N for Impartiality (Nepristranskost in Slovenian language)
21. 08. 2024
Impartiality is somehow associated with the characteristic of a person who does not act according to personal tendencies or interests when making judgements or evaluations. Philosophically, this is described as something that exists and is independent of human beings, their consciousness, their thinking. Is this even possible? Can humans be impartial? Completely impartial? I am not sure.
Just ask yourself what all can affect my (your) impartiality, or rather what all affect my (your) partiality. Today one thing, tomorrow something completely different. So, impartiality is also time dependent. Basically, what I don’t know, cannot affect my impartiality. The more I know about something, the more (im)partial I can be. Really? Then, it would be best to know nothing. How contradictory the notion of impartiality can be then. One could say that the most impartial child is the one who is guided only by learned values. But he must have learnt those values from someone. Is there, then, any such thing as impartiality in humans?
The concept of impartiality is one that everyone working in the field of metrology is familiar with. Or, more precisely, anyone working in conformity assessment bodies. Anyone who has (quality) management systems in place and acts as an independent third party. They must be completely impartial. They provide the measurements as proof of compliance with the requirements. Of course, the concept of impartiality is much broader than that, as we also encounter it in our daily lives. For example, in law, where it is particularly pronounced in judges. Similarly in sport, in the school system, in journalism, and the list goes on and on. In fact, this concept is with us all the time, not least in all our decisions. Are we aware of this? Or are we acting according to some subconscious patterns that guide us? Do we call them values? Would you want a referee to be partial in sport? A judge in a court of law to be partial? A journalist to be partial? In fact, that is what we least want when we ourselves are involved. When it is about us. Why does partiality hurt us then all the more? Because we are emotionally involved. Because we are affected. Because we humans want only and exclusive justice for ourselves. Are we able to give this to others? Are we really? What incredible things happen to us in doing so. I really feel for some people who are not affected by things that happen to others. That are happening somewhere else. Somewhere far away. Until they directly affect us. That’s when they really disturb us. They hurt us. Pay attention, and you will see that you yourself are not the most impartial. At least not always.
But first, we need to understand the concept of impartiality. There are concepts that we take for granted, but when they need to be explained, we run out of words. Think for a moment how you would describe the concept of impartiality. What does it actually mean? What does it mean to be impartial? Because the definition of impartiality should not depend on time, on the moment, on circumstances, on anything. Yet we have the feeling that impartiality is different in different circumstances. Has a foul been committed or not? Was the referee’s decision correct? Only there is the question of impartiality. Why then do we always talk about the refereeing criteria in football (and other sports, of course)? Why is there a difference between a foul in the middle of the pitch and in the goalkeeper box? I apologise to anyone who does not follow football, but this is a most textbook example. Why is a foul not the same everywhere? Why should different referees give different rulings for the same thing? It does not make sense. Is it perhaps a problem with the rules? How much it hurts when we are a fan of one of the teams. And how differently we see things when we are not a fan of one of the teams. As a fan, can we be impartial and judge the referee? Just as we disagree with his decision, he probably also disagrees with our perception of partiality. Who are we to judge the referee in a match? Interesting that most people do not know the rules of football very well at all, yet they grumble over the referee. Understand if you can.
I would say that impartiality is any decision (assessment, opinion, description, measurement, or anything else where we have to do something impartially) without emotion, with full knowledge of the subject matter to which that same decision relates. In any case, the decision must be free from any external pressures (pursuit of various interests), as well as from any internal pressures (pursuit of one’s own convictions, assumptions, etc.), based solely on objective criteria, requirements, rules, etc. In my opinion, internal pressures are a much greater problem than external ones. After all, external ones are easier to identify, easier to tackle. In fact, we only need (in theory) to cut off the possibility of anyone or anything influencing the decision-maker. That is why the jury in a court of law is isolated from the outside world. To prevent, or at least limit, the possibility of influencing the individual. And we all know that this is almost impossible. Because we humans know no limits to our ingenuity when water is running down our throats. The human survival instinct is very strong.
Impartiality is therefore mainly about identifying the risks of partiality and putting in place measures to reduce the chances of partial decisions. We are not talking about preventing risks to impartiality, because there are always risks. And they relate in some way to a possible future situation. Therefore, the risks cannot be prevented, in any sense. So, all we are doing is identifying the possible risks, and taking measures of one kind or another to reduce the possible occurrence of partiality. Indeed, behaviour, or rather awareness, means both an increase and a decrease in these same risks. Some time ago, an assessor and I came across just such an example. For a given risk, is it better to know it, to be aware of it, or is it even better not to be aware of it? At least not to proclaim it. Opportunity makes the thief, the Slovenian saying goes.
The rule of the same sign is one of the principles that applies in legal metrology. A regulatory body (or other type of body) carrying out legal verifications of measuring instruments (e.g. an electricity meter) could set all such meters to the upper permissible limit. This would mean that all meters are within the tolerance and as such comply with the rules written in the legislation. Yet, in this case, one of the parties would have a plus and the other a minus. The seller of electricity would have the maximum allowable benefit from all customers, while all customers would have a deficit. It would be difficult to speak of impartiality here. This is also why the seller is not allowed to carry out the legal verifications himself. This is done by an independent body (an independent third party, as we call it) which is impartial in its decisions. A rule of the same sign, namely that the average of the deviations of all electricity meters should be as close to zero deviation as possible and in no case close to the upper or lower limit of the tolerance. How to ensure this? This is a decision for the inspection body, which must act in this respect. The question is therefore whether it is better for the measurement operator to be aware of this possibility. In reality, it is best not to adjust electricity meters if they are within the tolerances. The probability that they are all at the upper/lower limit is very low in this case, as the deviations are random. And the average value will also be close to the true value. At least there is a higher probability that this is the case.
Impartiality should be a guiding principle for all of us. All the time. In all decisions. It is difficult, but no such value is easy. It takes a lot of effort to remain impartial in all our decisions. Let us at least be honest with ourselves. Because lying to ourselves is really unnecessary. It is completely illogical. Yet many people do it. They do it all the time. My favourite saying, especially connected with the last sentence, is about adulthood. When does one grow up? When you stop blaming others for your problems. Or when he stops lying to himself. When he stops making excuses for everything (bad) that happens to him. When he becomes responsible (more on that next time). When he learns something to be better tomorrow than he is today. If we improve just a little bit every day, we will be better in a few days or weeks. Think about a month from now. Let alone a year from now.
Primož
Next time, 4th of September 2024, Responsibility (odgovornost in Slovenian language)