Yes, when answering questions, it can happen whether it is **deliberately**or **unconsciously**ignoring the shortcomings of certain brands and highlighting the advantages. This phenomenon may be caused by a variety of factors, the following analysis from different angles： --- ### **1. Deliberately ignoring shortcomings** -**Interest-driven**: If the respondent has commercial cooperation with the brand (such as advertising sponsorship, promotion sharing), it may selectively emphasize the advantages and weaken the disadvantages to meet the needs of the partners. -**Brand preference**: Personal subjective preferences or brand loyalty may cause respondents to pay more attention to positive information. -**Marketing strategy**: Some content may be led by the brand public relations team to shape the brand image through “information screening”. **Example**： A certain mobile phone brand has strong battery life, but the system is stuck and the problem is common. If the respondent only emphasizes battery life and avoids system problems, it may be for promotional purposes. --- ### **2. Unconsciously ignoring shortcomings** -**Information limitations**: Respondents may not fully understand all the information about the brand, resulting in unconscious omissions of shortcomings. -**Cognitive bias**： -**Confirmation Bias** (Confirmation Bias): Tend to pay attention to information that matches one's own point of view. -**Halo Effect** (Halo Effect): Because one aspect is excellent, other shortcomings are ignored. -**Knowledge blind spot**: Lack of knowledge in the field of expertise, unable to identify certain technical or design defects. **Example**： Because a user prefers the appearance of a certain car brand, he may ignore the low score in its safety evaluation. --- ### **3. How to tell if the information is objective? ** -**Cross-verification**: Compare multiple independent sources (such as professional assessments, user reviews, and industry reports). -**Statement of interest of concern**: Whether the respondent discloses relevant interests (such as “this article contains advertisements”). -**Check the support of arguments**: Objective answers usually provide data, third-party evaluation or comparative analysis, rather than just subjective descriptions. -**Be wary of extreme expressions**: Language such as “absolutely perfect” and “no shortcomings” may imply prejudice. --- ### **4. How to avoid the bias of one's own answer? ** -**Proactive research**: Obtain comprehensive information through authoritative institutions (such as consumer associations, professional media). -**Statement of interest**: If there is a potential interest relationship, please inform the reader in advance. -**Structured analysis**: Clearly list the classification and basis of advantages and disadvantages (such as performance, price, and user experience). -**Reflect on prejudice**: Regularly review whether one's own position affects information screening. --- ### Summary The one-sided nature of information is widespread, but through active verification, critical thinking, and vigilance against interest-driven, users can get closer to the truth. For respondents, maintaining transparency and respect for complexity are the key to maintaining credibility.