Podcast: Play in new window | Download (10.7MB)
Taking sides and knowing which side to take would be much easier if we could limit ourselves to our direct experiences. It still would not always be easy, but we would at least be basing our choices on personal knowledge. Unfortunately, our world no longer works that way, if it ever did. Most of our side taking is based on past influences and current circumstances over which we have little control and limited understanding. Most of what we know and think we know about the world we live in comes from others who are getting their knowledge from others who are getting their knowledge from others. Which side we choose to take comes down to who we choose to believe, or does it?
Who Do We Believe?
Quite often, it doesn’t matter all that much who we choose to believe. This is especially the case when most everyone is saying approximately the same thing. A huge hurricane came ashore in North Carolina. North Korea has an atomic bomb. Unemployment in the United States is at or near an all time low. Many of our roads and bridges are in urgent need of repare or replacement. There may be some dissenters but the majority view is compelling.
Side taking becomes much more difficult when we get conflicting reports, opinions, perspectives, and opposing understandings of events, conditions, circumstances, and the people associated with them. The atmosphere at the White House is or is not chaotic. Congress is or is not effective. The risk of global warming is or is not over rated. Tariffs are or are not good for the economy. Pick most any local, state, or national issue, and we quickly see that opposing views and opinions are rampent.
When I put it that way, it seems that most of us would have trouble taking sides, – so many problems, so many issues, so many possible choices. I’m not sure whether it’s human nature, habit, indifference, or some kind of rational reductionism; but most of us will use our default decision template, our standard fallback position. That means we will stand with the side we have always stood with, continue believing what we already believed, trusting the sources we have come to trust. We simply adopt the views, opinions, and perspectives of those who’s side we have taken in the past.
There is another dimention to this. Again, I don’t know whether it’s human nature, habit, indifference, or some kind of rational reductionism, but once we have taken sides and particularly when we have taken sides with a person or group, we go all in. Whatever that person or group believes or thinks is certainly right and good. Anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong. Eventually, the factions solidify and conflict and devisiveness prodominates. Unfortunately, this has turned into business as usual in our communities and in our country.
When we ask ourselves who we should believe, falling back on our default decision template is where we will start, whether we want to or not. It’s probably not possible to do otherwise. So are we permanently stuck with our default thinking and perspectives? I suspect we mostly are. We likely do not have the time and mental energy it would take to get unstuck, assuming we wanted unstuck. Our defaults have served us rather well to this point. That’s why they are our defaults.
Before I focus specifically on truth and lies, let me make one suggestion. Our default decision template is a safe and comfortable place for most of us. We are confident in the correctness of our views, opinions, and perspectives. We value being right. My suggestion is to spend some time wondering why the people and groups who don’t use our template think we are wrong and they are right. They are as smart, as wise, and as thoughtful as we are. So why do they conclude that they are right and we are wrong? What makes their decision template work for them? I’m pretty sure that this exercise won’t change our views and opinions, but am equally sure it will probably change our perceptions of the other people and groups. That by itself may be a good thing.
Who’s Truthful, Who’s lying?
Before I wrap this up, I want to spend some time thinking about what has become a major issue. Daily, I hear in the news about someone being accused of dishonest, inappropriate, or even criminal behavior. The person being accused catigorically denys having said or done what he or she is accused of doing or saying. His or her accuser is equally adamant that what they have said is true. The accusation quickly reduces to side taking. Both sides then accuse the other side of lying. Which side should we take?
Of course, we could pick a side based on our default decision template. We probably lean one way or the other, if we are candid with ourselves. Taking the accuser’s side is usually based on two sub-beliefs. First, we believe that the person wouldn’t have made the accusation were it not true. Second, we are open to believing that the person being accused may well have said or done what he or she is being accused of saying or doing.
If we take the side of the person being accused, we likely believe that the accuser would lie about it and that the person being accused is not lieing about it and would not have said or done what he or she is accused of anyway.
Here is the point I want to make. We are told that the person being accused is innocent until proven guilty. We should assume that he or she did not do or say what he or she is being accused of until proof is forthcoming. My point is that if we hold that standard for the person being accused and denying it, we should also hold it for the person being accused of lying when he or she accused the other person. If lyers are entitled to the benefit of the doubt, the entitlement is a two-way street. When we take sides, and we likely will, clear proof is unlikely. I’m only suggesting that we try to stay open to the possibility of guilt or innocense on either side. Both the accuser and the accused need to do better than pointing fingers and calling the other side lyers.
That brings me to a simple conclusion. When tempted to take sides, whatever the issue, we need to be aware of our default template, avoid letting the issue reduce for us to who is and who isn’t lying, and spend some thought time considering why reasonable people would not want to use our default template, why they think we have it wrong.