The nature of truth vs. perception
Writing my post on the inflammatory lies being spread in attempts to kill healthcare reform and reading an interesting article at Slate on the best way to kill those lies got me to thinking about the nature of truth.
Truth tends to be relative. I’m not talking about cold, hard, indisputable fact, but truth. That is, what people believe to be the truth, which quite often, these days, has only the broadest and most unsubstantial link to actual fact.
People will believe the truth is what they want the truth to be. Period. Whether that truth has a basis in fact has little to no effect on if it will be believed. This is why we can end up with people who believe, absolutely, in things like the death panels. People believe that it is true because people they trust said it is true, and everywhere that they choose to go (on the internet, on the news channels they choose to watch on television) also say that it is true. Therefore, it becomes a truth, though a truth not at all centered in factual information.
They do not bother to look to a source that might dispute the validity of such a statement, and if anyone does dispute the validity of such statements, well, the disputer’s facts must be faulty in some manner, because we all know that the truth is the truth, right?
Like seeks like, so we as human beings tend to seek out those who share our opinions. And by seeking out only those sources and communities that share our opinions, the only truths we come across are those which we most want to be true, and so when confronted with facts that run in opposition to that which we’ve heard within those communities and sources is true, those facts must be either wrong or outright lies.
This is why some otherwise intelligent people can believe, in no uncertain terms, that all Muslims are terrorists, Obama wasn’t born an American, and the Democrats are conspiring to kill our grandmas. Every news source they choose to use to find out these things is telling them this, every community they partake in agrees with them on this, and so opinions and lies somehow gain an aura of truth, because dissenting opinions are never sought.
It’s an interesting paradox. Today, thanks to the internet, we have access to as many points of view as there are people, and yet, we only seek out those points of view which agree with our own. Shouldn’t we be using this resource as a way to broaden our minds? Shouldn’t we learn how to filter through the spin and the politics to find the actual facts regardless of how different those facts might be from what we believe?
This is so very true. People don’t like to have their beliefs challenged, less so the more faith they put in them and those that they get those beliefs from. It is rather like Rufus said in Dogma, “I think it’s better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can’t generate. Life becomes stagnant.” Even if certain information sources might have you rolling your eyes and shaking your head at the slant they attempt to pass off as unbiased reporting *coughfoxnewscough* it is better to see that slant and compare it to your own views, if for no other reason than to know how to talk to, and counter the arguments of, the people you are sure to encounter out there that hold firmly to the beliefs espoused by those information sources.
So go, have ideas, and try not to believe too hard.