"Post-Truth", partial truth

10 Minute read

A few weeks ago, Oxford Dictionaries named “Post-Truth” as it’s word of the year for 2016.

The definition itself contains a clue to the problem – the conflation of “truth” and “fact”*, which we will get to in a minute.

Lately, you can’t read the news or commentators for long before "post-truth” shows up - Brexit and the election of Trump are considered to be large, topical examples of how facts have somehow recently lost their power, and... the world seems to have gone slightly mad.

This is utter rubbish of course – facts have always had limited power, not because facts aren’t correct or important, (even if they are debatable), but because we are human and making various meaning out of objective facts is what we do. Post-truth isn't anything new - it's pretty much everything Post-Neanderthal.

There are a great many moving parts to what this newly-coronated adjective includes, and they all deserve an airing, but I will only point out the most important one (in my opinion) here.

As I said, the problem is contained within the definition. Other representative articles like this one from New Scientist or this one from Forbes, (a quick search will reveal many more) demonstrates how pervasive and insidious I think it is. In "Post-truth” it is “objective facts” (not truth) that are “less influential” than emotion or personal belief. There are two serious problems here, firstly, the words “Fact” and “Truth” are taken to mean the same thing and secondly, it seems implied (in the articles addressing post-truth) that the presence of facts should somehow automatically generate or result in reason.

Problematically, facts are not the same as thing as truths and facts on their own do not influence public opinion, or anything else for that matter.

Observe any human for a few minutes and you will find a lot more than just the rational processing of objective facts going on. People are influenced by culture, emotion, heuristics, reflexive responses, biases and a catalogue of other conscious and unconscious dynamics, many of which are not rational processes. People have always done this and always will, just as facts have always been there for them to do it to.

I could end the article right here by stating that "people derive differing truth from any given fact". That’s the bottom-line, objectively verifiable fact. There's nothing new here either, but the implications go an awful lot deeper, and if we don’t understand them, or how they work, we are going to be subject to limited perspectives, thinking and action and we are going to be confused and divided a lot of the time.

For a slightly better understanding, we need to first differentiate and then re-integrate fact and truth. Again, this is only one among many other important things involved which aren't covered here.

Facts are objective - If I tell you that a bag of stuff weighs 500g, I am stating an objective fact and anyone willing to follow the scientific method can easily verify or reject my claim for themselves, thus the same fact is revealed to anyone willing to carry out the test. The objective sciences are really, really good at this and have brought immeasurable value to our lives through it.

In this case, if my claim is correct then the fact is established and can be commonly held, if not then I either stand corrected or I have told a mistruth. When it’s the quantity of a thing that is in question, differences are relatively easy to resolve.

The truth is subjective, even if it relies on, or is informed by objective facts, truth is held subjectively and contains, in addition to the facts themselves, a complex set of influences such as thoughts, emotions, belief systems, cultural influences and a host more besides, as mentioned above.

Truth is an interpretation of facts. It is not a quantity of a thing, but a non-material quality of human experience. When qualities are in question, things become more complicated because one can’t verify, share or disclose the qualities of truths in the same way as quantities of facts. For one thing, the scientific method used to weigh stuff can’t be used to weigh hate or loyalty, political or ideological affiliation, sexual identity, love, distrust etc. – you need different methodologies for that, and not many people are equipped with them.

Facts aren’t enough to generate rational (or any other) truths on their own. For example, even though our number one phobia has limited basis in fact (the overwhelming majority of spiders are completely harmless to people), doesn't make a scrap of difference to the real-life truth (arachnophobia) that people experience and act on daily.

More serious issues are at stake though when we blur the lines between truth and fact, here’s a sensitive topic to illustrate – it is a fact that Russia has joined the Syrian war on the side of Assad… apart from a great many other actors and influences that are also involved… if that is a fact, what is the corresponding truth…? Assad is bad? He kills a bunch of his own people, oppresses them etc. and because Russia helps him they are also bad?

From the standpoint of the mainstream West, this is a good part of the truth, it’s our official interpretation of the facts that we have to hand. But ask yourself - When Bash and Vlad were working out a cooperation deal, do you think they said – “What this war really needs is a compelling villain! A force of pure evil – why don’t we play that part, against the good guys in the West?”

I doubt strongly that Assad or Putin consider themselves or their cause to be evil, from where they are standing they would claim that the West is the villain based on their truth when they look at the facts.

Now, I am in no way suggesting that Assad or Putin are good guys, or that there is anything at all trivial about a horrific war, I can assure you that I am not – it is a tragedy of grave proportions. My objective is to be a bit controversial and point out that emotional response you just felt – the one that could be claimed to be post-fact / post-truth by someone else, who does not share our take on the facts. Who owns the Post-Truth claim? Brexit or Remain? Republican or Democrat? The West or Assad and Russia?

Or another…

We know that the climate is warming, it’s a fact and there is no doubt about it – what is disputed (or was) is the cause – is it human activity or some other cocktail of natural / cyclical phenomena that best explain the facts? Along these lines, we can broadly differentiate between those who subscribe to anthropogenic climate change (the orthodoxy) and from that lofty position, cast fire and brimstone on those who deny it (the heretic deniers). Again, no judgement, I am only trying to provoke a response - just notice what facts are true to you and how powerfully true they are. I know it's a complex, messy business, that shouldn't be trivialised - just observe your response.

The fact is that facts are rarely equivalent to truths at all, let alone universal ones - even if you’re talking about a 500g bag of stuff – if the bag contains marbles, you think, feel and act one way, if it contains bullets you think, feel and act another way, even butter is controversial if you are talking to a vegan – the fact of mass is meaningless.

Truth therefore, is not as fixed and final, or commonly accepted as we would like it to be – and that’s a fact!

The point of making this distinction at all is to introduce this idea, if truth is an interpretation of fact – what if every fact is always already an interpretation by the time we are aware of it?

Stop for a minute and think about that – What if every fact – every single one – is an interpretation… what if the wholeness of what we think of as true and real, from science and the physical world to God, to our own most cherished beliefs - who we are, all the things that we believe now and that we ever believed – all of it!.. is always…. already… an interpretation? What’s real then? The fact or the interpretation? Can you tell?

If this is the first time you’ve encountered this idea, it might be difficult or impossible to accept, but there is a great big pile of evidence that suggests that this is a large part of what we are looking at. The same set of evidence also predicts that not many people will be able to entertain the idea and fewer still will be able to live like it might be true (or even useful). The idea unsettles a great human desire - the need for continuity, for predictability and ultimately for safety.

We like to think that we’re rational – and we are… to a degree – but read anything from behavioural economics to shock and laugh at yourself as you discover how horribly and predictably irrational we can be. We like to think we see the world as it is, but every developmental psychologist, sociologist, cultural anthropologist, and historian will tell you that that simply isn’t true. We like to think that, given the same set of facts that every reasonable person would (or should) agree – that is, come to the same interpretation – what is often called “self-evident truth”, but patently, we do not.

It may seem like this claim would lead to the inevitable conclusion that there actually is no truth or ultimate reality, and if you hold only one perspective, this would be true. What I am saying is entirely the opposite - that there is a massive amount of truth out there and a great deal of it is valid, healthy and authentic and needs to be included, but it varies between people and groups and over time - the only way to handle it (that I am aware of) is to re-integrate it all by developing the capacity to genuinely take multiple perspectives. The aim is not to find the truest truth and make everyone believe it (how we have tried and failed to do this!), but to be able to work with and integrate the diverse truth that does exist, along with the facts, get it all pointed in a direction for the good of everyone and get amazing results from that.

Doing this can seem impossible, idealistic or even deluded, but I have good reason to believe that it is possible, just really difficult.

The limits of what we can see (physically and figuratively) - i.e. what we can be aware of and what we are aware of - quite literally limits of what can exist in our reality and what we can know about it.

For example, a two-year-old can't feel the emotions of another child and therefore can't empathise with them - it's not a feature of their reality. Sure, they can follow rules that mimic what empathy looks like, which are taught to them by members of their family and their culture, but they can't take another person's perspective yet and therefore can't generate that field of view naturally for themselves. Similar kinds of processes stay with us as adults - we will most likely always have things that we simply can't see.

Larger and more integrated perspectives of what is happening within us, others and the world around us as adults is becoming increasingly important. To illustrate what I mean, consider any life-sphere from politics to healthcare to education to business to families etc. Do the leaders and members of those spheres see everything around them? Are they able to acknowledge it all, connect with it and then make solid, integrated decisions? Or are they unable to see / connect with / accommodate swathes of what's out there? Do they appear fragmented or exclusive, only able to operate on one or a few perspectives or agendas?

No matter how broad, all perspectives are in some way partial - what I mean is, they contribute something good, true and worthwhile and this should be honoured and included. But each perspective naturally has limitations, knowing what these are is a good first step and being able to add other perspectives that balance and complement each other is even better.

Let's take a look at what this one differentiation and reintegration has revealed in summary:

• You can't reduce people to, or explain people by, facts alone - facts are real, but so are thoughts, feelings, intuition and the host of other stuff that makes us human. The facts outside of us have correlated beliefs on the inside - our thoughts and beliefs about those facts - our truth. Facts are easy to see and discuss, belief etc. however isn't as easy to see, but is just as important.
• Whatever we believe is real varies between people, between groups, cultures, organisations and so on. Meaning that facts, even if they are consistent in themselves are not represented the same way by people because interpretations of facts vary.
• Therefore, there isn't one version of the truth (including the one I am presenting here) - even if one day we find the answer to life, the universe and everything, upon which everyone can agree, given the evidence of division we see around us, that is a long way off and it is more practical right now to work with the varying truth that already exists.**
• This means that those who are able to see, understand and work with those variances are going to be the most flexible and successful in a sustainable way - not the ones who bulldoze their way through. It's true, you can still bully your way to unbelievable material success but that is not a sustainable model as the body-count is likely to be high in the wake of that success.
• Facts might not change, but the people perceiving them do - these changes, though not discussed in this article are absolutely critical to understand because the beliefs and behaviours that flow from those changes can appear to be quantum leaps apart from one another. They can however be understood and used very powerfully, but again, this isn't covered here.
• People are motivated to do stuff based on what's valuable and important to them not on facts alone. This is one area where the changes I mentioned in the point above are critical to understanding how to keep people engaged, energised and giving / living their best
• When it comes to change in people there aren’t (m)any quick fixes, you can't force it, and there’s a limit to how much change can be “managed”. Change can be guided, lead, fostered and encouraged much better than it can be managed. A long-term, realistic and informed vision is required to build and sustain healthy growth and change, patch-work fixes like a day-long course on diversity or emotional intelligence is not going to cut the mustard.

Leaders in organisations face versions of these challenges every day and so often get tripped up by them – labour disputes anyone? Politics in the workplace? Personal empire building? Self-promotion at the expense of others and the organisation? Massive egos running rampant? Any of the ism’s? sexism, racism… – anyone ever seen things like this?

These are the products of truth, of meaning-making, not of objective facts and we will continue to be helpless in the face of it and spend our lives fighting fires and legislating countless rules until we understand how meaning-making is done and begin to work with it constructively.

Research indicates that very few of our leaders are able to do the more complex integrations. Not because they are incapable - they are, but because some features of the world around them are being left out of their reality and therefore their processes. Fewer still can take all of that diversity and having integrated it, guide it towards common goals. It's a rare thing in our modern world, but this is exactly what individuals, families, organisations and the world needs.

So, what are we to do? There are three routes available I think - first, do nothing or reject the ideas introduced here. Second, assimilate whatever is useful into your existing knowledge and worldview and have a go at doing something constructive with it. Finally, work with experts who can help accelerate a personal and / or organisational learning process, people who will adapt it to your context and situation and coach you on its implementation. Arete Integral exists for those in the last category - get in touch if you'd like to continue the conversation and see what value can be gained.

Notes:

• *“Fact” and “Truth” are not the terms I would prefer to use to make this differentiation, but they are useful for this discussion – please substitute other terms if that's more helpful.
• ** This notion is controversial - for example, most religions believe that they have found the one true way. The ardent believe this with every fibre of their being and that's fine as long as it remains healthy. Other people, for example domineering or controlling types also think that their way is the best or only one - the problem is that that frame can only be true inside very limited boundaries (the limitations I mentioned earlier) and while they can be very effective within their boundaries, they can't see beyond them and tend to reject as false everything that doesn't find a connection within their worldviews

This post is also available on LinkedIn, and Google +