The Truth is, There's Very Little of It, Part II

 We all seek the truth. What is real? Are facts only what we can experience with our own senses? Can we even trust them? Experiments show that even direct experiences are filtered through our preconceived notions of what to expect.

Is a shared fabrication better than distrust? Maybe.

Throughout history, we have seen absolute facts, such as "there are witches that can perform magic," revert to fiction and back again. Newtonian physics, once the gold standard of science, has proven inadequate in explaining observations.

Then there are the many conspiracy theories about important events. The likelihood that they are all wrong is as silly as believing they are all correct. We are ignorant. We get to directly observe a tiny sliver of the important information we process in a typical day.

The balance of what we believe is gained through "trusted sources." These sources are undoubtedly wrong some of the time. Whether they are intentionally obfuscating what they know to be true or are misinformed themselves, we don't know.

This, then, is how our worldview is built—one story at a time. True or not. WE DON'T KNOW!

What can we do about it? There's no silver bullet here. I prefer rigorous, time-consuming research over experiences and opinions. But I'm also aware that there is plenty of bad research out there. Scientists who are trying to earn a living and accept funding from sources that expect a favorable outcome may not produce valid results. It happens.

Just because an idea has been around for a long time doesn't guarantee its truthfulness, but it helps. The point is, we cannot be certain about most things. Most of what we "know" is only beliefs. Our belief system shapes which new information fits with our existing reality.

When we meet people with different perspectives on reality, it can be an opportunity to defend our own view or explore another's. We get to decide. Two people can agree on the "facts" of an incident, but disagree about the motivations behind it. The context leads us to very different conclusions about the same event. It's difficult to know which one is correct without getting into the heads of the people directly involved, which we rarely have the opportunity to do.

Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy. That is not in dispute. Did he work on behalf of the CIA? Was he a "lone wolf?" Did he work for the mob? The Cubans? Without being in his head and knowing who he spoke with and what about, we can never know for sure.

We stumble through life with insufficient and incorrect information. We do our best to fabricate a reality that works for us. We are wrong a lot of the time. Fortunately, we live in ignorant bliss until we start arguing with someone else about what we believe, even though neither of us knows the truth.

We Live in the Age of Well-Crafted Narratives

 

As the world changes, smart and powerful people see the big picture quicker than the rest of us. They have more access to information than we regular folks do, and they are surrounded by other smart people with greater knowledge.

It stands to reason, even without specific evidence, that these people will use their power and influence to shape general behavior in ways that benefit them.

So, what does that look like?

The first question we need to ask is, where do most people get their information about the world around them? Once upon a time, it was the TV network news. Raise your hand if that's your primary source of news now. What? Nobody? Yup, that's our new reality.

For some, it's Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok. For others, it's YouTube. What do all of these platforms have in common? Go ahead and take a minute. It will come to you. Did you guess? It's the algorithm.

Let's unpack the algorithm. This is a complex set of rules that is applied to your feed. These rules determine what you see, and more importantly, what you don't see.

When you first join a social media network, the content you see in your feed is whatever is the most popular. The thinking of the algorithm designers is that if a lot of people liked it, then you will too. Of course, your tastes are unique, so some popular stuff won't appeal. When you click on or interact with the content you do like, the algorithm takes note and begins building a profile.

That profile becomes a feedback loop. Even though you may have many broad interests, once the feedback loop kicks in, unless you actively search for specific content, it keeps strengthening.

Eventually, your information bubble becomes impenetrable. Your searches for specific content have little weight in the feedback loop unless you NEVER click on anything in your feed, which is hard to do because you are interested in what's there.

This is bad, but it is not what concerns me most. I am more concerned about the inability to access unpopular content. This is critical because much of the best content is not the sensationalized garbage designed to grab your attention.

The rich and powerful people who control these platforms are guiding the rules governing their algorithms. We might assume they are focused solely on attention to better monetize their platform, but we don't know that.

Algorithms are a black box, and they control our view of the world. This should be untenable. The government should demand that the algorithms be open-source and completely transparent. A few politicians are calling this out, but many (most?) of them are complicit. The black box serves them, too.

It's like asking politicians to vote for public financing of elections. They will never do it because they are the victims of that change.

Being able to craft a narrative and have hundreds or even thousands of different people amplify it is so powerful that nobody in control will ever willingly give it up.

I have recently started posting on Bluesky. It is the only social media platform that lets you control what appears in your feed — 100%. Their algorithm is simply to present the content I choose to include. Ironically, they are the least popular of all of the social media platforms. Why? They are not manipulating you into the attention trap.

If all the other platforms are energy drinks, Bluesky is water. It's the best thing for us, but it's not an easy choice. Where this leads, I can only guess, but democracy relies on a well-informed public, and that ain't happening.

The Truth is There's Very Little of It

 

Politicians seem to have glommed onto the word "truth." We speak the "truth," and they don't! From a political perspective, this is brilliant. It inoculates their constituents against being swayed by their opponents' arguments because "they're lying."

Just as the word "literally" has come to mean "figuratively," which, ironically, is literally the opposite, "truth" has come to mean "in my opinion." 

I've been thinking a lot about "truth" lately. What constitutes "truth?" In an age in which audio and video can be flawlessly faked, and anyone can write anything, making it available to the masses, truth is hard to come by. That's not to say that everything you see and hear secondhand is false. It's to say that you don't really know.

There are some truths in mathematics. For example, we know 2+2=4. This is truth. But even in scientific fields like physics, we mostly just have theories. Any study of the evolution of human understanding of physics will demonstrate that what was once believed to be hard scientific proof turned out to be completely wrong later.

So what is truth, then? You can usually trust what you see. I have a beautiful large maple tree in my front yard. That is as true as anything gets for me. Sadly, for you, dear reader, that is just a belief. Unless you've seen my tree with your own eyes, you don't know if I'm making it up or not.

Ultimately, most of what we know comes down to belief. We choose who to believe, and then we trust that they are telling us the truth. When the people we believe say things that conflict with their opposition's "truth," THEY are lying...or are they?

Figuring out who is telling the truth and who is lying when two sides of a debate disagree can be a lot of work. If the issue concerns past events, substantiating the truth may be impossible.

We prefer the truth to the ambiguities of belief. We like to pretend that our beliefs are the truth. It's much more reassuring to know that our beliefs are built upon "the truth." Unfortunately, our beliefs are mostly built upon more beliefs. We have no choice but to trust our beliefs. When they are challenged, it's much easier to say the others are lying than to do the potentially futile research to determine whether there's any definitive evidence to substantiate one position.

What can we do about it? If there was an easy answer, we'd all be doing it. There isn't one. If we want to approximate "the truth," we must work for it. Put in the time and effort to seek trustworthy evidence. The only alternative is to pick trustworthy sources and hope they are rigorous in seeking substantiating evidence for their claims.

Unfortunately, sources that we once trusted now have agendas. News outlets have largely become mouthpieces for some guiding belief system. When I was younger (many years ago), we could trust the major news outlets to report "the truth." What we didn't know was that there was a lot of important information that simply wasn't reported because the people who controlled the news outlets kept it secret. It's harder to do that now, so mis/dysinformation is used to obscure inconvenient facts.

What does this mean? For me, it means that every idea, no matter how counter to my beliefs, is worthy of consideration. I may ultimately dismiss it based on my analysis of the situation, but I will consider it. I leave you with one example.

Some believe that the lunar landing was faked. I agree that this is possible. We know thousands of people worked for years to build the equipment and infrastructure for the lunar landing. We know astronauts boarded a craft and went into space, heading toward the moon. We know this because many people saw these events with their own eyes. So many people that coordinating a cover-up would be virtually impossible.

We know that the three astronauts who flew the mission returned to Earth. Again, many people saw them with their own eyes. The only part of the mission that many people didn't see was the actual landing. Let's say, hypothetically, that something went wrong during this portion of the mission, and the secret "powers that be" decided to fake the landing. They would need to involve many people in creating a realistic set, along with the film crew and post-production teams. All of these people would need to remain silent. It's a big ask.

The other issue with this theory is which types of things could have gone wrong with the mission that would have left the expected equipment and people intact for the return. Undoubtedly, there are scenarios in which this would be the case, but there are many more in which they would have suffered losses that couldn't be covered up. Since the preparations for the faking would have needed to take place before the mission was launched, one might question the value given only some scenarios would even create the opportunity to utilize it.

Conspiracy theorists may find some evidence to suggest the lunar landing was faked, but they can't explain away the preponderance of solid evidence to the contrary. Did the lunar landing happen? I don't know, but I choose to believe that it did.

We're All Going Mad!

Is it just me or are we all going crazy?

The news industry has been obliterated by social media. Now, we have no trusted sources, but those we randomly select. Pick your news and stay with it! They could be blowing smoke up your a$$, but at least it will be YOUR smoke.

A case in point is the current anti-Israel fervor on campuses across the U.S. Where are these kids getting their news? What information has made them so angry with Israel? Oh, wait! It’s simple, right?

People are dying in Gaza. The IDF is killing them. Therefore, Israel should stop. <- note the period there

If the world were only that simple. Wouldn’t it be nice if every issue just had one or two important factors? Sadly, we have so many issues facing us and every damn one of them is complex.

Once upon a time, there were people labeled Renaissance Men (they were all males -- sorry ladies and thems). The word may still be in use, but the definition has changed. These people used to know everything there was to know about human knowledge. 

Millions of people are inventing new things and ideas every day now. Nobody can be expected to keep up. We are inadequate to the task. With no universally trusted sources and growing complexity, there’s no answer in sight.

Back to our anti-Israel example. This current episode is part of a series. The kids who are protesting only watched the latest one. Their perspective is limited and narrowly focused. They need a “bad guy” to pin this human tragedy on, so they picked one -- historical perspective be damned!

Historical perspective could save us, but it’s too much work. Who wants to study the background of every issue facing us, when we can just pick a side and go with it? 

In the 1930s, the German economy was bad. People needed a fix. Along came Adolf Hitler, who blamed the whole thing on the Jews. Just get rid of them and we can go back to…oh, let’s just call it MGGA! We’ll use fear and intimidation to get everyone in line. Sound familiar? Hamas does it. Trump likes this strategy, too. 

If you’re a fan of Mazlow, you might know his hierarchy of needs: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization (in order from base needs to the more esoteric). Note that if you threaten someone with fear and intimidation, you are messing with hard-wired reactions. It’s powerful…and effective. Despotic leaders everywhere know this.

The profile of the despotic leader throughout history is well understood. Yet, our lack of historical perspective leads us back to these people again and again. They offer us simple solutions to complex problems. Those other guys were making our heads hurt with all of their nuance. Why can’t the world go back to being simple? Maybe the slogan should be MASA (make America simple again).

Unfortunately, nobody can do that. Our puny brains can’t keep up, so we make stupid choices in the name of simplicity. 

One more case in point before I leave you, dear reader. DEI, which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion, sounds like something everyone can get behind. Why is the social justice movement corrupt? The answer is complex, but Liberals would have you think it’s simple.

We have a history of racial discrimination in this country. Few would deny that. Those who do probably long for the “good old days” when being white meant you were special. The reality is that the vast majority of people don’t feel that way anymore. They accept that we’re all just people trying to live together.

DEI comes along and it casts our problems in racial terms. There’s a fundamental flaw with that thinking. Since the 1980s, rural America has been under attack. Agribusiness, bankers, lawyers, and insurance companies have decimated once-thriving economies. The mechanization of many jobs held by people across this country has destroyed the economies of small industrial towns.

While there are a lot of non-whites who suffer economic hardship due to the historical facts of their lineage, there are a lot of white people in the same boat for different reasons. When DEI initiatives exclude them from the party because of the color of their skin…let’s just say that it’s no surprise they want to burn the whole thing down.

Once you do the work to understand the whole picture, people’s crazy behavior starts to make sense. But that’s just too much work for most people. We just don’t have the time to keep up. So, we pick a side and hate the other one. Our technology is destroying us, and we’re helpless to stop it. Happy fucking Friday!

Suckers!

 

Last year I wrote a post about Hate. Since then, I have seen the situation get worse. Our two political parties, I will call them A and B for my purposes, have found the secret weapon to keep us divided. And people are piling on! The secret weapon is hate. 

I'm reminded of Dr. Seus' Butter Battle Book, a Cold War parable. In it, you see the signs of hate manifesting. While our differences are less trivial than how we butter our bread, the techniques are the same. We pick a side. It doesn't matter which one. We call the other side our enemy. We must defeat them!

The A party wants to ban books. The B party wants children to read whatever they want. These narratives are designed to divide. The likely reality is that no sane parent wants their child to read whatever they want. How do we best go about ensuring that our children read books that are age appropriate? Banning them from schools and libraries is one way.

What people believe and what our political leaders tell us they believe are not the same. You will not know this unless you talk with people with different beliefs. Our leaders don't want you to do that. The starker they can make our differences, the more hate they will foment. 

We generally don't talk with people we hate. We do talk with people who have differing viewpoints. If political leaders keep us from talking with one another, they control the narrative. That's just what they want! Meanwhile, life is not getting better for most of us. They're not doing anything about it, and as long as we don't talk with each other, we're not helping either.

We lose -- they win! Suckers!

Dysmis Information

Throughout human history, breakthroughs and social advancements have led to great upheaval. We seem to be in such a moment in history now For millennia, humans communicated primarily via word-of-mouth. News from other parts of the world were virtually non-existent. A common language didn't even exist if travelers were able to physically show up. Then came writing, then the printing press, radio, TV and finally the internet.

Up until the internet, all forms of disseminating information had one thing in common -- a relatively small group of people got to decide what information was shared, how it was shared, and to whom. If we trusted those sources, everything felt right with the system. If we didn't, there were few choices to spread our concerns about the veracity of the information being shared.

The internet changed all that. Now, we all have a voice. If that wasn't enough, we've added artificial intelligence to the mix. We can only imagine the secrets that have been kept from the masses over the course of human history because it was so easy to keep them. Now, it is almost impossible to keep secrets. Once more than a few people know a secret, it gets much easier to spread it because the source of the "leak" will be hard to ascertain.

Secret-keepers need new tools to combat leaks. Mis & dys information are those tools. Hidden among all the completely made up stories about would-be events and activities are actual secrets that have been leaked out. Of course, just as anyone can make a claim about "the true story," others can claim its falsehood. Good luck sorting out the mess. The whole idea here is that you can't.

Case in point: there is a pervasive claim that the U.S. has bioweapons labs in the Ukraine. In an attempt to search for "the truth," here's what I was able to uncover.

1. China and Russia both claim they have evidence of the U.S. facilities and are seeking an investigation
2. I was unable to find any evidence that U.S. officials would welcome such an investigation (which you'd think they'd want if the allegations were false)
3. U.S. based scientists agree that there are U.S. funded bio-research facilities in the Ukraine (but not for weapons research)
4. U.S. officials categorically deny the existence of said labs
5. Some speculate that Russian accusations about bioweapons is a pretense to prepare their own bioweapon attack (because bioweapons are illegal by global treaty, so someone has to break the treaty first)
6. The Russians have repeatedly used bioweapons or sanctioned their use (such as in Syria), whereas there is no record of such usage by the U.S.

These "facts" leave only speculation about the two possibilities: 1) the U.S. does have secret bioweapons labs in the Ukraine and is covering it up by denial, or 2) the Russians have manufactured this story for their own purposes. To date, I was unable to find any actual hard evidence of a U.S. lab. If such facilities did exist, secrecy and security would be at a maximum, so hard evidence would be unlikely.

A small number of people know the real truth. Too bad we have no way to distinguish the liars from the truthers. We will each choose to believe what we want. Our leaders use this ambiguity to divide us. They tell us which of these stories is true, but of course only one of them can be true and that means the others are lying. Maybe they know it or maybe they don't. It's all a big mess.

If we're all going to get along, we need to stop being manipulated by the people we trust. We must learn to live with the ambiguity of not really knowing and demand hard evidence before we declare something factual. The absence of evidence isn't enough. Sadly, it's usually near impossible to disprove a negative. So, if there are no U.S. bioweapons labs in the Ukraine, nobody will ever find evidence that there is, but just because we don't have evidence doesn't prove that they don't exist. It's a conundrum. Those usually suck and this time is no exception.

My advice to you, dear reader, is be skeptical and open-minded. When somebody tells you something that you "don't believe," take a beat to recognize that you're debating over beliefs -- not facts. Acknowledge possibilities and spread skepticism. Only through this widespread practice can "we, the people" start demanding real hard evidence for claims, because as long as leaders can manipulate us with conjecture, they own us.