Behind our Polarized Society:
Figuring out Why We Trust Who We Trust Most.
One of the most impactful personal decisions people today make, most make at a gut/instinctual level, without deliberate thoughtful consideration. That decision is this: What group of people do we trust the most? To be clear, we can hope that most don’t completely and blindly trust any group, but we do trust some people-groups very significantly more than we trust others. The question is: Which group do we trust the most, and more so, why?
While you reflect on this in your case, you might separate what you think you should be doing from what you think you have been doing.
Before delving directly into this, let us consider a very related thought. Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard made this observation: “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true. The other is to refuse to accept what is true.”
People around the globe and across the ideological spectrum can agree that this is clearly the case. To help us in our exploration, we need to ask a question that comes up after this observation. The question is this: What has history shown to be our best “tool” for figuring out what IS true?
I’ve asked this of individuals and groups here in the US, and in the Middle East, and in Europe. In a good number of instances, I’ve heard people initially claim that the best tool for figuring out what is true is their holy book… sometimes the Bible, sometimes the Quran, sometimes still other books. After noting that “others” around the world make different claims than they do, and that conflicting sincerely held claims/beliefs are just that, and really get us nowhere, we took a look at history since the Scientific Revolution.
What was new then was that up until then, what we “knew” (or thought we did) was handed down from authority (Aristotle; the Church; etc.). What changed then was the realization and spread of the idea that it was not only okay to question things, it was positively good. Further, that this questioning must include our own assumptions, and even cherished beliefs; and that we must devise the most honest/objective ways we can to gather verifiable evidence to answer our questions; and lastly, that we must be honest with ourself and others by being willing to face this verified evidence, and to impose it on our beliefs/claims, resisting the temptation to attempt to impose our beliefs on the evidence (by selecting only what we like, or denying, or ignoring what we don’t like).
It is worth noting that all the progress since then has depended on people applying this science-like approach both inside science, and beyond it. In the social sciences we asked: Are Kings really endowed with some divine right, and can they indeed do with any commoner as they please? Are women really 2nd class citizens who belong in the kitchen, and who don’t need independent voices in democracy? Are races intrinsically unequal, making things like slavery, apartheid, and legal discrimination justified?
Coming back to our initial impactful decision, and question with it, on what people-group we trust the most…
In the many cultures I’ve lived in, the answers are frequently quite similar. Some have said they most trust their religious group and its authorities, including their group’s interpretation of their book. Some have said their extended family. Some have said the very wealthy, saying they must be both smart and ‘favored by God.’ Some refer to political party, a new extended family.
What do you think? …. Might I suggest that we ask about the broad effects if large portions of populations, perhaps whole countries, trusted any people-group which doesn’t have an established system demanding and ensuring a willingness to take an evidence-based as opposed to the above claims-based approach. If a group has a track record of being willing to honestly face evidence, to update, to drop a now-refuted old claim, and develop a new and improved understanding based on the best and clearest evidence, that group certainly seems to have earned my trust more than others who live for generations in intransigent denial of evidence in order to prop up their preferred status quo.
This not to say that this science-like approach is perfect, not at all. It is simply the best tool we have. In the messy process of developing a consensus on any particular, there are conflicting ideas, with conflicting and strong personalities behind them. The struggle before consensus has been reached can last years or decades, or long ago, even centuries; it is most important to note that when the dust has settled for the most part, it was not and is not the majority at any moment in time that matters, nor the loudest voices, but the preponderance of the most clear verified evidence that determines where consensus will develop.
When I look at all the directly conflicting varied religious groups whose assertions are all claims, and who so often contradict each other, and who choose to continually attempt to impose their various claims on the evidence, and insist on centuries of refusing to update, to change, to face good evidence, I can’t find a way to convince myself that they as a broad group of different faith-based subgroups, or one single group within it, has earned my trust as our best tool for figuring out what is true. Any race is also clearly not a standout as having a track record of having the best record of figuring out what is true. Any immediate or extended family group works as trustworthy… while one is a child. I doubt though, that anyone could make a coherent argument for extended family having a track record for being anyone’s best tool for figuring out what is true on into adult life. And of course now we have the modern conglomerate hybrid of extended family and religion: political party. There is plenty of demand here for allegiance, for trust, but before choosing blind trust, let’s continue to explore.
Coming back to science as a way of approaching things — It’s about asking questions… even painfully honest ones. To those who are reflexively critical and dismissive of science and scientists, and apparently all types of expertise, I honestly ask what you propose as a group which has a better track record on being self-correcting? Science fixes its misunderstandings. Sometimes in months; sometimes in decades. Doesn’t that beat not fixing them, and sticking with your old poor understandings? A scientist with a really strong personality, and who once had the best explanation of the best evidence, will get left in the dustbin of history if he/she won’t acknowledge and face newer and better evidence which indicates that his/her old explanation needs major modification. If he/she chooses to be intransigent, the rest of the scientific community doesn’t go down that suicidal drain with him/her.
A few words reflecting on the opposite of Trust. Skepticism is a good thing if it doesn’t lead to cynically quitting… involvement or even caring. But unidirectional skepticism is simply bias. I would encourage everyone who must honestly face up to the reality of having been skeptical primarily of science, and not their extended family, not of the blogs they read, not of the echo chamber bouncing around the anecdotal stories of individual cases here and there, not of their party: How has your chosen network of trust shown a centuries-long track record of being self-correcting, and insisting with each other that verifiability, and actual verification, matters? This calls for, this deserves, your further thought. Go ahead and be honestly skeptical. Ask tough questions; ask them everywhere. But also be willing to explore, and deepen your understanding of, what a rough and tumble process the struggle to develop a consensus entails. The numbers of people around the world, the egos and mental horsepower involved, the competitive desire to show your ‘adversary’ up, make a broad and lasting conspiracy virtually undoable.
Let’s be practical and principled. We have big challenges. You may not like being in a proverbial global village, but whether it’s viruses or terrorism or cultural or political influence, the reality we’re living in is that many things don’t recognize borders. We share one ocean, one atmosphere, one planet. And we share challenges which will demand our cooperative efforts to address. Honesty in seeking good responses found in effective problem-solving will continue to make it necessary to use our best tool for figuring things out. To not be perfect does not make that tool drop out of being our best tool.
Can we reduce our temptation to shout out our group’s claims more loudly than the next group shouts out theirs? I believe we can. It’s going to take a basic combination of honesty, insight, and courage. The next generations deserve our best effort.
