I've been thinking a lot recently about truth.
There are things we consider to be binary true or false. Things involving numbers tend to be either right or wrong, black or white. But once words and emotions are involved, it of course gets a bit grey-er.
A podcast came into my feed recently called Decoding the Gurus. They've attempted (poorly in my opinion) to subvert various experts in their field from a position of relative mediocrity. Now, I’m all good with people being challenged, but this was mostly geared towards breakfast-radio style slapstick-timed putdowns of carefully-selected soundbites.
Pretty cheap in my eyes and might as well have had sirens and fart noises on it. But that’s a stylistic thing. My real issue was that these guys don’t really do the job. It’s personal attack rather than practical challenge and relies on the preconceptions and biases of its audience to the heavy lifting. They’re far from the only ones at it of course but if you’re a cynic, and you’re looking for something like this to fly in the face of someone you don’t like, it’s great.
I’d argue that this creates the same kind of confirmation bias as what it purports to ‘decode’. If you’re anti Sam Harris (for example) then a podcast that debunks his theories is going to land on very attentive ears whereas if you’re a fan, you’re going to lap up his podcast and find others like it that go along with your already-formed views. This is a known phenomenon and far from a new idea. But it's not balanced and doesn't encourage critical thought.
Self-aware people accept that they are drawn in directions they want to go. It’s is easy when you’re not in it. The (bigger) question therefore is, how do we decide what’s true when we’re being rational? We’ve always trusted experts. But they’ve been wrong. So questioning experts is a good thing, but trusting them is also kinda handy, unless you want to spend a LOT of time reading and not taking action on any things, ever.
New and different things become true as we learn more things and there is always a place for challenge, that much is obvious. Even if it’s handled badly and doesn’t actually do the job it sets out to do.*
Theorising
Theorising is, by definition, the process of forming theories. And that’s all they are, theories.
How okay is it then, for people like Harris and Yuval Noah Harari (also the subject of an episode of the aforementioned podcast) to theorise and call it truth? Or alternatively, are we expected to assume that what they say can be taken with a pinch of salt?
That very much depends on whether you think they’re calling it truth. My reading of Harari is that he’s theorising - thinking aloud at us for entertainment purposes about things he’s conflating and things he thinks might be true. I accept that this is enticing to my mind and I enjoy consuming the content. Some people have a problem with this, some people don’t. My goal here is to explore why.
Science
OK, newsflash time….
Not everything everyone says in a book has been proven by randomised control trials or studies.
I know. This won’t make it onto the Guardian’s front page**. Often, issues are too big for scientific study to even be possible. Another book I read recently*** talks about the problems with the research into screen time and plummeting mental health. That’s a big old issue and the book makes the very good point that both terms are really nebulous and that research requires dealing with literally trillions of data points. Add to that the studies are often based on self-reported data and you have confounders all over the shop. If you like binary answers to things, this is a Very Big Problem.
Therefore if something’s not ‘proven’, can it therefore not be truth and even talked about? It gets sticky here as by shutting down the theories we’re potentially limiting further thought and, more importantly, conversation. By ‘conversation’ here I mean in its wider definition; not just people taking to each other, but a massive soup of humans on podcasts, in books, institutions and down the pub. The hive mind, if you will.
Truth and the Hive Mind
When thinking about what truth is, it might be useful to consider how we learn things and more specifically, what is a ‘hive mind’? By this term I mean group learning. Sharing, listening and generally doing a group analysis of the world to arrive at a consensus of understanding. Humans have been doing this for a really long time….but how functional is it? I would say that it’s arrogant to think that we, now, in 2024, can do better.
So it’s OK to write a book of theory, right? Let’s face it, some of the things that get called ‘true’ in the name of religion are pretty close to the bone. And some of the (other) particularly fruity ideologies in the world on both sides of the political spectrum are painting some pretty fuzzy pictures to get clicks and devotees. And it’s apparently ok for them if you're on whatever team.
The point is, Truth isn’t always provable or disprovable by science as we know it. It therefore becomes a debate without a binary answer and for some reason, this seems to scramble people’s eggs. What I’m getting at here is that we do have the scientific method but there are a lot of things that we don't know, and a lot that we don’t know that we don’t know. And a lot of things it doesn’t apply to.
Imagination
So we accept that people think things. And that leads them to sometimes think more things. And that this sometimes leads to Good Places, sometimes Bad.****
I do believe that humans have amazing imaginations. We are incredible problem solvers and a lot of that has come from the idea of imagining things to be possible before making them real***** and SHARING those thoughts. Therefore doesn’t it follow that If we are not allowed to think beyond what’s true and talk about it then it becomes really difficult to have more ideas and progress as a species?
By way of example, this blog is also very loose on evidence. This is just me brain farting at the world. Should I cease and desist from saying things because I don't have references for all of it? That's not the point of this and I'm certainly not expecting anybody to buy anything or take any action. This is just a way for me to unapologetically think, and you shouldn’t expect a reference section anytime soon. Have a google and message me if you find owt untoward.
There is however, a conversation to be had about power here. We are all acutely aware of the debate around platforming hate and I want to be clear that if you're encouraging division and violence then you can do one. That's not what this is about though, this is about thought, and the compound aquisition of knowlege without agenda. I don't know where the line is but I believe there is a difference. Who is on the right or wrong side of a mythical and subjective line isn't the point of this. Nor is the question of whether these people actually hate others or whether they just have a different set of beliefs.
It's impossible to tell, really.
Medium
There are a lot of ways to get your point (ie - content) across these days. You could write a book, start a podcast, communicate with emojis, start a business that solves a problem (may FAVOURITE kind of activism) or stand outside an embassy waving a placard.
Definitely the medium that you are using affects HOW you communicate. One trend I’ve noticed is that podcasting and TV interviews are more given to so-called pontification because people can just talk more than they think. Certainly, the Russell Brands and Jordan Petersons of this world are heavily guilty of word salad, mostly to sound intelligent in my opinion. If you are writing you are forced to consider every word because it takes a long time and you can review and edit, though the rewards in terms of money and attention are weighted differently.
Yet we live with the realities of economics. Which affects EVERYTHING, no matter how unpalletable that is to some. So where does truth meet earning a crust? Consider Pop Music. No one could argue that the economics of making it has always driven its creation and is arguably at its genesis as a genre. Which affects the truth of it. In this case, it’s truth in creation rather than news, but you get the idea. I covered that in my other blog about story.
In short, we accept that telling people what they want to hear versus speaking truth gets attention and my read of the situation is that we’re adjusting for that. Trust in experts is waning, with mixed results. But then, experts are less rare and (probably) less trustworthy on average as a result. So it’s all homogenising over time. Fine by me.
For example, I have a chronic illness. Who am I going to for advice? JUST medical professionals? Fuck no. The idea seems laughable to me when there is SO much information out there, I know some pretty clever people myself, and there is no way that the medical establishment can keep up with all of the tendrils of research anyway. I’m not denying the usefulness of modern medicine, but considering it omnipotent? Nah.******
One micro example of the hive-mind in action, I reckon.
Cynicism and Trust
Are people actually under-researched just because they don't reference? Everything? It doesn't mean that they've not done the reading, but where does a meta-analysis of a subject meet presenting evidence for every single point that you make? I would posit that this is where the difference is between cynicism and trust.
We can never know the inner workings of someone's brain. We can never be sure or not whether they are conflating things for their own ends or to make a point that they're already invested in. We can never tell whether they’re challenging themselves or staying in their lane. Or being honest. Most of the time, people don't know the difference themselves and it's just tricky. All we can then do is rely on people we trust to question THEMSELVES.
I’ll give you an example, this past year I’ve been engaged in trying to form a new company. In order to form this company i’ve had to engage the services of people who are very skilled in their field. More skilled than I could ever be without literally doing a PhD in Law and another one in Accountancy ******* which are areas I have a relatively tiny amount of knowledge (or interest) in.
Now, how do you choose a supplier for a service when you don’t really understand what they do? The answer for me has always been to get to know another person and trust them. What other actual data do you actually have on which to make this decision? It gets even trixier when you are relying on this person to keep you safe and/or the stakes are very high. More peril doesn’t change the rules. Many movies have relied on this very basic idea.
Philosophy and Thin Slicing
For me, this is where philosophy meets science. And to be clear, we need philosophy too. The difference between philosophy and theory is….? Maybe we could call Harari and ask. Or call him a philosopher instead? Would that make the things he says OK?
What about religion and where that meets philosophy? Buddhism accepts the idea that humans aren't actually designed to understand the big questions. All we can ever do is consider them from a position of not having big enough brains to get actual answers. This is obviously wide open to corruption by so-called gurus with so-called answers, but again doesn’t change the rules. I'm doing the same thing here, just I'm not selling anything, only throwing big questions around. Monetization is a different conversation, it’s just that money is more immediate than philosophy.
Matt Manson (Existentialist) plays with the idea that that we can be rational about small things (like whether to park closer to the supermarket door or whether to lean on a hotplate) but trying to be rational about big things leads to overwhelm and bias because there is too much contradiction.
This is helpful, and sits alongside the even more extreme idea that you can only truly understand the thought of another person through art or poetry. I’m sure the RCT fans would disagree, but it’s an interesting idea given that language is NOT thought. So who’s to say what’s right?
A good book to read on this is Gladwell - Blink, where he coins the term ‘thin slicing’ and grapples with this a lot. His observation is that we’ve been doing this for a long time, but have largely lost faith in it and are out of practice. This kind of thinking is really important as a gateway and these kinds of writers are really important as a gateway. ********
I read somewhere recently that we have loads of Philosophy teachers, but no philosophers. I would argue this is because we’ve stopped welcoming them and what we need is more people thinking about the big things and accepting that they won't get to the answers but take joy and value from the journey********* See my other blog about purpose
Discourse and Discussion
In that vein, I’ve heard a lot of talk about content creators who are (in their words) “Just asking questions” and whether or not that is toxic. I get the question. There are platforms and audiences, and sometimes people take things literally and act poorly. But what does this trend mean in the wider context? The ever-valuable Brenee Brown did a podcast about free speech which unpacks this very thing **********
I sit on the side of discourse being good by default. It’s how we learn and I will die on that hill. Certainly we don't want people causing harm, but this all speaks back to the reasons why people are doing things. Not all of these people are in it for the money or because they hate you. Some of them actually want answers to questions that they are not being given which comes from their own valid fears and (shock) actually wanting the world to be a better place.
It also leads to contrarianism and otherism which are energy-sapping. So how do you tell the difference? You guessed it! It’s up to you and whatever you choose you are neither right or wrong.
My takeaway here is that whether western or eastern, our oldest enduring philosophies and social frameworks tend to be about embracing the contradictions in other humans and life, rather than finding ways to form tribes.
Who is REALLY clever?
Where is the line between thinking and building on evidence? I would gently compare citing evidence and using isms as a weapon to shut down conversations as name-dropping. All you’re doing really is using crowbars that might well be totally irrelevant to anyone else to prove a point. We of course need to draw maps of thought, especially when relying on the woefully inadequate mechanism of language. Evidence is valuable, but thinking for yourself is OK too, and I hope it normalises / re-normalises.
So how do we rationalize this with intelligence? There is a school of thought that says that if you're really intelligent, you are likely to be less moderate because you have thought really hard about the things that you understand to be true. Dangerous right? And it removes the instinct for plasticity and lateral thought, because if you consider yourself an arbiter then you’re less likely to be plastic. And probably have loads of evidence / references / names to drop.
Even very clever humans hate change*********** Obviously there is an optimum balance here. But honestly, I would rather speak to someone who doesn't understand politics and economics than to a PhD about politics and economics. Because these are constructs and it’s common knowledge that the theories and modelling don’t translate to the real world all that well. Better to be a dabbler and stay in the beginners mindset.
Of course, neither side of this coin is the right one. Both strategies are valid. And a combination of the two is probably going to yield the most fruit in the long run. The point is that it’s all OK. Theorise, pontificate, research, do your thing.
Conclusion - Should we care?
My general strategy for life is to not form opinions and it’s served me really well. I have a few things that I consider myself learned enough about to discuss, and I love a rant / rabbit hole, but outside of that I’m shrugging a LOT. This is a conscious choice. I find I learn more this way and I find myself in less pointlessly combative situations.
If people object to or support the things you say, they have formed an opinion. That’s fine. They have the right to form that opinion of you, but you have the right to ignore it if it’s negative and question it if it’s positive. In my world, the right to an opinion has to be earned. If someone feels that I’m pontificating above my station, I have the option to decide whether or not I give a fuck. ************
Science is about truth, yet it’s regularly and widely rejected because humans have a complicated relationship with truth. The reality is that we don't want it most of the time. Humans often (mostly) prefer fuzzy social connections to uncomfortable scientific facts.
Our very phisiology and evolution makes it so. To communicate effectively, we have to meet people where they are whether we like it or not. You can’t pick and choose what side of the faithfulness coin you’re on issue-by-issue if you ever want to have a productive conversation.
Not doing this is of course your right. No-one is forcing you to connect with humans, they’re a messy and irritating bunch. But the main issue I have here is when people pitch hate as hope. If you’re going to shit on someone, at least own it rather than making out it’s for everyone else’s good. That’s yet more confounding data.
Getting on other people’s island is difficult, but necessary if we’re going to connect and progress on anything. Shouting at billionaires won’t stop them rebuilding Notre Dame or doing anything else you don’t like. And it certainly won’t stop them existing.
Talk to each other. But mainly listen. More new things will come that way, and we all win. Tribalism is not collectivism and wondering is not an attempt at persuasion.
With love,
Ax
*I’m a fan of these guys, can you tell? Hyperlink omission wasn't an accident.
**A publication which is every bit as guilty of click-bait journalism as its supposed opposites.
***Pete Etchells - Unlocked. A book I only read, because someone was patronising to me on the Internet. To be perfectly honest I found the book as patronising as the person who mentioned it. Some VERY solid points though and if you're a screen-time scaremonger, it's a good counterpoint.
**** If the Wright brothers hadn’t looked at a bird and thought that they could sit a human on one and fly it then we wouldn’t be jetting off to Thailand now, would we? Some people would of course think this is a good thing but I’ll save the carbon pie-chart for another blog
*****I quite like the word ‘Imagineering’. Coined by Pixar and shamelessly stolen by entrepreneurs. It’s only really in here because I know some people will squirm. Not sorry.
****** My recent experience of the medical establishment, and their unwavering, willingness to ring fence, my medical information based on what appears to be nothing other than a supercilious ideology is probably food for another post at some point. But I'm so angry at the moment I can't really think about it.
******* Is that even a PhD?! Do they just do maths? I don’t know. And I never will.
******** I have a new niece and these are conversations and books I look forward to sharing with her, maybe before she forms too many opinions she can learn how not to.
*********As a career generalist, this suits my narrative VERY well. Mindset is a brilliant book about this.
********** Spoiler alert - it's really complex. And when it all comes down to it, there is no right answer.
*********** We all have that friend who’s got four degrees but can’t tie their shoes, right?
************ If you subscribe to this idea then Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations is pontification. That text and the ideas within it will outlive you, and me.
