Many articles that I write are subjected to accusations of bias. For example, whenever a new car test appears, I will always see in our referrer’s list a discussion where someone calls me biased.

One dictionary defines bias as:

a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question

which, in the manner of dictionaries, takes us to a definition of ‘prejudice’, that includes:

any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favourable or unfavourable

Now as academic Grant Banfield makes beautifully clear in this piece, the only unbiased person is one who is fundamentally ignorant of the subject: if you know nothing about the subject, how can you be biased regarding it?

But, probably because it is so politically incorrect to say so, the corollary of that idea is not made by Mr Banfield: the more that one knows about a subject, the more one is likely to be biased.

And in my opinion, the more one can justify that bias.

Here’s a very simple example. Years ago we employed for a short time a new editor at AutoSpeed. One of the discussions I had with him related to a reference I wanted put in a new car test, a mention of the likely retained value of the car.

I cannot remember the car, but I know that it was from a marque that had a history of poor retained value. I wanted a line in the test that said something like: “The Fredomobile Super is likely to have poor retained value, as other Fredomobiles have had.”

The editor argued that such a line was not appropriate: where was the evidence that the new Super model would have poor retained value? There wasn’t any, so why should we tar it with that brush?

This is a good example of where the more one knows about a subject, the more one can justify a bias. Many of the poor buggers buying Fredomobile Supers wouldn’t have had a clue of how other Fredomobiles had fared poorly in retained value, so I thought it was my duty to bring that point to their attention, even though it could be argued as exhibiting a bias against the new Fredomobile.

But the same thing applies in much more contentious areas.

I think that for a variety of reasons, all of which I am happy to expound upon at length, that cars with high fuel consumption should not have that facet of their performance glossed over – rather, it should be highlighted.

I also think that the packaging of car – how much room it has inside and how that room is used – is one of the most important design aspects of all cars.

So – yes – I am quite happy to say that I approach a new car test with bias, with prejudice, with preconceived notions: I expect the car to have decent fuel consumption and to have decent packaging.

And I am proud to say that I am biased about lots of other topics, a bias I hope is made loud and clear in my writing. I have a bias towards car modifications that work, and that provide value for money. I have a bias towards modifications that improve functional efficiency rather than, for example, aesthetics. 

Therefore, I am quite happy to research a story on the basis that I have to be convinced that the product or modification (or whatever) is efficacious, and not that I go in with an ‘open mind’.

(After all, a mind that is open to literally all possibilities [an ‘open mind’], can have nothing already in it.)

Web Publications pay me to be an expert in cars, to know a lot about cars – how they work, how they drive, their history and what is a good guess as to their future.

They don’t pay me to lack bias: they pay to have bias built on knowledge and experience. Bias about what works and about what doesn’t work, about what has in the past been successful and what has been unsuccessful – and so on.

Only someone completely ignorant – and so lacking bias – would approach with an open mind the demonstration of a car that never needs to be fuelled; or a press release about tyres that can generate 2g lateral acceleration without any downforce; or the $100 kit that will convert your petrol car to electric power.

Bias and prejudice are simply terms that reflect knowledge and experience: they state that you are not a blank slate, that you have expectations and understandings.

However, it’s a completely different kettle of fish if, even in the face of clear and unassailable evidence to the contrary, you do not change that set of expectations and understandings and knowledge….