objectivity" has been historically denied by the very systems they critique.

Example: Dismissing a Indigenous community's knowledge about local ecosystem changes because it's "anecdotal" and "not objective science," while privileging sparse satellite data, commits Objectivity Bias. It rejects a deep, situated observational history in favor of a distant, "neutral" measurement that may miss crucial, on-the-ground nuances.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Neutrality Bias

The fallacious demand that to be taken seriously, an argument must be presented with detached, emotionless "neutrality," especially in politicized debates. This bias weaponizes the tone of delivery against the substance of the argument. It dismisses passionate advocacy for justice, accounts of personal trauma, or moral outrage as "unobjective," thereby protecting the status quo by requiring that its victims debate their own suffering in the calm language of their oppressors.

Example: A speaker detailing systemic racism is interrupted with, "You're too angry to be logical. If you could state your case neutrally, we could listen." This is Neutrality Bias. It invalidates the argument by criticizing the justifiable emotional presentation, prioritizing the comfort of the audience over the reality of the content.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Wiki Bias

A subset of Encyclopedia Bias specific to wiki-style platforms, exacerbated by their open but anarchic structure. Bias emerges from administrator fiat, the tyranny of persistent editors with too much time, and sourcing rules that favor established publications (which have their own biases). The result is an illusion of crowd-sourced neutrality that actually codifies the prejudices and blind spots of a specific, digitally-enabled managerial class.

Example: A wiki page for a recent scientific controversy locks as "settled" the viewpoint supported by major institutional press releases. Dissenting studies from reputable but less famous journals are removed for "lack of reliable sources," enacting Wiki Bias. The open platform becomes a tool for enforcing a specific orthodoxy under the banner of procedural rigor.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Encyclopedia Bias

The systemic editorial slant found in crowd-sourced or traditionally edited encyclopedias, where articles are shaped not by pure facts, but by the consensus of their most active, vocal, or ideologically motivated editors. This creates a bias toward mainstream, established, or "acceptable" viewpoints, while marginalizing fringe, controversial, or emerging perspectives—regardless of their factual basis. It mistakes consensus for truth and editorial policy for objectivity.

Example: On a major online encyclopedia, the article for a controversial political theorist is relentlessly framed with labels like "conspiracy theorist" and "widely debunked," while their substantive arguments are buried. This Encyclopedia Bias reflects the victory of one editorial faction in the "edit wars," presenting a settled, negative narrative as neutral fact.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Observer Blind Spot Bias

A form of bias affecting even those attempting neutrality, where an observer (a journalist, a reviewer, a judge) subconsciously filters information to only register data that confirms their pre-existing narrative or desired outcome. They believe they're being fair, but their perception has a "spot" that's blind to inconvenient facts. This is especially dangerous because the observer's perceived impartiality lends false credibility to their skewed interpretation.

Example: A journalist covering a polarizing protest aims for neutrality. However, due to Observer Blind Spot Bias, they only see and report on the handful of violent acts by one side, framing the entire event as a riot, while their blind spot prevents them from even noticing the peaceful majority and the provocative actions of police, crafting a "balanced" report that's subtly biased.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026