So the ironic thing about this is that the list of cognitive biases (and Cynthia's suggestion about how to use it in conversation) itself purports to be an objective representation of reality. It's based on a particular scientific tradition and paradigm of constructing knowledge.
Now, it happens to be a paradigm that I share and believe in. My point is that if you're going to claim that objectivity doesn't exist, then it seems a bit...paradoxical to speak as if you are the holder of True Knowledge about other people's judgments and behavior.
Personally, I find it more helpful to think of objectivity as existing on a continuum. We don't need to pretend that The Lancet and InfoWars are epistemological twins. And I think aspiring towards objectivity is great as long as we realize that we can never fully achieve it.
This view seems to be consistent with the notion of "strong objectivity" from feminist philosopher Sandra Harding, for what it's worth. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_ob…
