On facts, truth, religiosity and kindness
The yawning chasm between facts and truth is underpinned by forms of religious zeal that often confound. Is there a way to bridge that chasm?
One of the great puzzles in life comes from understanding others whose perception of reality differs sharply from our own. We see it in many areas, the most obvious perhaps is around climate change. Another is the debate surrounding the efficacy of vaccination. Yet another is Brexit. In my old world of enterprise apps it was around cloud or the supremacy of one vendor over another. At a more prosaic level I see similar issues attached to the topic of productivity.
I see this as a puzzle because while it is possible to understand two sides of the same coin, we are encouraged to take positions. It was something I did (and continue to do) on a daily basis, but then I’m usually careful to explicitly state my position and it’s underpinning principles. Very often though, I find people taking positions they cannot explain other than ‘that’s the way things are.’
I don’t know if I’m plain weird (probably), a natural curmudgeon (almost certainly) or simply curious (I’d like to think so.) But what I’ve discovered is that truth has little to do with facts and much more to do with faith in a particular set of beliefs.
If what I see is vaguely correct (note my extremely careful choice of words,) then it appears to me that what people believe to be truth is largely based on a mystical, some might say religious, belief in how aspects of the world work. This can be a good thing but too often it leads to a lack of critical thinking. I’ll give an example from my old world, not as criticism but as critique of how this works.
I spent many years attempting to understand the world of enterprise software. In that time, certain vendors emerged as de facto segment leaders as measured by revenue and/or market share. As often happens, these leaders acquire almost cult like status with all the accoutrements that go with it and a degree of fanatical following that supports their position. If you know the firms to which I’m alluding you know what I mean.
But here’s the problem: technology is an ever evolving topic and what constitutes a leader today might be usurped tomorrow. Those same firms act to reinforce their position with the notion of things like pointing to market share or the proliferation of ‘best practices’ in the mistaken belief these act as moats against competition that validate their supremacy.
I say mistaken because when viewed objectively, market share is always a temporary measure and best practices represent the lowest common denominator, an average at best. The trouble is that those who are heavily invested in those firms end up blinkered to alternative possibilities. Self preservation kicks in to maintain the status quo. It’s a human instinct that in my view keeps checks on a person’s ability to see beyond the here and now.
And so it is in other areas of life. There are those who believe the world is flat. Laughable to many, those who hold that position do so from a world view that is understandable with a fair degree of logic thrown in. It’s a bit like religion, a topic that intrigues me even though I hold no specific beliefs. I have Muslims, Mormons, Rastafarians and ‘regular’ non-conformist Christians in my family. I’ve seen at first hand how faith in religious belief leads to the development of deeply held truths, even when those same truths seem at odds with facts.
Having said all that, there is one aspect of religiosity from which we can all draw in our efforts to discover truths. In a short video by Scott Galloway, (see top of this story) he notes that while a ‘rabid atheist’ he worries that the recent precipitous fall in American church attendance is leading to a loss of ‘connective tissue’ that binds large groups of people together in ‘loving the poor…as something that’s worthwhile.’
Throughout his talks and podcasts, Galloway talks a lot about empathy and the need for decency in society. In listening to him I get the sense of a person who is driven by the desire to get his piece of the American Dream while at the same time questioning what it takes to get there. It’s a common problem and one with which I’ve had my fair share of struggles. How does this relate to facts and truth?
As I watch the growth of an increasing trend towards polarised views and opinions on almost every part of life that matters, I worry that facts which inform positions are getting lost on the battered anvil of an unraveling of our ability to empathise with those who hold different positions. That creates conditions where crossing the chasm between facts and truth, let alone appreciating the potential of alternatives, is a fool’s errand. In the end we just stop listening, content with yelling at each other. In the endgame, we stop thinking and lose our sense of curiosity at what is around us.
Is it any wonder then that so many of our problems seem intractable? Is it any wonder that we watch business leaders taking decisions that fly in the face of established authority? Is it any wonder there is no consensus about how the world of work needs to evolve in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic? I could go on but you get the picture.
Having painted what even I think is a pretty depressing picture I firmly believe we can all still learn. It just requires one simple step. When faced with a view that is diametrically opposed to what you believe to be true then stop and ask what makes that other person so sure of their truth and is there a way to establish even the tiniest bit of common ground? It won’t work on every occasion but I’ve yet to meet the person who didn’t appreciate being listened to.
And then I stumbled across a story from JPRangaswami. It tells of a recent time when he lost his mobile phone but was quickly reunited through the kindness and trust of strangers. He says:
Three people. Three people I’d never seen before, much less met or known. Three people who offered their help unasked. Three people who did their simple acts of kindness without any expectation of any reward or return whatsoever.
Three people who chose to help a stranger. Because they thought it was the right thing to do.
JP frames this in the context of how humans step in where machines cannot. It’s a good way to use this story but for me, the real punchline was this:
Trust implies uncertainty, vulnerability. Humans are able to make decisions to trust strangers because they can. Every day, humans do make decisions to trust strangers because they feel it’s the right thing to do. Sometimes they’re wrong to do so. Sometimes they’re not.
Uncertain, vulnerable. Willing to treat other humans with respect and with dignity. The computer might not be able to say anything, but I can.
It made me realise that while crossing the apparently impossible chasm requires much more than listening. It demands that we be kind to one another in the interests of doing the right thing. Is that so hard when the rewards are so great?
Have you read "Humankind: A Hopeful History" by Rutger Bregman? It is an interesting read regarding 'societal glue'.
My personal opinion is that 'religions' are no different from the enterprise sw companies you write about. Once they become established with income, assets, and hierarchies, there are vested interests that ensure sclerosis.