One of my favorite sayings is, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Everyone has the right to believe anything they like, no matter how uninformed or ridiculous it may seem to others. I respect people’s rights to do so, but neither I nor anyone else is required to respect an assertion that is not supported by evidence. Saying that this or that politician, athlete, or whomever is the best ever is fine. That’s your subjective opinion, and you have the right to believe it and state it. Why, then, when asked to back the statement up with objectively verifiable facts, do people get so upset? My thoughts:
People are living in their own realities. They have different perceived enemies, different things they accept as “facts,” and different definitions of words. To have a rational, productive discussion, I think it’s important to define definitions that are acceptable to both parties, or the conversation goes nowhere. I’m not going to argue the subject here, but take, for example, people who do not accept a scientific theory because it’s “just a theory.” There is a difference between the colloquial use of “theory,” which most times means a hunch, guess, or personal idea and a scientific theory, which is an evidence-based explanation based on observable facts. As you can see, the waters get murky if the interlocutors can’t or don’t agree on the definitions of terms from the outset.
When critical thinking is weak, these different perceptions are not challenged introspectively. When tribalism is strong, they are defended at all costs. This is where rational discourse seems frustrating and sometimes impossible. You’re not arguing conclusions; people are more often defending a worldview rather than defending facts.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve been involved in a discussion (yes, discussion because none of these could be considered a debate to even the most casual observer) where someone makes an assertion and I ask them for evidence to support their claim. Some of the most common replies are:
“I’m not going to do this with you.” Why not? You brought it up.
“Do your own research. I’m not going to do your job for you.” No, you mean you’re not going to do your job. You made the claim so it’s up to you to support it.
“You’re trying to trap me”. Okay, I’ll give you that one. Sometimes I’m trying to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the statement. Sometimes I’m genuinely curious as to where you got the information and is it something I should consider. In short, what is your epistomology?
In my opinion, the only thing worse than being wrong is thinking you’re right and not knowing you’re wrong. I am willing to adjust my beliefs given sufficient evidence to do so.
Tribalism and disregard for critical thinking offer an emotional security blanket.
What do I mean by that statement? It’s human nature to want to be accepted and to belong. When we’re safe within our “tribe” we have that sense of belonging we most always have a common cause or “enemy”and a certain sense of moral superiority. “We’re better than them because…..”
Applying critical thinking can bring doubt, the risk of being ostracized by our “tribe” and the lack of instant grtification and surety of a decision or worldview.
In my opinion most people, due to perceived social or time restraints choose the emotional reward of conforming to the tribe. This can result in dehumanization of people who hold an opposing view, righteous outrage instead of willing collaboration and a more cynical attitude instead of a problem solving mindset.
So how do we break the cycle? Ask yourself this question. If the truth and your worldview collide, are you willing to accept what is true vs blind allegiance to your current views? Are you okay with being agnostic regarding an issue until you have all the facts or do you feel the need to form and defend an opinion blindly? Can you publically refute inaccurate information from your own side? If we’re all honest with ourselves these are all dificult to acconplish and are far from socially rewarding.
The effects of the media
Remember what I said about defining terms?
- from the oxford dictionary: the main means of mass communication (broadcasting, publishing, and the internet) regarded collectively
I felt it necessary to define the term due to the constant bickering about the “mainstream media”. I use the term in this instance as an all encompassing term for the information overload we all deal with in a daily basis.
Before the advent of the 24-hour news channels and social media algorithms, most people got their information from a relatively small number of shared sources. None of these relied on the number of clicks, the number of ads, or the court of public opinion. To quote Walter Cronkite, “And that’s the way it is.” Am I naive enough to think there was never any type of bias? Of course not. But we now have, in many cases, accepted the addition of editorializing each news story whereby the reporters feel it necessary to give their opinion or rephrase quotes for the simpletons among us who they seem to think don’t have a basic grasp on the English language. Couple this with the seemingly unending amount of podcasts, video clips, and talk shows, and it’s easy to see how confusion and division can spin out of control. One of the most grating quotes I hear is “I read/checked/verified/pick your verb so you don’t have to.” Are there certain people who I trust more than others to do so impartially? Sure. That does not, however, relieve me of the obligation to make sure what they are saying is factual. Trust but verify, if you will. I hear statements from podcast hosts like, “This has not been reported by the media.” Really? Then how did you find out about it? Almost every time this is said, a two-minute internet search will produce the original story reported somewhere either by a local radio or TV station or newspaper. The fact that every single story published anywhere should or could be shown by every major news outlet is laughable. When you see this happen, do a deep dive and see how many stories that align or don’t align with your worldview appear nationally. This is just a tactic to get views and stoke moral outrage against the “other.”
The other result we got from the “back in my day” style of reporting is something I like to call “accidental agreement”. By that I mean we saw stories that may have conflicted with our own ideas. We didn’t have the option of watching or listening to only the network which fortified our ideas. We were exposed to the stories in a more unfiltered and edited style and had to digest the information ourselves. Our discussions were almost always in person. We didn’t have the luxury of faux anonymity behind a computer. If people interacted face to face the way they sometimes do online, most would have few friends at best or would be incarcerated at worst. The constant social media and news feeds and the ability to react without filter or consequence have eliminated the chance for outrage, justified or not, to cool before speaking. This leads to some people skipping verification, reacting before they think and confusing intensity with importance. Remember the highway signs that said “Speed Kills”? While that remains true on the road, it also applies to the ability to exercise critical thinking.
More to come, if you made it this far and can stand it.
The Round Table 