There is no such thing as a neutral question. Evaluate this statement with reference to two Areas of Knowledge. Theory of Knowledge Ledman, 1 st hour Due October 14 th, 2014 Word Count: 1,595
Do neutral questions exist? Was that a neutral question? Could there be an example of one? I would argue that neutral questions do not exist, and that it would be a stunning feat of human language if such a thing were ever to appear. As far as we can ascertain with the status of language being what it is now, neutral questions are not possible due to the fact that human language is such where word choice has implied meaning. Therefore, every question has a leaning bias, however slight. This is why there are such extensive arguments regarding the proper wording of questions on a ballot. It is also demonstrated through the lack of completely neutral words in language with specific attention paid to gender-neutral pronouns. Language, while functional and utilitarian, is not perfect and contains holes that do not allow for entirely neutral questions. So, while neutral questions may appear to exist on the surface level, if they are examined more deeply, it is found that the questions do not stand up to questioning. What is your favorite color? On the surface, a seemingly neutral question. However, is there always a right answer? And how do we define what a right answer is? What sort of answers fulfill the question? Some people do not have a favorite color, some people have more than one, and some people say that their favorite color is glitter. So we need to remember that the question doesn't specify what a color is. Can glitter be a color? Most people wouldn't say that it is, but some people call it their favorite color. So, right off the bat, the word color is excluding those who may define color differently than the basic colors of the rainbow. Secondly, the idea that the question is pushing a single favorite color. Humans are incredibly complex. I may really love yellow, but only with gray or blue. Does that make yellow my favorite color, or just one that I like if conditions are met? Human preferences do not exist as a series of flat choices. It's more akin to a spectrum, including a y-axis, which represents the degree of enjoyment. All things are relative and have to be put into context. What's your favorite color? implies that you have a favorite color, and that you only have one, and that you liking it is consistently accurate and relevant in all situations. So the question is pushing you away from certain answers that could be perfectly valid, thus exempting it from being a neutral question.
A real-world example of the goal of neutral questions is in the political system. Throughout history, people have argued over the best way to phrase a question on a ballot. One side would prefer the question to be one way, the other to be worded slightly differently. This is because each side has an aim for the results of the vote, and they want to use whatever tactics they may find appropriate to persuade people to their side. If one side can get.1% more of a vote than the other, due to the wording of the question, that number may be enough to pull the vote in their favor. For example, people are more likely to encourage expanding assistance to the poor, but not expanding welfare. Even though the meaning is identical, the negative connotation that some may have with the word welfare influences their choice in the matter. This has been shown in history directly in the wording of the question for voting in the Scottish Independence Referendum. The Electoral Commission faced the knowledge question: what is neutrality? They responded by stating that a question should be clear and simple, that is, easy to understand; to the point; and not ambiguous. It should also be neutral, which means it should not encourage voters to consider one response more favorably than another or mislead voters (Referendum). The original question was Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? Yes/No (Referendum). The Electoral Commission decided that the question was biased in favor of yes, so they reworked the question into something that they consider to be more neutral. After going through a rigorous process to reassess the question, they developed a new ballot question: Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes/No (Referendum). However, the question is not entirely neutral. It is understandable that the Electoral Commission meant to avoid making the question too convoluted and confusing for the average Scot. However, the question leans one slightly to the pro side. Alternatively, the question could have been Should Scotland remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Would changing the affiliation of the question cause the pseudo-neutrality to shift? Based on the experiences in history, it is highly probable that the favored side of the question would switch from yes to no.
There is also this idea called the acquiescence bias, present in the first iteration of the Scottish independence question, where, in a agree/disagree question situation, people are more likely to agree with the statement. It stems from an idea in the human sciences that notes a natural inclination to avoid conflict, and for those not familiar with the issue, they may not be able to think of alternatives. A better solution, and one that the Pew Research Center (PRC) endorses, would be to provide two options for people to choose from. The PRC gives an example of the acquiescence bias: Agree/Disagree Format The best way to ensure peace is through military strength. 55% agree, 42% disagree. Forced Choice Format The best way to ensure peace is through military strength. 33%. Or diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace. 55% (Question). However, this presents its own problem. It implies that there are only two solutions to the issue. Most problems are best solved by a multifaceted solution one that incorporates elements of both ends of the spectrum. So even the tactics of the Pew Research Center are not entirely neutral. What about a question in an area of knowledge that seems entirely neutral? Something like mathematics. Is mathematics truly neutral? We can look at a simple math question to determine the answer. What is 2+2? The majority of modern civilization would say that 2+2 is equal to 4. And, if we're speaking in a base 10 system, as most current societies do, 4 would be the correct answer. However, not all societies use a base 10. For example, in computer sciences and programming, a base 4 system is occasionally used. For a base 10 system, the number abcd (where each letter represents a digit) is a10 3 +b10 2 +c10 1 +d10 0. However, in base 4, the number abcd would be represented as a4 3 +b4 2 +c4 1 +d4 0. So, in a base 4 system, 2+2 does not equal 4. It equals 10. To our Western minds, our mathematical mind almost always jumps immediately to base 10, even if another base system is technically mathematically legitimate and correct. So the question of 2+2 is not a neutral question, because it doesn't have an answer at all, as it is not fully defined. Another Area of Knowledge worth evaluating when examining the idea of a neutral question is one of language. Can language be neutral? It is oftentimes assumed that many basic parts of speech are
neutral. Words like the, around, to, but, and he are words that our society naturally finds to be neutral. It is assumed that they don't steer the conversation in one specific direction. But even the small parts of speech like pronouns can play a big role in the neutrality of a question. For example, the question Where is he? implies that the subject of the question associates with the gender that they present to the world. This person might present themselves as male, but feel more comfortable using female pronouns. So the use of pronouns is a tricky situation that has become especially relevant with the modern GSRM (gender, sexual, and romantic minorities) movement. The Swedish government attempted to institute a gender-neutral pronoun: hen. The idea behind this is the brainchild of Swedish linguists in the mid-1960s, and then in 1994 the late linguist Hans Karlgren suggested adding 'hen' as a new personal pronoun, mostly for practical reasons. Karlgren was trying to avoid the awkward he/she that gums up writing, and invent a single word that enables us to speak of a person without specifying their gender (Rothschild). So the Swedish language has made advancements in the realm of neutrality in their language. However, English is still far behind, occasionally mentioning ze and e and other variations thereupon. But none of these iterations have caught on and become institutionalized as they have in Sweden, making language, particularly English, yet another barrier to the impossible task of a fully neutral question. The concept of a neutral question has been explored through the lenses of a personal question, a look at current political applications, the acquiescence bias, mathematics, and language. All examples portray a seemingly neutral question and reassess whether the question is truly neutral. And so far, it stands that neutral questions do not exist and cannot exist due to the complexity of language, the human psyche, and the varying rules and constructs that our society lives under. Can a neutral question exist? Our society can try to come up with near-neutral questions when they are appropriate, such as in politics. But as for a true neutral? The evidence thus far swings the answer towards neutrality's improbability.
Works Cited "Question Wording." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. Referendum on Independence for Scotland. Edinburgh: Electoral Commission, 2014. Print. Rothschild, Nathalie. "Sweden Goes Gender-Neutral." Slate Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.