Day 231: Who Do We Trust?

This could be one of the most obvious statements in the history of mankind: There’s a lot of uncertainty in the world. Technically, that is true all the time. We can’t predict the future, but most of the time we have a pretty good idea of how the next few days or weeks are going to go based on our lifestyle, short term goals, and our past experiences. But with COVID-19 and the quarantine, “I don’t know” has become a common statement in the professional and personal world. The term "Fake News" is flippantly used to discredit another person's opinion. Enough people are supporting conspiracy theories that they become truth. But what is truth? If enough people believe something, does that make it true? Does there have to be evidence for something to be true? Will we eventually come to an agreement or will this seemingly simple idea become even more chaotic?

The human mind does not like ambiguity. The brain spends its day solving problems, however minuscule or daunting. Its purpose is to help us achieve goals through tasks. So, when uncertainty arises the body becomes stressed. We want to know the answer! Think about when your favorite drama ends on a “cliff hanger” — that feeling that bubbles up from the stomach and shoots out our fingertips until we press Next Episode. It is so hard not to know the ending, the answer.

And although our mind likes to have all the checkboxes checked, we also crave that mystery in television and movies. It’s exciting. Our stress levels elevate in anticipation rather than despair. Even some of us enjoy the little dramas that flow through our friend's lives. We like the drama as long as we are the ones watching it. It’s entertainment.

There are so many theories and opinions about every major event and issue that this world faces. There are as many perspectives as there are people. Absolute truth becomes hazy. The opinions of the majority or the loudest voices tend to become the types of truths that we gravitate towards. That is not to say that there is no truth in the world, but what the majority of what we witness and what we encounter in terms of world events is through a secondary source. We were not there, so we have to trust someone.

The older sources of information are radio, television, and newspapers. Now we have blogs, websites and television programs that call themselves news, YouTube videos create by self-proclaimed experts, shows about alien theories on the History Channel, and the list goes on and on. There are so many sources of information today that people are overwhelmed with data. Think about when your computer is overloaded and the hourglass or color circle is spinning. If we consciously took the time to process all the sources of information that we come across we would look like that spinning circle. Instead, the mind works much quicker and, most of the time, unconsciously decides what we are going to believe and not believe based on our past experiences.

We choose to seek out a particular news source. We choose to watch YouTube videos about time travel and past lives. We choose to listen to one talking head or another. And most of the time we make those choices because we want to validate our opinions. And sometimes we make those choices because our opinions were once validated and now we would feel like a fraud if we decided not to trust that source anymore. We would be wrong. And the mind doesn’t like that either.

We seek out sources of information in order to learn something new and hopefully be correct in our assumptions. When we are incorrect in our assumptions we can either choose to change our opinion or choose to not believe the source of information. The mind tends to choose the former in an effort to protect itself.

[My opinion is that the mind does this because being wrong inadvertently hurts the ego and self-esteem. If we could be comfortable with being wrong, these arguments may be different.]

It is this kind of self-protection that I try to break away from, especially when I am reading or viewing information in which I may not appreciate or agree with. I try to understand that the amount of information from different sources is vast and people’s opinions are not necessarily going to be based on the same information I have experienced. The way I like to put it is: We are living our own movies; unfortunately, I haven't seen yours and you haven’t seen mine.

So, who can we trust besides ourselves? That is the question as individuals we get to choose every moment of every day. We inherently trust ourselves and those that agree with us, which leaves little room for potential growth and good discussion. But I believe growth and good discussion need to stem from facts backed by primary sources and sources that are held accountable for what they say or print. That narrows down the search a lot.

The source(s) of information that will trust over all others is the newspapers. The reason being is that to be a good journalist you not only have to be a decent writer but, more importantly, you have to be a good investigator. The entire purpose of journalism is to find out the truth about the world and report it through print. Quality newspaper articles do not express an opinion; they write the proven facts of an event with a narrative. There is no agenda and the reader is left deciding how they feel about the information. Professional journalists' articles are scrutinized through multiple editors and fact-checkers. If the editor finds out they lied about a source or fabricated information, the journalist will get fired. The same is not true for all media companies and websites that claim to be a news source.

The biggest issue we face today is that there is fake news out there. A lot of it! There are YouTube videos, Facebook memes, and thousands of websites that claim to be news. And I don’t even think we should call it fake news anymore. It should be called false information. Calling what is not even close to being “news” fake still brings to mind the word news. That, in turn, makes it easier for people to believe that highly qualified professionals that work for major newspapers and television networks are on the same level as some random website.

I think about this whole discussion about Truth from the eyes of a historian. Historians use the evidence that is available to them to form an opinion. And they question every source that isn't primary. They then use that evidence to explain to the world why they think the way they do. The same goes for an astronomer or a botanist. Those people train their whole lives to be better at what they do in order to reveal the truth about the world. And although scientists and astronomers and journalists have made mistakes in the past, I think they are the best source of information because their opinions are based on evidence. That is all we can ask of Truth. Where is the evidence?

No matter where we choose to get our news or information, we should always ask ourselves where they got their information: What is the evidence that they have in order to write and say the things they do? Whether or not the information aligns with my opinion is irrelevant. The purpose of seeking out information should be to seek out the truth. And unless we see it with our own eyes, we are relying on someone or something else for that information.

I am paraphrasing this quote: Ten people standing around a room seeing an elephant for the first time will give you ten different descriptions of that animal. But if one person is able to see the elephant from ten different angles, they will have a much better picture. We should each be that one person, trying to see the elephant from many angles. Only then will we have a better idea of truth.

---

Author's Note #1: The answer is dogs. We can trust dogs.

Author's Note #2: I bet the only reason you clicked on this is because there was a picture of a dog.

---

Image by Moshe Harosh from Pixabay