How Objectivity and Subjectivity Relate to My Intellectual Autobiography

I would say that I am a fairly objective, yet creative person, which initially seems like an oxymoron. After all, objectivity is centered around representing facts in an impartial way, while creativity tends to relate more to the expression of ambiguous ideas. I believe that my unique intellectual identity revolves around my ability to create meaning out of facts and concrete information both in and out of sports media. This idea of meaning connects objectivity and subjectivity, because humans create unique meaning out of ideas depending on how they analyze them, whether one uses an neutral, open-minded attitude or an emotional, partial approach. I hope to contribute to sports media as a creator who combines these two elements of objectivity and subjectivity, as I strive to incorporate the latter more into my intellectual identity. I want to communicate relevant, unbiased information while still maintaining an engaging, relatable personality, because I believe that partnership is really helpful in creating intriguing, enjoyable content in sports media.

Thanks to the writing I have done in this class, I have realized that I greatly prefer writing about and interacting with concrete information over intangible ideas. This is partially because until this class, I rarely have had to write extensively about myself. Throughout high school, I rarely was able to use the word I in any essays across many subjects, which separated myself from the ideas I discussed. I didn’t have to think about the ideas’ relation to my own identity, so I became accustomed to writing from a simple, objective point of view. I believed that every problem had a finite answer that could be deciphered with a scientific or mathematical approach. I never realized the complex issues behind the seemingly transparent information that I learned in religion or history class, because I never was exposed to different perspectives related to those topics.

My personality didn’t matter in writing essays, because teachers cared more about the information that they wanted to hear. I just had to write in a way that proved I knew the information that was taught to me, as opposed to what I actually thought about the material. Because I never had to give my opinion, I never reflected and formed an opinion in the first place. This exemplifies the problems of the banking model of education, because, as Freire says, this concept “extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits…For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly human” (Freire 72). I did not question the context or accuracy of the information that was filed in my brain, because I was never asked or taught to do so. However, as I venture into a career in media in an era of endless information, this attitude of inquiry and praxis will be especially important for me as I seek out relevant facts that have valuable, truthful meaning.

The devotion to definite knowledge that was imposed in me during grade school made me desire concrete answers to all of my questions. As my education progressed towards more complicated topics in high school, I was challenged to write about topics that were not easily solved. I learned that ideas can have multiple interpretations and valuable perspectives, which was new to me; I had never had to deal with differing points of view as a straight white guy. I never questioned my banking education because the material was written by people like myself, so I could easily interpret the intended meaning of the information. This concept reminds me of the ideas expressed in the essay “Should Writer’s Use They Own English?” by Vershawn Ashanti Young. He argues that standard language ideology was created to benefit people like myself, and hinder people who write and speak differently than I do: “The narrow, prescriptive lens be messin writers and readers all the way up, cuz we all been taught to respect the dominant way to write, even if we dont, cant, or wont ever write that one way ourselves” (Young 112). This supports my idea that I was implicitly taught to create meaning objectively, because I did not have to see from another dominant perspective, which instead likely would have given me a more subjective perception of the world.

I struggle to wrap my head around ambiguous, uncertain topics that are open to interpretation, which likely relates to how I have hardly had to think about different perspectives throughout my intellectual journey. I enjoy writing about specific information over vague ideas, because I create more complete meaning when topics are more finite and explicit; I prefer receiving a right or wrong answer that allows me to easily adapt and improve. One example of this concept is that I engage much better with simple math and statistics that relate to the world around me, instead of calculus problems with variables that represent imprecision and theory. I understand social and economic issues around the world more effectively when I learn about relevant numbers and statistics, and I find difficulty in trusting political figures that do not use accurate, significant data.

I love sports because they are primarily objective, in that they are governed by sets of rules that create certain, undisputed meanings in the context of the game depending on the events that occur. These sports also are influenced by unbiased statistics that give the audience a better understanding of the talent of players, such as batting average or three-point percentage. If someone disagrees with me in a discussion about sports, these stats often give a rather definite answer to our debate. For instance, if a friend and I argue about whether Jimmy Garappolo or Ryan Tannehill is a better quarterback, various numbers and statistics can help us find a common, uncontroversial conclusion.

I have always had a good understanding of sports because of this ability to find concrete meaning, but universal interpretations are much harder to find within politics. In my experiences with politics, I have developed from a purely objective approach to creating meaning to a more subjective understanding, which relates to my development in how I understand sports. I never realized the complex, divided nature of politics until high school, as I grew up in a homogenous, liberal environment that made me think of politics as rather one-sided. After gaining a more complete knowledge of American history and government in high school, I learned that there often is not a right answer to a political discussion, or any resolution for an important issue. When I can’t find a concrete, decisive solution to a question, I am less motivated to engage with that topic, because I am so used to easy, objective explanations. People who disagree with my views will likely have an argument that is just as valid as mine, which is very unsettling for me, especially when I concur with both sides of the issue. Even when I turn to statistics for less complicated objective analysis, relevant data is often not used, except in campaigns for office, or directly cited by many American political figures, who I find harder to trust if they cannot properly back up their assertions.

Sports and statistics have very subjective aspects as well, which I have come to realize as I analyze sports more extensively. While objective scores and analytics have become increasingly important in sports, people now create opposing, subjective meanings by perceiving certain numbers over others, depending on personal biases and motives. For example, if a team wins a game although stats show that they played terribly, impartial analysts and viewers who lack allegiance to the winning team will likely have negative reactions to that team’s performance. Meanwhile, fans of the winning team might instead choose to acknowledge the positive, purely objective aspects of the game, in that the team won, which is an inherently good result. Ironically, the progression within sports has been the inverse, as the decision-making criteria in many sports has been revamped in recent years. Baseball, for instance, is now dominated by advanced analytics that determine optimal pitcher-batter matchups, positionings for fielders, and techniques for hitting and pitching, instead of the customary, intuitive approaches to the game that had existed for a century. In this case, there has been a transition from subjectivity to objectivity, even though the opposite development has occurred within the media, which I find fascinating.

Here is where media comes into this relation between objectivity and subjectivity, as sports media revolves around this idea of finding meaning in facts and events, which, conversely, requires a level of creativity and imagination. Given this necessity for an original, interesting approach, analysts will choose different stats and incidents that they find personally meaningful, therefore likely creating a different argument about a singular event. In talking about the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity, Brown University’s Joukowsky Institute mentions that “the objective journalist includes no judgmental inclination in reporting an event,” while on the other hand, “An editorial writer is subjective by definition, to juxtapose the earlier example of the journalist” (“Objectivity vs. Subjectivity”). Sports media often combines these two types of journalism, as personalities on TV and the internet create content that revolves around taking objective statistics and specific events, and creating a subjective opinion based on this evidence. Especially with the rise of sports betting across the US, many media personalities make predictions for games as part of this content, which involves a mix of subjectivity and objectivity.

So, what does an optimal combination of opinionated, subjective investigation and numerical, objective analysis in sports media look like? Someone can produce endless statistics that create a valid, probable argument, but a well-presented subjective argument can easily convince the viewer otherwise. Furthermore, the latter prediction will probably be more interesting for the audience, because sports fans, who tend to possess major biases towards their teams, look for what they want to hear in the media they consume. Different sports media personalities are able to engage their audience in unique ways, which involves taking various positions on the spectrum between subjectivity and objectivity. Like others, I really enjoy reading or watching analysts that contain the same implicit biases that I have, which helps me humanize and relate to these personalities on a more personal level. This ability to relate to media consumers exemplifies why I desire to incorporate others’ subjective opinions into my intellectual identity. I want to be able to see the differing perspectives of others and create content that people want to engage with because it reflects what they want to watch.

Legendary SportsCenter anchor Scott Van Pelt, whose nightly show has had a major influence on me, masterfully accomplishes a balance between subjectivity and objectivity, because he provides accurate information and interesting commentary on a professional level. At the same time, he still retains the casual, spirited personality of the average sports fan, as seen in his frequently professed love for University of Maryland and Washington, D.C.-area sports teams. Van Pelt acknowledges in a 2015 interview, “If you tried to make a show for every person’s particular interest, it’d be impossible because everyone is going to consume it the way they want to. All you can do is try to do an hour that makes sense for all” (Chase 2015). He creates authentic, relatable meaning that appeals to people of all perspectives and desires, which I believe is the primary goal of sports media. To put it simply, he admirably combines objectivity and subjectivity in a way that just makes sense to the viewer. As I begin to create my own content, I aspire to follow the example set by Van Pelt, because his show reflects what American audiences want to see, from gambling content, to stories about the athletes and social justice, to simple highlights of the day’s games. Likewise, in my career, I hope to produce convincing, meaningful content that is enticing and enjoyable for myself and others.

There is no right answer on the scale between objectivity and subjectivity, which, as I stated earlier, is not an easy idea for me to accept. After all, this lack of resolution for my own questions was the reason why this project was so difficult for me in the first place. Still, I was able to make concrete connections between ideas that I previously struggled to relate to my intellectual identity. Through this project, I discovered how objectivity and subjectivity are linked through my own idea of meaning. I believe that I create meaning in my own distinct way, which is comprised of my unique perspectives, my tendencies for engaging with facts over opinions, and my personal experiences with sports, politics, and media.

Works Cited

Azar, Beth. “A Reason to Believe.” Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association, Dec. 2010, www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.

Chase, Chris. “Scott Van Pelt’s New Midnight ‘SportsCenter’ Will Feature a Heavy Dose of Gambling.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 2 Sept. 2015, ftw.usatoday.com/2015/09/scott-van-pelt-sportscenter-gambling-lines-midnight-labor-day-espn.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum., 2005.

“Objectivity vs. Subjectivity, and Walking the Line Between Them.” Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology & the Ancient World, www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/courses/13things/7260.html.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 110–117., doi:10.17077/2168–569x.1095.