A Balanced Approach to Truth-Seeking in a Post-Truth World
A Psychological-Sociological Framework for Pursuing Truth and Understanding Why Truth is Public Enemy No. 1
Let’s get the uncomfortable part out of the way first, which I will frame with the following questions: how much do we really know? In the entire field of knowable phenomena, how much (or how little, rather) first-hand knowledge do we each have? Consider that we exist suspended, as it were, between two chasms of incomprehensible magnitude: the quantum realm and the cosmos as a whole. How much do we really know about these vast, mysterious expanses and their effects upon us? Consider too that our sensory perception is but a pinhole through which we perceive just a sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum in the form of visible light. Our hearing and sense of smell are also extremely limited, especially compared to other creatures. How much do we really know about our immediate environment—this “frequency soup” we find ourselves in—in any given moment? Furthermore, consider another two chasms that we exist suspended between: the yawning, infinite past and the unknowable future. Even with regard the present moment, as we stand careening on a planet with over 8 billion people and almost 200 countries, we have to admit that we really know precious little about what is going on.
The uncomfortable truth is that we rely on others for something like 99.9% of what we think we “know,” and those that we rely on for knowledge also know next to nothing themselves. Compounding this predicament is our current state of rampant specialization. We are sequestered and compartmentalized into various professional fields and chastised for attempting to learn and express knowledge outside of our “place,” which is walled-in by imposing and overpriced educational institutions and their gatekeepers. While specialization is certainly valuable and necessary to some extent, it should be balanced with a holistic, comprehensive understanding of the world, or rather the dedicated pursuit thereof. Yet, we are largely turned off of such a pursuit early on by the superficiality and the curiosity-squashing dictates of our educational system. It only gets worse from there, as internal and external factors coalesce to keep us divided, disinterested, and distracted. It’s amazing what we can know—what knowledge we can glean when we apply our best practices in tandem with a healthy awareness of our own internal biases (much more on that later), but it’s also amazing how vulnerable we are to manipulation and being taken advantage of in this current paradigm. Keep that in mind as we proceed into the connection between unknowingness and fear, the latter being the most potent human emotion for both motivation and manipulation.
H. P. Lovecraft (1890-1937), the famous American fantasy and horror fiction writer, once wrote that “The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.”1 Modern support for this premise can be found in an article by Nicholas Carleton, a professor of psychology at the University of Regina in Canada, who posits in the Journal of Anxiety Disorders that “fear of the unknown may be a, or possibly the, fundamental fear.”2 One might argue that the fear of death is more fundamental, but aside from being driven by basic survival instinct, the fear of death must also be rooted in the fear of the unknown, for who can honestly say that they know what will happen after death? Coupled with the fact that we do not know whether or not we existed before birth, and we have yet another dual aspect of unknowingness that our lives hang suspended between. Surrounded by this thick, existential mist of unknowingness, within which lurks perhaps the greatest fear known to humankind, it's no wonder that so many resort to coping mechanisms that offer a grounding sense of certainty, however unevidenced and illogical.
Thus a prevalent challenge to truth-seeking is feigned knowledge and certainty, which manifests on extreme ends of a spectrum as cynicism and gullibility (see image above). There are many apt synonyms that could be used here instead, but the exact terminology is unimportant. Just understand that on one end you have extreme skepticism, which makes knowledge claims by negation (claiming to know that something isn't true), and on the other end you have extreme open-mindedness by means of blind acceptance. Both sides are certain of their positions and often willfully oblivious to counter arguments and contradictory evidence (or even any evidence at all). Apart from a general desire to grasp at knowledge, there are many other reasons—whether conscious, unconscious, internal, or external— as to why someone may or may not want something to be true, and their belief will often follow suit—sometimes into these more extreme positions. We will be exploring all of this in much more detail in this essay, for understanding how our mindsets can become so unbalanced is a crucial part of the awareness necessary for maintaining a healthy, balanced mindset most conducive to seeking truth.
A balanced mindset of skepticism and open-mindedness, combined with the actions of research and investigation, as indicated in the image above, is a potent recipe for truth-seeking. However, a more basic recipe only calls for the simple actions of listening and asking questions when presented with new information (being open-minded and skeptical, respectively), and, perhaps most importantly, to be honest about what one doesn't know. The central area of the spectrum is also a place of uncertainty and doubt. For knowledge claims to be made from this position, one must put forth the necessary hard work and due diligence. Even then, the best approach is to speak relatively loosely in terms of probabilities and possibilities, and to never let go of doubt. This is the ideal position of science. Consider the following quote from the famous theoretical physicist Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988): “I think that when we know that we actually do live in uncertainty, then we ought to admit it; it is of great value to realize that we do not know the answers to different questions,” he wrote. “This attitude of mind—this attitude of uncertainty—is vital to the scientist, and it is this attitude of mind which the student must first acquire.” Yet this attitude of mind, or the balanced mindset as I refer to it, isn't just for scientists and students of science—it is for everyone. It is to collectively enable us to make the best decisions possible, which, more generally, is the benefit of seeking the truth.
This initial aspect of the balanced approach to truth-seeking is largely simple and logical, and the manner in which I have laid it out should hopefully make it even more so. You may even be wondering what the point is of writing about something so evident, yet we must consider that a majority of people have a decidedly imbalanced approach to truth-seeking. So what is truly evident, when you observe almost any argument or disagreement, as well as a great deal of knowledge claims that you come across (some of which are outright lies or falsehoods), is that this discussion we are having right now unfortunately needs to take place. It should be taught and discussed in classrooms very early on. I would further propose that more people are confronted on their approach to truth-seeking, rather than on specifics, especially when their approach falls closer to one of the two unbalanced extremes. But I strongly caution that there is an aspect to this that far less obvious: there is quite a bit of negative psychological influence at play.
So far, this approach to truth-seeking may be described as maintaining a curious yet skeptical attitude while being honest and psychologically mature. That last aspect warrants further discussion, and depending on the person, it may involve varying degrees of self-reflection or even a full-blown internal reckoning. We've already taken the first step above, which is an honest and thorough assessment of what we don't know. To briefly summarize, there's a trifecta of unknowingness that our lives—our reality—lies suspended between: (1) the micro and macro realms, (2) the past and the future, and (3) the unknown state of being, if any, before birth and after death. We must recognize how unknowingness, overall, may perhaps be the greatest underlying source of fear and anxiety in our lives.3 The way that many people cope with this is by overcompensation—fear and lack of knowledge are drown out by fake confidence and beliefs.
True confidence, that which is backed by knowledge, experience, ability, and bravery, is an admirable quality and definitely worth striving for. However, a lot of what passes for “confidence“ these days is inherently dishonest. In fact, the entire dynamic involving confidence in our society is problematic. I call it the “confidence bug.” Simply put, this is when people value confidence, regardless of whether or not it's backed up by anything substantive, because of how it makes them feel. So it’s basically a positivity bias: because there is far, far more that is uncertain in this world than that which is certain, which may often bring up feelings of fear and discomfort, people are often biased towards confidence and its associated feelings of comfort and security. A major implication of this is that people have a much higher tendency to believe something that is spoken with a confident, authoritative tone, and of course, this includes lies and falsehoods. Thus, manipulators and propagandists will use a mask of confidence to deceive others to advance various agendas.
What makes matters worse is that confidence is highly incentivized, not just psychologically, but in terms of such outward manifestations as power, prestige, and monetary reward. These things come with leadership positions—politicians, pundits, business leaders, military commanders, etc.—and we elevate those with high levels of perceived confidence into such positions. This is not to say that confidence isn't important for leadership roles, because it is. This is also not to say that people don't ascend to leadership roles on their merits and authentic confidence, because some do. What I am saying is that with such big incentives in play, people lacking confidence may choose to fake it to get what they want (fake it ‘til you make it, as the saying goes). This is perhaps especially true with regard to the greedy, power-hungry sociopaths that all too often either backstab their way into positions of power or basically get such positions handed to them on a silver platter. Their “confidence” is often just arrogance, because over and over again (and by the way, I’m especially thinking about U.S. politicians right now, of both parties) we see evidence of their corruption and incompetence that clearly demonstrates that they have no good reason to be confident. Faux confidence is, of course, itself dishonest, but every decision made under its guise has the potential to further compound the dishonesty and to obscure important, relevant truths.
While our generally unhealthy relationship with confidence is a serious impediment to truth-seeking, it cannot be considered in isolation. This is especially evident when you encounter that unmistakable kind of absolute confidence—that kind of rigid, defensive confidence that cannot be swayed or budged—which is a fairly good sign that you're dealing with a person's ego and beliefs. There are many ways to define and analyze these concepts, but let us begin by defining beliefs as being generally interwoven in one's identity or egoic consciousness. Let us contrast this with synonyms for “belief” that are less detached in this regard: “opinion,” for example, and, having more certainty but still rather detached, “knowledge claim.” We can easily point to a sort of “formula” for belief and identity that people use, often unconsciously, which goes like this: if someone believes x, y, and z, then that person is a/an ___ (fill in the blank). Note the highly definitive language in the use of the verb form “to be.” This is understood quite literally in the mind, as a persona is created from the defining belief(s) and characteristic(s) that is, to a certain extent, embodied both mentally and physically. Consider, for example, that a challenge to one's beliefs, like during a debate or an argument, is often accompanied by a rush of adrenaline—the same bodily reaction as an imminent threat of physical violence. This fragile, false persona, stitched together from various beliefs and other characteristics, is what I define as the ego.4
To the ego, humiliation is like physical injury and pain, and being “wrong” is the ultimate injury—it is what is affectionately known as the “ego death.” This idea of the ego death is useful for understanding the visceral, combative reaction that many people have to even the most inane and inconsequential arguments. It also at least partly helps to understand (although it's certainly no consolation) why billions of people throughout history have literally died due to wars and fights over what can ultimately be reduced to differences of belief. Of course, most of the time life just goes on after we have faced an embarrassment or admitted that we are wrong, so it's obvious that the ego's fear-based, often excessive reactions are irrational. What may also be obvious, especially after self-reflection via dedicated spiritual or psychological development, is that we are not our ego. Our consciousness surrounds and envelops the ego, which is why we not only survive the “ego death,” but we may also consciously observe the mind and the ego in action—and overrule it. Having this expanded consciousness is invaluable to truth-seeking, but unfortunately it requires a considerable amount of heavy lifting of the innermost sense to attain.5 The best we can do for now is to understand a bit more about egoic consciousness and how it harms our well-intentioned efforts at seeking truth.
Although it may seem counterintuitive, the ego is less about individual identity than it is about group identity. We have a tribal instinct to identify with various groups, largely and simply because there is safety in numbers and it has helped us survive throughout our evolution. In this day and age, while it's both fine and perfectly natural to create social bonds with those who share a similar culture and similar beliefs and interests, it is highly problematic to have a residual, impulsive survival mechanism unconsciously working to influence our behavior. One aspect of this is that the extreme dualism of “life or death” inherent to survivalism seems to impart a similarly extreme dualism in egoic consciousness, whereby in-groups and out-groups are sharply delineated, as are beliefs and positions on various issues. We take sides, often impulsively, and whatever side we're not on is intensively and almost completely opposed. In this regard, our competitive nature comes into play, which is, at least in part, another evolutionary holdover from our long history of competing over limited land and resources, among other things. Another aspect of this to consider is that the ego comes from a position of fear and lack, or rather, it's an overblown response to those feelings. Again, the unknowingness described before, or to put it another way, the feeling like you're a tiny, insignificant speck in an ocean of infinity, can lead the ego to over-inflate itself in response. Identifying with a group is a way to feel larger than oneself and to identify with the accomplishments and accolades of fellow group members and/or the group as a whole.
Overall, the ego-driven group mentality can be extremely detrimental to the cause of truth-seeking, first and foremost because people simply don't think for themselves when they're acting as a group. Colloquially, this is known as “herd mentality,” and it can be summed up as an impulsive, unreasonable, competitive, and sharply binary mindset. Truth-seeking, on the other hand, requires nuance, patient reasoning, and often a significant amount of cooperation. Here we see it requires something else: the psychological awareness and maturity to rise above one's basal instincts.
Let's take a few steps back and consider how ego-driven group identities apply to the overall framework of this discussion. While there are countless ways that people can be categorized into groups, we will begin with a narrow focus. Looking back at the image above depicting the balanced mindset, we see that there are two opposing ideological labels that people may generally identify with: skeptical and open-minded. Note, however, that these labels are moreso meant to be applied on a per-issue basis, rather than on people generally. For example, a person who distrusts the government is going to be generally skeptical about official accounts and statements, yet information that contradicts the official word is more likely to be approached with an open mind. That same person will have opposite reactions with respect to an institution that is trusted. Another example is that people are more inclined to be open-minded about information and topics that interest them. But most people do reside to some degree on one or the other side of this spectrum generally, and I want to point out how with broad, polarized categories such as this,6 there is a huge, highly problematic potential for bias and manipulation.
Using divisive rhetoric that is statistically on the rise in mainstream discourse, people are increasingly and incessantly being herded into opposing ideological camps, each of which comes with a preordained list of approved and unapproved beliefs. People choose from various dualistic roles and read directly from the script—no thinking required.7 Algorithms, echo chambers, and now blatant censorship prevent cross-interaction between opposing groups, and whatever interaction that does take place is usually defined by vitriolic argumentation of embattled egos fighting to the “death” for fear of being “wrong.” It's much more than that though. Friendships, relationships, and sometimes even professions are chosen and maintained based partly on ideological group identities, so believing in or even entertaining the “wrong” idea could absolutely be life-altering! This is a primary basis for the phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance, which is like a mental immune reaction that prevents “foreign” or highly contradictory information, regardless of whether it’s demonstrably true or well-evidenced, from “infecting” one’s worldview and potentially bringing about life-altering change.
Of course, for those of ill-intent, there is much to be gained from gaming this hostile, binary system, not only from playing one or the other of the various sides,8 but also by pitting the sides against each other. “Divide and conquer” isn't just an old adage; it's a strategy that has been historically employed to distract, misdirect, and drain the energy of the populace, and evidence for its use seems everywhere apparent in our present society. While the rich have been getting exponentially richer, and while the move towards totalitarianism is no longer a tip-toe but a march, the population has been pushed hard into becoming more and more polarized. Compounding this is the fact that people's ability to do even cursory research and investigation into various positions and knowledge claims has become severely strained, which is largely due to worsening economic conditions perpetuated by the apparent greed and malice of the ruling class. As a result, many are just accepting the ready-made ideological roles that are basically being handed out, or rather, thrust upon us everywhere we turn.
To make matters worse, doing research and investigation in the interest of truth-seeking is now being shunned and shamed by elite-controlled media mouthpieces. It’s a bizarre post-truth, anti-intellectual era we live in when doing your own research, i.e. reading, is being actively discouraged by various highly funded and amplified legacy media outlets and their propagandized minions.9 It's awful.
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1686880282572361729
In their absurd declarations, truth-seeking has been reduced to a single measurement—a single criterion—the consensus of experts. Not only does history teach us, again and again, the error and the danger of bowing down to the consensus, but we must also recognize that with just one, single criterion, truth is far easier to be manipulated. There are many ways that people can be manipulated to obtain an artificial consensus: on the one hand, they can be shamed, threatened, insulted, censored, reprimanded, or subject to all-out “career assassination,” 10 and on the other hand, they can be lauded, amplified, bribed, promoted, or otherwise rewarded. Such sociological considerations as these—personal and professional motivations, manipulations, etcetera—are absolutely essential to integrating expert opinion into one's ever-developing big picture of the truth. Now I certainly advise that we heed to experts, although they should never be granted complete deference. I will also say that while the existence of a consensus opinion is useful, somewhat compelling information, it is by no means the be-all and end-all to what is true in this world. Along with what I've already explained, we mustn't lose sight of the simple fact that experts disagree—frequently. This, by the way, is a wonderful point of leverage for seeking the truth. It may seem at first glance to make matters more confusing, and granted, sometimes it does, but disagreements have a wonderful way of providing valuable insight by, for instance, forcing arguments to be honed and information to be conveyed in new and compelling ways. We also sometimes get glimpses or even ugly views of those sociological factors that remind us that science, ever a human affair, is corruptible.
From inner psychological forces to outer sociological ones, it may seem that the universe conspires to suppress the truth. Yet what we find here is that truth merely lies behind a thin veil representing limited consciousness, and we must simply expand our consciousness to let in the light of truth. This is the easy part: focusing on a single target—increasing awareness—that I have endeavored here to enlarge and highlight. However, the pursuit of truth is an ongoing effort requiring constant vigilance, and it presents numerous challenges and difficulties along the way. It's a perpetual balancing act. Even the effort to expand our awareness, while singular as noted, hides a dual aspect: we must expand both outwardly and inwardly, and it is the inward focus that many people neglect. This is due to factors such as our discomfort at feeling vulnerable—of facing who we really are behind the mask that so many project to the outside world. The whole truth of who we are must necessarily include any and all dark, dysfunctional aspects, heavy, painful emotions, trauma, egotistic stubbornness, doubts, fears, anxieties, etcetera. Only through true introspection, a brave and humble task, can we ever hope to release the ego’s “death grip” on our consciousness and to cleanse ourselves of evolutionary residues that no longer serve us. This is the essence of psychological maturity, as mentioned earlier, which is an indispensable element of truth-seeking.
This essay has largely focused on the inner, psychological barriers to truth-seeking, which are more neglected, more uncomfortable, and less obvious than their outer, sociological counterparts. However, the latter are no less detrimental to the cause of truth-seeking, especially in our current society, so further consideration of them will be made below. Before we do, I want to make a quick note about the broader meaning of “balanced” that has emerged here with regard to these inner and outer awarenesses and the title of this work. Ultimately, there are many such seemingly opposite yet complimentary aspects that go into an overall balanced approach that goes beyond the scope of this essay.
Back to the topic at hand, consider the spectrum of motivations, ranging from basic needs to the most frivolous desires, that underpin the majority of our actions and interactions. On one end of the spectrum you have survival—self-preservation—in the extreme face of which truth and falsity are obviously secondary considerations. On the other end of the spectrum is where greed mostly resides, which we might define as desire with an immoral twist. Similarly, truth and falsity are probably not the top considerations of someone currently contemplating the purchase of their second yacht, for example. The problem is becoming ever exacerbated, as evidenced by the exponentially exploding wealth gap. Centuries and centuries of generational wealth accumulation, elites and many others still harboring the dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest philosophy, and now thinly-veiled or even open attacks on the poorer, working-class populations: the situation has become dire, and increasingly so. No protections were ever in place to prevent the accumulation of sociopaths into positions of power, and now we're awash with corruption and propaganda like never before.
By inciting infighting via a bombardment of divisive rhetoric, by inciting intense competition via vice-like economic pressure, and, by numerous other means, engineering the overall downfall of our society, the sociopaths have caused people to become too drained, distracted, and desperate to have anything left over to dedicate to truth-seeking. More directly, we are bombarded with psychological warfare tactics like fear porn via a controlled corporate media that operates ever more openly as an intelligence apparatus.11 Steaming piles of propaganda are churned out 24/7, drowning out the truth. Along with legacy media corporations, a majority of the biggest corporations have now been compromised both internally and by the slow and steady financial takeover by investment behemoths Vanguard and Blackrock. Now the corporate world acts largely in unison, even against the apparent self-interest of individual corporations. We aren't just teetering on the edge of totalitarianism anymore, we have officially slipped over. Truth itself is under direct attack by a coordinated onslaught.
There is a saying whose derivation I can't quite trace that goes something like, “Where there is truth, there is light. Where there is light, darkness cannot subside.” While I generally caution against invoking the incredibly ego-activating good/bad – right/wrong – light/dark duality, which can be overly simplistic and prone to being twisted and manipulated to various ends, there is a definite takeaway to this statement: truth is like light. It not only helps us to navigate dark and difficult situations, but more basically, it enables us to see what it is we are dealing with conceptually. To enable us to make the best decisions possible, for the betterment of all humanity, we need (to cite another saying whose derivation this time is well known) the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But in this post-truth world, reporting to you from one of the last bastions of free speech in the Empire of Lies, I can unequivocally say that we are being led down a dark, dark path and are in dire need of the guiding light of truth.
But whose version of the truth? That is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Indeed, we have have always disagreed in countless ways about what constitutes “truth,” and immeasurable evil can be and certainly has been perpetuated under the guise of truth and righteousness. And there's a greater philosophical discussion to be had on truth, to be sure. Is truth absolute? Is it relative? I'm not here to answer those deeper questions, even if I had a ready answer to those questions to begin with (I don't). But I am here to offer this key: the path of truth, where we all start out on the same foot, starts from within. It starts from a little spark of internal honesty, such as about what you don’t know, and the moment you realize that this little spark has really caught alight is when you feel something paradoxically both terrifying and wondrous at the same time. Beyond the ego, there is a point of consciousness called clarity. It's the guiding vision of truth to help us on our journey together—a journey with no destination. Humbly, and passionately, I invite you to pursue the truth with me.
Lovecraft, H. P. (1927) Supernatural Horror in Literature. The Recluse
Carleton, Nicholas. (2016) Fear of the unknown: One fear to rule them all? Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 41 Pgs. 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.03.011
Yet for some, it may be a great source of wonder and poetic inspiration.
Note that this definition differs from the traditional, Freudian definition of “ego.” It is more in line with the understanding of the ego through the lens of the work of Eckhart Tolle.
It is a point of fact that a shortcut to achieving the expanded consciousness of “ego separation” is having experienced a great deal of humiliation in one’s life.
Other examples include: religious/scientific, liberal/conservative, poor/rich, etcetera.
The appeal to convenience or even pure laziness should be noted here as well.
Which are often contrived, by the way—truth is rarely polarized.
In addition to surreptitiously controlled operatives, I might add.
This is a brand new and highly disturbing addition to the list. A few years ago, people getting fired from their jobs for their protected speech outside of work was unheard of. Now it has become relatively more commonplace, though thankfully not entirely widespread. This is an example of what will later be mentioned in regards to corporations acting in unison, politically or otherwise, due to a threshold of consolidated financial control having been relatively recently reached.
Ultimately, it is the oligarchs, and yes that includes specific families thereof, who pull the strings in the government, intelligence agencies, media, corporations, etcetera.