Honorable or not?

Something came up in a prior discussion that caught my interest. Without rehashing verbatim, suffice to say the idea of not disclosing basic, not too personal information about oneself during a discussion came up. Now the one deliberately doing this in order to claim superior objectivity over the other person i.e. so it can be believed that they have no personal interest at stake. Is that honorable?

If so, what if at some later point it was revealed that the opinions presented as completely objective just by chance were right in line with the person's personal perspective that could have been deduced easily had the basic information been known? Would that still be honorable.

I find this interesting because I never thought of puposly not letting my perspective be known in that way. Where would the chance to learn about each other arise? But maybe their is some advantage that I'm overlooking? I just didn't get the feeling there was primarily because the bias perspective can be sensed as the discussion progresses anyway. Am I off base?

Hi.

I didn't read the conversation your talking about and don't know who it was with, but this is something I have done in the past.

When I give a piece of my personal self on this website it is in an attempt to show that I am being genuine, sencere and honest. Kinda like, "Hey, I'm going out on a limb here for you, can you be honest and vulnerable with me here? Cause you may be wrong and I believe that you aren't being humble enough to see it."

Like I said, didn't read the conversation, but thats why I do it.

Exactly! That's why I don't understand the position of not doing it. I do not see how giving the impression of complete neutrality when it is most unlikely by the fact you're enguaged in the conversation to begin with adds credibility?

Oh well, thanks for the input.