Our relationship with the amount of information
we have access to is similar. How to process it all? What is a conspiracy
theory and what is truth? How to tell the difference. What to do if it Feels
true?
How did we even get to this reality of multiple
truths?
Before The Plague our relationship with truth
was based on nature. What we could see, taste and touch. Anything outside of
that was ethereal. The Gods or Spirits were in control of it. As plagues
and natural disasters happened throughout history, our relationship with Nature
changed.
We asked questions.
We developed answers.
Those answers worked until the next natural
disaster or plague.
Then…
We asked more questions.
We revised old answers.
We created new answers to new questions.
Our cycle of thought continued until The
Great Plague. It birthed the Renaissance, which changed everything. By
1715-1789 the way we thought about the natural world bloomed into the Age of Enlightenment. All those questions and answers, the seeds of Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, and Ptolmey fed Galileo, Newton, Freud, Jung, and the list
goes on.
Truth was no longer absolute. Truth became
relevant to the facts presented.
The Enlightenment wove together centuries of
philosophy, religion, science and art, birthed from the Renaissance, into a
streamlined conclusion. It is a rubric we all still work from to this
day.
Our current Scientific Method.
Critical Thinking
Skepticism
Rationalizing
Natural History
Liberalism
The Constitution
Separation of Church and State
I could go on, but it is a deep rabbit hole and
that’s what you have the internet for.
With all of the political and social unrest of
late, I keep hearing the terms “Critical Thinking” and “Bias” thrown around. It
only adds to the information confusion. Why?
Because Truth is relative to the experience of
the listener, based on the rules the Age of Enlightenment gave us. Truth is
filtered through the lense of our own experiences, thoughts, philosophies,
pain, pleasures and beliefs. These terms thrown around are meaningless words if
no one takes the time to define them.
For me, they sound like a long list of
criticisms in a never ending argument:
“Check your bias.”
“Think critically.”
“Have common sense.”
“Ya Snowflake!”
“Ok Boomer!”
And scene.
It is right here that I, and most people,
STOP.
They walk away from the conversation.
Why?
No one is listening.
The first rule of the Age of Enlightenment is
forgotten: to be ENLIGHTENED. To be curious. To learn. Take a step back and
weigh all the possibilities. The consequences of harm or benefit. During the
1700s, people would gather in Coffee Houses simply to talk about
opposing views. Do openly discuss and disagree.
However, they did not argue. They debated. The
difference?
An argument is when two people are talking to
prove their own point and not listening to the other. They don’t agree and
oftentimes walk away angry.
A debate is when two people are exchanging
ideas, listening and considering the other person’s point of view. They never
have to agree, however they do walk away on friendly terms.
In a debate, we learn. We expand our knowledge,
empathy, and the ability to form relevant truth.
Add in the plethora of information in media,
internet, podcasts, books, journalism, etc? How does anyone make any sense of
it?
Here is where I start:
First I define terms:
What does Bias mean?
Bias a person’s view of the world. It is our
nature for the world to bend to our senses. Our Ego desires everything to match
up with how we think.
“If everyone would just do what I tell them,
life would be much better.”
The way we process information is the same way.
Our Ego has an idea. It begins to look for evidence to support this
idea. The more it looks for evidence, the more it sees, the more the Ego feels
safer and stronger in it’s point of view. This process is called Confirmation
Bias.
Do I immediately FEEL like it’s right? (red
flag)
Do I immediately agree with it? (yellow
flag)
Does it make me curious? (green flag)
How I respond determines how I investigate. If I
respond in a Red or Yellow flag way, I know that my Confirmation Bias has
kicked in. I need to take a step back and look at some facts. Sometimes that
means looking into opposing viewpoints. However, I keep an eye out for
emotional language and absolutes in their perspective. If I hear either one, I
skip to the next piece of information. I try to set my Confirmation Bias,
Emotions and Beliefs aside while I am information gathering.
What does Critical Thinking mean?
Once I have identified my personal Bias, I can
apply Critical Thinking. My recipe for processing the information I gathered is
this:
Occam’s Razor:
basically states, “the simplest solution is most likely the right one.”
With a dash of Murphy’s Law “Anything
that can go wrong will go wrong.”
My Working Conclusion is the end result. I call
it a Working Conclusion because it isn’t final. My conclusion can change based
on new information. If I call it an absolute Conclusion I am giving into my
Confirmation Bias and no longer thinking critically. I want to stay as far away
from the slippery slope to “Snowflake/ Ok Boomer” land, which leads
absolutely nothing productive.
It is great to have ideas and think them all the
way through to a working conclusion, but what then? How do I turn the idea into
something productive? This is honestly the most important part for me. Whatever
the end result of my Critical Thinking journey, it should help increase my empathy
for others while learning to extend grace to myself. From that point I can
create a plan of action.
It is a swamp of overwhelming information out
there. The trickiest part is figuring out how to get through it all with
sanity, while remembering to Love my neighbor as Myself.
That is what Tenacious Optimism looks like.