Tag Archives: discussion

Truth and bias

Leave a reply

I was listening to Chris Williamson on a podcast and he said this quote.

“People think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

~ First attributed to William Fitzjames Oldham

This reminds me of another often quoted phrase, regarding there being three sides to every argument, the one side, the other side, and somewhere in the middle is the Truth.

I had a phone discussion with a friend recently and we were discussing politics. We saw the topic from two totally different perspectives. I then had face-to-face discussion with another friend about a global issues and again we came from completely different perspectives. In both cases neither of us changed each other’s minds.

In one case I want to be wrong, in the other case I wish that I was wrong, and that my bias, ultimately my prejudice, could be changed. In both cases I recognize that getting new information really didn’t change my view… even though I might be happier and see things more positively if the other person was right.

Am I just a symptom of the times? Am I a victim of misinformation, who is choosing to believe perspectives that are intentionally biased? Am I not able to see the truth somewhere in the middle because I lack perspective, or am I blind to my own prejudice?

It’s getting harder and harder to find narratives that are clearly true. Arguments tend not to be about seeking truth but rather earning airtime, and garnering clicks & shares. The math is such that a false accusation will get millions of social media likes and reshares, but the correction barely gets seen. A fake video gets major attention. A blatant exaggeration or even a lie is simply accepted as close enough to true and accepted.

It doesn’t add up. It doesn’t lead us to the Truth, ‘somewhere in the middle’. No, instead we are left rearranging our prejudices and biases, and sticking to our points of view without ever really thinking.

The Saying – Hearing Gap

2 Replies

“Communication is about what is received, not what is intended. If there is a gap between what you are saying and what they are hearing, you have to find a new way to say it.” -@JamesClear

This quote reminds me of the NLP saying, ‘The meaning of your communication is the response that you get.’

When there is a gap between what your message is and what a person hears, it’s easy to assume that the mistake is on the receiving end, but in reality, that becomes a game of pointing fingers and blame. The better thing to consider is how to improve the message. How do you convey intentions more clearly, in a way that the listener can better hear?

This acceptance of responsibility for the message empowers the speaker. This responsibility to better express what was miscommunicated allows for clarity to prevail. But this doesn’t mean you speak louder. It’s not about enunciating words more clearly. No, it about understanding the perspective of the other person. It’s about having empathy for the viewpoints of the person you are communicating with.

The gap between what you say and what is heard is ultimately your responsibility, because if the message you say is not the message that’s heard then who miscommunicated? If you don’t take at least part of the responsibility, then you are not solving the problem.

Know your audience

Social media is filled with people who are ‘preaching to the converted’. There is nowhere that this is more evident than in politics and religion. I’m amazed at the blindness with which people spew their ideology.

Basically, what I (mostly) see are two ignorant camps:

1. I don’t care what you think.

2. You don’t think like me, so you are an idiot.

Neither of these deliver a message that comes remotely close to convincing anyone of anything. Neither of these pander to an audience beyond those that already agree with the perspective being shared. Neither of these promote thought or dialogue.

Sure it might feel good. Yes, it’s nice to be in the company of others that completely agree with you. But social media shouldn’t just be about screaming into an echo chamber, and there should be opportunities for dialogue that goes beyond winning a point against a foe whom doesn’t even acknowledge your point.

I keep coming back to the realization that ideas lie on a spectrum, and the reason I keep coming back to this is because most of us don’t sit on the extremes, even if that’s where we argue our points from. We don’t really wish ill of those that oppose our view, we don’t really believe that our neighbours are unneighbourly because they view things differently than us, politically, religiously, or ideologically. Yet that’s what it looks like on social media.

Are you trying to share your view only with people that already agree with you? Or are you trying to share your view with others who think differently? If your answer is the latter, then think about your audience, and share a message they can actually hear.