Impartial Principles

Let me give you a neutral question:

Which do you prefer, orange or apple?

But before you try to answer, I'll give you a preceding enquiry:

What constitutes the sentence above as neutral?



Academic institutions, media conglomerations, and financial treasuries would'nt thrive to become the world core centers taking undivided attention of homo sapiens everywhere. Take a good count on the occasions that people relied on the informational aspect produced by those three major structure without any sceptism. Research from prestigious universities are seldomly challenged, public policies are scrutinized the most when the media dives into the issue, and your house mortgage plan is left to be decided by the bank.

They simply do it by asking a very simple unbiased question. Does alcohol consumption affect people's health? Why does Senator A changed his loyalty to another party? Would investing stocks in oil companies produce more revenue than in food products?
But the preliminary reasons basing such questions is what entitles it to be neutral, tendentious, or shallow.

Let us move backward to the original question:

Which do you prefer, orange or apple?

My personal answer would be none.

And elaborate to the introductory inquiry:

What constitutes the sentence above as neutral?

None. There is no component whatsoever that proves the orange-apple question as neutral.

Why?

Because the personal answer I gave would certainly lead me to a predicament. By stating that I liked none of the two fruits, there would be opinions that I don't like fruit. Or worse, that by not liking either one of two very common agricultural entity available almost throughout every country then I possess deviant behavior.

But people are not that stupid, they won't just assume anything?

Perception is reality. We are bounded by our limited physical functions that unfortunately is not overcomed by the cognitive virtues we have. Basically, it's the question that forms assertions made by humans. We are social creatures that live through a guided society we created ourselves.

Are your sure?

OK. A clear example: Paris Hilton.
The "entertainment" media poses a question:

How would you react seeing a beautiful, well-groomed, rich-spoilt girl acting out as every self-exploring teenager would do to become the focus on celebrity news?

Either hate her or love her. In reality, a lot of people hate Paris Hilton and lot of people love her. Nonetheless, she got tremendous publicity (both negative and positive). I dare to say that she is the first celebrity created by the media. Now, when she finally decided to become a real celebrity by doing movies and making albums, everything seems paved for her. She already has a massive fan base although the haters are always in the corner there is already public recognition.

So the media already made us believe that Paris Hilton is a "celebrity" from the beggining. The layered reason behind that is to capitalize the market before she was an actual "celebrity" and harvest the profit when she became one.

If the question was:

How would you feel, being the witness to the lavish life style of a hotel chain heirees picturing the moral standards amongst the wealthy offsprings today?

She would create a huge debate between the right and left wing fanatics, giving preachers yet another reason to talk about avoiding all worldly pleasures, and sparking a domino effect with the media meddling into lives of more affluent youngsters for the sake of "the public deserves information".

Now, you see we are'nt that smart. So critical thinking is not a valid inteligence scale, critical questioning is.





P.S.: This post is dedicated to the blasphemous assertion for a certain question made by a group of people I may not know very deeply and are most likely to be shallow.