Delicate Truths

In an age where easy access to information and communication is driving significant political and cultural polarization, it is important for us to constantly reassess the very belief systems that make us who we are and develop an approach that allows us to build informed opinions. 

A sustainable approach to forming an informed system of beliefs and opinions requires not only a deep understanding of what you believe to be true, but a passion for discovery, and a humility capable of accepting the new and unknown. Curiosity is important but it is only a component of a successful approach to holding certain beliefs and opinions. A deep understanding of what we believe to be true, from a fundamental “first principles” approach, allows us to defend ourselves from new information that is contrary to our held knowledge and beliefs. If our defenses succeed, our system continues to function with the information we already have. If our defenses fail to fight the new and unknown, we must have the humility to cautiously accept it as a truth… a temporary one perhaps, but a truth nonetheless. 

Consider this. Think of all the opinions you have. Your personal truths. Your intuitive truths. Your very understanding of the world. Now ask yourself: why do you believe what you believe? What are your thoughts on gun control? On vaccination? On privacy rights? What are your thoughts on the last film you saw? Or the last meal you had? Consider your political alignment, the stereotypes you have of other cultures, and how your background shaped your very understanding of the world. Think about it from a “first principles” approach.

As defined by Mike Walsh from Industry Week magazine, “first principles” thinking is the art of breaking down a problem into its fundamental parts, assessing only what you know to be objectively true and working up from there to restructure your understanding of the problem and find solutions. Elon Musk famously used this approach when working on cutting down the cost of producing rockets for SpaceX’s initial launches. Instead of buying parts of the rocket from other manufacturers, he broke down the rocket into its fundamental components and realized that if he only bought the raw materials needed for the rocket and manufactured everything in-house, he could drastically cut the cost of a rocket launch. Instead of simply following what every other space parts manufacturer was doing at the time, he approached the problem at its fundamental base level. He challenged his own assumption that the only way to make rockets was through an elaborate system of suppliers and distributors, coming to a simple and efficient final solution. We can apply this approach to our very own lives. When you hear a song and you can’t stop listening to it, ask yourself what parts of the song made you fall in love with it. What about those parts made them so good? Now consider the parts you didn’t like. Why didn’t you like them? What new information might have made you better appreciate those parts? We must constantly challenge our understanding of the world, fill in the gaps in our knowledge, and keep updating our learning, beliefs, and opinions. 

In the novel “Recitatif” by Toni Morrison, readers are never explicitly told the races of the two protagonists, which leaves readers to fill in the gaps with our own assumptions. Most readers don’t even realize that the girls’ races were not explicitly addressed as they believe they have enough information to identify the backgrounds of the girls themselves. This is an excellent example of our natural failure at identifying the gaps in our knowledge and working to fill them. Oftentimes, we simply assume what we must know and fail to use first principles thinking. 

Once we have identified the gaps in our knowledge, we must work to actively seek new information and even information that is contrary to the truths we currently hold. Nothing is truly absolute. This system of identifying the gaps in our knowledge, seeking new information to fill those gaps, and finding new beliefs/opinions that are contrary to our own allow us to be more informed members of society. Not only as citizens and members of society but as critics and champions of different mediums. This passion, this curiosity, is necessary for us to further ourselves and progress our society. Research conducted in 2011 have shown that curiosity, especially as it develops in children, only succeeds and grows if the questions posed by our curiosity are quickly and consistently resolved. A child who’s question is answered within a few seconds of him asking it is more likely to continue asking questions than a child who’s question is answered much later or not at all. In order to cultivate the drive necessary to constantly seek new information that is contrary to our opinions, we have to form a positive feedback loop. We must develop a collection of resources such as easy access to the internet, to reference books, and to knowledgeable and passionate people. When we have questions, these resources will allow us to quickly answer our questions which will further escalate our interest in a variety of topics and help us fill in more and more gaps in our knowledge. 

While it may sound counterintuitive, in order to have truly informed opinions, it is important for us to actively work to attack our own defenses. Actively seek to break down and rebuild our own beliefs. We cannot give into simply confirming our understanding of the world. While that may feel good, that will not allow us to have an informed perspective. In the film 12 Angry Men, a group of 12 members of the jury are tasked with working together to come up with a verdict for a kid who is on death row for his alleged crime. The protagonist, played by Henry Fonda, disagrees with the other 11 men about the verdict they believe to be “the obvious choice” as he realizes there are too many gaps in their understanding of the case and too little information for them to make such an important decision without at least discussing it beforehand. As the film progresses, the members of the jury one by one begin to realize that the information that was provided to them and they had all assumed to be objectively true was beginning to fall apart when questioned. As they began to work together, they realized they might have to come to an entirely new verdict. If it wasn’t for the protagonist’s intellectual humility in accepting that he didn’t have all the facts and thus, couldn’t come up with a valid verdict, the kid may have been wrongly accused. Jonah Koetke, a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, argues that being neural and impartial is a trait of intellectual humility and “allows a person to accurately discern the strengths of arguments”. From the ancient Tamil “Thirukkurals” to the modern age, intellectual humility is a necessary virtue. If we do not give both sides of an issue a fair chance, we cannot come to an accurate, informed understanding.  

The counterpoint to this however is that while it is important to give all sides of any idea, opinion, or argument a fair chance, it is important to not fall prey to false equivalence. It is important to recognize that every option and every choice has good and bad qualities but at the end of the day, if we want to be good critics and even better citizens, if we want to further the communities we belong to… we must take a side. It is only by voting for a specific side that our government know what the people want, only by rating a movie higher than another that our filmmakers know what films to make, and only by eating a certain food more than others that our parents know what groceries to buy the next time they go shopping. While it might not be easy to pick a side… we must pick a side for the greater good. From the role of the citizen (voting for progress) to the role of the critic (reviewing for the betterment of the arts), we must choose a side… but in an informed manner.