Following your biases will never do this.
Really you only need three things, so it is "easy" but not easy, if you take my meaning. 1) you have to genuinely value and prioritize reducing your biases, knowing this may make for some difficult times for you. 2) you must develop a capability for critical thought (essentially, education though it need not be formal). 3) and most importantly you must do the work. And it is work.
Number (2) alone won't do you any good, which is why you see highly educated people who are very biased.
The simple model works when you're dealing with proving that your cat is on fire, it's much harder when the topic gets complicated.
Then as a society we apply the wisdom of the crowd.
And we've come full circle back to bias.
I was not disputing we all have an internal bias built up by our experiences. The crux of that point is you try to minimise your own bias and try to further reduce that bias by including the bias of the remainder of society.
I don't think this is a terrible way to select a political candidate.
As an aside I don't understand how a political discussion could exist without bias. What is your model of politics that would allow it to exist without bias?
Not arbitrary, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that education and intelligence isn't enough to combat biases. A lot of people commenting here are touting education and intelligence as some sort of bias reducing (or eliminating) tool, which it can be, but as I've said elsewhere I know plenty of educated intelligent people who are slaves to their biases. Some of these people gained their biases through education, and they discount their biases because they believe they are too intelligent to have biases.
What I think many people are missing here is that biases aren't something you educate away, they're something education helps you recognize and compensate for.
Also I note your use of the phrase"perfect judgments" here. Perfect how? For whom? Under what criteria? There's no such thing as a "perfect judgment" without framing it in a context (i.e. using a bias). One person's perfect, logically sound, rational judgment might not be so for another person.
Amusing example: my son refused, for a couple years, to learn single-digit addition facts. He already understood that there was no limit to the number of integers, but since he didn't know that single-digit addition facts could be composed to add arbitrarily large numbers, he silently reasoned that the infinitude of integers doomed any attempt to learn addition. Everyone talking about specific addition problems was a chump! He just went on for a couple grades thinking everyone was stupidly wasting their time before we had a conversation that unearthed his reasoning.
And that wasn't even starting with an incorrect belief- just some missing information. Imagine the sorts of explosions you could get yourself into starting with one of those and reasoning as far as you can with it!
The reason the us was so vulnerable to fake news is that we’ve spent the last several generations educating our children to be compliant consumers that don’t question authority or use critical thinking skills.
The funny thing about this thread is I bet that half of the people think of very different things that the other half when they think of fake news.