English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Excuse the phrasing of the question, but I'm not sure how to put it.


Let's say we know for a fact that Smith is working as a police officer and that police officers have very small salaries. We also know that this causes Smith to lead a lesser life than if police officers were to have larger salaries. When we ask Smith if the government should lower salaries for police officers and raise salaries for firemen, he replies that they should.


I don't think it's correct to say that Smith is unbiased in this scenario, but to say he is biased is misleading. If I were to tell someone that Smith thinks the government should lower police salaries and raise firemen salaries and that Smith is biased, the conclusion would probably be that Smith is a fireman.

So, what is Smith?

share|improve this question
Some more informal terms and phrases -- Smith is contrary, he goes against the grain, he goes against the flow. – JAM Oct 2 '12 at 16:19
Assuming Smith is by implication average, if lives and works in London, as a policeman, his average pay is £45,534. I'm not sure exactly, but as a fireman he'd probably get barely half that. He might be biased towards egalitarianism, and thus think he's overpaid, but you don't often come across public servants who freely admit they're overpaid. – FumbleFingers Oct 2 '12 at 16:38
If he lives or works in the US, his starting salary as a police officer (patrol) would be around $29,000, while a fire fighter averages slightly less at $28,000. It varies by jurisdiction, of course. And while I agree that you don't often come across public servants who admit they're overpaid, you often run across those who complain that their coworkers or bosses are overpaid. – Roddy of the Frozen Peas Oct 2 '12 at 18:32
up vote 11 down vote accepted

He is speaking against his interest. In legalese, you'll also hear against interest with no possessive – for example, a declaration against interest is a statement that is (as Wikipedia puts it) “so prejudicial to the person making it that she would not have made the statement unless she believed the statement was true” – but in normal-person English I think the version with the possessive is superior.

share|improve this answer

I would say that Smith is objective. He is answering the question objectively; that is, he is not letting his personal interest in the matter sway his opinion.

objective (adj.) based only on facts and not influenced by personal feelings or beliefs; undistorted by emotion or personal bias.

interest (n.) a connection with something that influences your attitude or behavior because you can gain an advantage from it

(Definitions supplied from OneLook.com)

share|improve this answer
I think this misses the question. The asker seems to be looking for a word that means "biased, but in the opposite direction than what you'd expect". That is, biased against their own kind or their own interest. – John Y Oct 2 '12 at 21:26
@JohnY: Perhaps so. Then again, O.P. also said, "I'm not sure how to put it," and then concluded with, "So, what is Smith?" Based on the body of the question (and not putting too much emphasis on the title of the question), I think objective could accurately describe Officer Smith. – J.R. Oct 2 '12 at 22:11

If Smith is already paid a low wage, for him to approve of having his wage lowered further to allow another (albeit important) public servant to get a pay increase, I would say that he is:

A) radically unbiased B) highly altruistic C) off his nut

share|improve this answer
Would the down-voter please provide constructive criticism? Thanks! – Kristina Lopez Oct 2 '12 at 22:16
+1 ... you may attract downvotes though for an answer lacking citations. – MετάEd Oct 2 '12 at 22:22
I think it would be petty to downvote this answer based on it "lacking citations." All three terms are being used in a straightforward way; no further elaboration is needed. Furthermore, no citation is necessary, as there are no quotes. – J.R. Oct 2 '12 at 22:31
@Spare Oom: clearly answer C "off his nut" (not nuts) is not a serious answer but the scenario was so out of left field that I couldn't resist. I admit to having a bias toward levity - hopefully no harm was done. ;-) – Kristina Lopez Oct 3 '12 at 2:11
@SpareOom: off his nut simply means crazy; same as off his rocker. In any event, being confused by off his nut might warrant a request for clarification in a comment, more so than a downvote due to a "lack of citations." Moreover, I found the answer very funny, but not flippant; it's not uncommon for people to be characterized thusly when campaigning for something that works against their best interest. The answer is amusing – but also spot on. – J.R. Oct 3 '12 at 23:12

Smith is an interested party, or has an interest in the situation. See “interest”, sense 4 at OxfordDictionaries.com.

It may still be misinterpreted, but it’s not as misleading as biased.

share|improve this answer

Actually, biased only implies lack of objectivity; it doesn't say which direction the prejudice lies. Sure, we tend to be biased in such a way as to favor ourselves or favor those who are like us, but we don't have to be.

So I would still use bias to describe this. If I had to pick a single word, maybe counterbiased. If that's too "newly coined" for you, then maybe unexpectedly biased or counterintuitively biased or biased against his own interest.

share|improve this answer

I would say Smith is a supporter. He supports the increase in salaries for firemen, although he is not a fireman.

share|improve this answer
Can anybody explain the downvote? – Noah Oct 3 '12 at 0:09

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.