(8 minute read)

(From previous post): Aristotle taught his students about rhetoric and persuasion. He emphasized that making arguments to convey any truth requires more than just quoting authorities. In other words, to know and convey truth, one must understand why the particular truth is true through reasoning. It should not be based solely on what you “feel” or what others have said about the subject.

This is an important distinction to make. Once again, we need to invest time reasoning to understand why it is true or why it is not true.

The desire to know what is and isn’t real is inside all of us. It is so strong we will often make a rash decision based on very little evidence (like the snake stick). The instinct that kept our ancestors safe and alive can now lead us to become lazy in our reasoning. It can also make us merely curious at best should we not want to put the effort in.

In the next article, we will examine what it takes. We aim to substitute the laziness for a more vigorous approach to reasoning.

You’ll be surprised to learn how easy it is.

Turning Off The Snap Judgment Meter

So far, we have determined that by using our inner bullshit detector we can determine if something is true. We learned that it’s not always right. In fact, when it comes to snap judgments it can often go wrong. The bullshit detector is a leftover trait from our ancestors. They used it on a daily basis to stay safe and alive.

For us today? That’s not so much the case.

Very few of us are living the kind of life and death moments our ancestors were faced with. So, we have to be that much better at using our BS detector.

First, we have to recognize the process when it gets turned on. Once we do, we can teach ourselves to slow down the process and use it to our advantage. This way, the instinct doesn’t take over, causing missed or bad judgments.

We start by recognizing that our decision making process needs to be a “careful and deliberate” action. We achieve this by suspending our assumptions, opinions, or biases about a claim. This is done by willfully “turning off” or suspending those snap judgments to which we are so accustomed.

What we are talking about is adopting a state of reason or state of mind. It deliberately decides to listen to or read more information about something. It is purposeful and avoids forming a snap judgment before making a rational conclusion.

It takes effort and some self-talk. Some of the greatest thinkers of all time have done it. It’s a practice that you can adopt here and now.

One example: Let us suppose we have been asked to a neighborhood picnic along with everyone living on our block. Sometime during the day someone brings up to the group the topic of homeless people living in our city.

As one can imagine a spirited debate begins. Like everyone else, we have an opinion. We believe we have a rational understanding and solution to the problem. We can’t wait to weigh in on the topic.

This “suspension of judgment” operates in a specific way. Instead of rushing to offer our opinion, we “turn off” that urge. We sit back and take in the information. Someone can make a statement we’ve never considered before adding to our understanding of the issue.

Another advantage to this willful “suspension” is being active in the conversation. Rather than being lost in our own thoughts waiting for our turn to speak we are actively listening. We stay fully engaged in the discussion until the time comes for us to speak up and weigh in.

Of course, this experience becomes even more powerful when we combine reasoning with time. As we practice this and as more time continues we know that we have spent time considering the topic. We have investigated, gathered information, and come to a conclusion. We also understand that if given more information we may very well change our mind.

This is through the use of sound personal reasoning. We do not simply mimic what my Uncle Jimmy says about the matter. Opinions based on what others think is weak. Instead, we’ll be the author of our own thoughts, words, and conclusions and that is empowering.

Fact, Opinion, Bias, & Reason

So we’ve decided to give this thing a try. We are deliberately turning off the part of the brain that makes snap judgments. Now what do we do?

It’s time to start analyzing the information. First, we must determine if the information is based on fact. We must also check if it’s based on opinion, bias, or sound reasoning. What are the differences?

Some simple definitions are in order.

Fact: a statement that can be proven or verified (usually by an outside source) to be true

Opinion: a statement based on what a person “thinks” or “believes” is true

Bias: a worldview that often determines an individual’s opinion whether they are based on fact or not

Reason: a carefully created argument based on a clear logic, void of any plea to play on people’s emotions (though a reasoned response may very well be presented with some passion)

Determining which categories the information belongs in can be a clunky practice. But remember, we are slowing down this process of reasoning to absorb better habits. After some time it all becomes second nature.

By knowing the origins of a statement, we can be a more sophisticated consumer of information. This helps us decide whether the arguments have much merit.

Is Perception A Reality?

A word of caution, however.

Opinions based on biases or perceptions are weak at best. But don’t be tempted to regard statements of fact as more important. Someone’s opinion, even when wrong, should not be dismissed.

While we are all seeking for truth some of us do a better job of it than others. Just because someone has a perception doesn’t mean that perception is right. And “feeling” something is right is not reasoning either. Yet, we’ve all heard people offer that when it comes to arguments of truth.

We have all heard the adage “perception is reality.” There are those that would argue that their perception (worldview) is true. I think it’s vital that we identify, recognize and understand that many people indeed have a reality based on perception. It helps us to determine where and how information is formulated and, ultimately, helps us to get to the truth.

At this point it’s more important for us to know that if the facts aren’t there, their worldview is askew. I don’t think it’s necessarily our job to change that. That will come at another time. Right now, it’s enough for us to just recognize it.

Once we start to practice these reasoning skills, evaluating statements that include statistics can be tricky. Other proof appearing as fact will also be challenging to assess.

For example, if you someone said that “the suicide rate for 10-24 year-olds increased nearly 58%.” What if they added that the reason for the increase is a rising “divorce rate.” How would you figure out if these statements were fact or opinion?

Certainly looks like a fact. Must be a fact, right?

There are a number of telling things missing from the statistic. What is the time period? Increased compared to what? How was the information obtained?

The first thing we notice is that the statement is presented to us as a fact. So it sounds authoritative. Statistics are usually a reliable form of truth telling. But if our BS detector is working it would raise two red flags. The first question is where these statistics came from. The second is whether the organization is a trusted and reliable organization that is supplying the statistics.

ScrewTheGovt.com website might not be as reliable a source as CDC.gov.

Even if we are not provided the source we should be able to do a little searching to find out.

The statement “and the high rate of divorce is responsible?” The statistic must be proven for this to be the case. Otherwise, the factual statement (the statistic) becomes a statement of fact with an opinion attached (divorce rate).

Politicians skew statistics like this all the time.

The organization responsible for the static above can be found on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. More details are available there. You’ll notice that in the report there is no reason given for the increase.

Read Pt. 5 of Decoding Lies.