Do you have a Truthiness problem?
We face the same question about something we are told daily, and probably many times a day. The question is this, “do I believe that?”
We may not stop to ponder the answer to “do I believe that?”; life is too busy to analyze everything, but the input is received, and our brain accepts or rejects some things as wrong or true and moves on (whether conscious of it or not). This process, when automatic, is our System 1 at work.
It would be hard to engage System 2 (the “let's think it through” process).
Let’s test System 1 and System 2, assessing what you believe.
At the bottom of his paragraph is a link to a tweet from Scott Adams (he of Dilbert fame) of a set of what he believes to be hoaxes. Please read the list and ask yourself at each step if you believe this to be true, know it to be true, believe it to be false, or know it to be false. Here we go … this is the link.
How did you do? Could you feel System 1 and System 2 at work? Were there more ‘believe it to be true/false or ‘know it to be true/false?
If you are reading this Substack, I guess you had more ‘believes’ than ‘knows.’ For some people, the idea that some of these things on the list may not be true may have caused them to doubt the whole list. You may have heard about Douglas Adams and dismissed the list without reading it.
The purpose of this piece is not to argue whether any of the lists are true; I am sure you have your opinions, but to consider the shortcuts or biases we use to define what we believe to be true. We all make snap judgments about things and rarely go back and consider them, but it can be helpful to remember that we are doing that. Sometimes we fight for beliefs we have little or no basis for believing.
Do I suffer from Truthiness?
Truthiness comes about when we either believe or disbelieve something based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
Example: I have heard Scott Adams has gone all ‘MAGA’, so I don’t believe anything he publishes.
Of course, most Truthiness is benign, and some are not spending time understanding an issue (because, frankly, who has the time). But it also can be from you building on your ignorance or, worse, someone deliberately trying to mislead you for their purpose. Much of the political advertising on TV around an election, at least in the US, is a perfect example of this. Take something out of context, imply it means something, make it into a headline, and hope someone doesn’t stop and think about it and believe the assertion to be true.
When the issue is complex or complicated, many of us use Substitution Bias to help us. The idea with this bias is that rather than having the time or ability to understand an issue, we look to someone we trust and substitute our beliefs with theirs. Again, this is mostly fine for day-to-day life, but we may have to go back and try and understand what we believe and why.
Avoiding Truthiness
So how do we avoid Truthiness? The most straightforward answer is only to believe some things we are told after checking them first. That is not the same as actively disbelieving it, but being a little skeptical. While skepticism is seen as bad for some, it is just the process of questioning or doubting something we are told. This approach is best applied to a topic such as politics, religion, or science.
Seeing Science in that list may surprise some people – yet the very nature of science is not to believe something until it has been tested and retested. The story of Trofim Lysenko is a lesson to all of us about what happens when science mixes with politics.
Engaging your skepticism can be hard work, and I find these questions useful to help me.
Do I believe something to be true for any of these reasons:
1. Their argument sounded good (Belief bias)?
2. It’s easier for me to accept given what I already believe (Confirmation basis)?
3. Because I have heard it many times before (Illusory truth effects)?
4. It assigns perceived connections between coincidences (Subjective validation)?
I am sure you can think of others too.
One that is missing from this list (because it makes me laugh) is known as the “Rhyme as reason effect” – or in other words, rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful. Sounds silly, right? Well, here is one of the most famous examples: In 1995, in his closing argument at the sensational O.J. Simpson double-murder trial in Los Angeles, lead defense lawyer Johnnie L. Cochran stood before the jurors and urged them to keep this in mind:
“If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.”
Surviving Reality
I faintly remember a line from the Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy about a charter called The Ruler of the Universe. What was said about him was that he was
“a solitary old man who claimed repeatedly that nothing was true, though he was later discovered to be lying.”
That joke always makes me laugh – but probably because it rings true. Is that Belief Bias, Confirmation Bias, or both? Hard to know, but it makes me think about what people tell us and what we believe is a valuable habit. Of course, you might discover something that surprises you, and we don’t all like that. It may just be easier to go on believing what you are told or that maybe just a story you are telling yourself.