Room for Doubt: When it comes to trust, what are we looking for?
Room for Doubt: When it comes to trust, what are we looking for?
June 15 2022
By AFBR
Perhaps longer, but certainly and most obviously for about 18 years, our democracy has had to struggle with living in a ‘post-truth’ world. In 2004, Ron Suskind wrote an article for the New York Times Magazine where he quoted a George W. Bush administration official saying, in part, 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.’ The point was clear: Reality, in large part, according to some, is whatever those in power say it is.
The ripples of this prescription were felt most powerfully during the four years of Trump’s tenure in Washington and heard in the words of the domestic terrorists who stormed the capital on January 6, 2021, as well as the Senators and Representatives who presently support them. Forget what your own eyes tell you, what the digital recordings tell you, what eye-witnesses and police officers wounded in battle and now sworn under oath tell you - the reality you are to believe is ‘there’s nothing to see here.’ Fox News, in its refusal to air the current January 6 Commission’s hearings, reiterates and amplifies this message.
But the tendency toward ideological bias, one that is not new at all, is ever with us, even if it is being particularly heightened now. While in this ‘alternative facts’ looking glass universe it seems like the dangers of ignoring agreed upon objective truths is especially intense, and that one side cannot see how the other can possibly hold a position that so essentially contradicts what should be obvious to most, we’ve always faced the question of why do we choose to trust and believe some sources of information and disregard others?
What I want to do here is go beyond a simple push back that some people are better at fact-checking, investigating, listening than others - that what is needed is more education about how to discern and dig into what’s true to make an informed decision. None of us have the time or resources to make sure we’re 100% right most of the time. We must trust sources even as we ask others to trust us. But why do we come to trust some resources and not others? Why might some trust, say, Fox News or Newsmax without doubt, and others accept The New York Times or MSNBC as a credible source? Or, why do some have confidence with Facebook feeds and reposts about the effectiveness of vaccines, yet never consult a doctor they’ve known for many years?
Why do I, for example, pay attention to what’s written in The Washington Post - with a critical eye, I hope - and very little thought to giving Tucker Carlson the time of day? I could be someone, just as easily, who acted in reverse of this, shunning Chris Hayes while hanging on Sean Hannity’s every word. But why? What qualities do I look for in a trusted source? In this space, I want to make some proposals for consideration that might answer these questions.
I can’t track down every comment or position I believe to be true. No one can. I trust almost no one completely, but make daily decisions with confidence as I move forward in life. Where did, or does, my particular construct of trust come from? What does it look like?
I remember the teachers and adults I first placed my faith in - and they were not always correct. But I can make a distinction between the ones who insisted they were correct, and were defensive about their insights, from those who said something like, “I think what I am telling you is true, and I believe it, but if I am wrong, and I might be, I am willing to reconsider.” It is not that some things are not worth saying about: “This is absolutely true.” It is that the posture that spoke most clearly to me, at least, was one of agnostic humility even while holding a firm belief, opinion, or set of convictions. There was, in other words, room for doubt. To me, this made the possibility of truth worth investigating, as a process of learning together, rather than a top-down, authoritarian mandate.
I went to a liberal arts college, and there found that I and most of my peers paid more attention to the professors who were able to defend strong positions - in science, in the arts - while including their students in the investigation. The instructors who were confident in their scholarship, but who left room for process - for modifying, editing, cancelling out - were the most revered. The instructors who invited criticism, admitted if they were wrong, had a sense of humor about mistakes, empowered others, even if they disagreed, were the ones most listened to, who had the most authority.
I mentioned the word ‘process’ above. And that’s essential to what I am talking about here. Learning is a process, and when those in power try to shut down this process and limit voices, they (in my opinion) lose authority to the shadows of demagoguery.
Today, when I decide to trust a news source, a commentator, a politician, a peer, or any authority, these are the qualities I seek. A posture that truth is in process and an epistemological humility even in the act of the declaration of ideas, a willingness to leave the possibility of doubt open, a sense that no one is perfect.
And yet… and yet… are there times when arrogance may be needed? When there are some truths we can’t be agnostic about? When we should declare truth from the rooftops and let it echo through the canyons of experience? When we can’t let questions linger too long and debate may be shut down? Sure. But let’s look at some conditions for this possibility.
It is my contention that when lives are at stake, when the innocent are suffering, when sentient beings are possibly humiliated, or when violence is asserted against the less powerful, that debate may end. Or, at the very least, any debate should be judiciously considered. I believe we are in a time when questions like, “Was slavery in the Southern US really an evil of history?” have already been answered. Some might disagree and come to the table seeking answers. If, say, a child asked this question after hearing an adult in their life express it, another informed adult has the obligation to use it as a teachable moment. If, though, someone asked it, pushing an oppressive, facist agenda that could lead to violence, and was shut off to the well documented abuses of history, well… I have better ways to spend my time than dignifying them. Unless. Unless my response might enlighten someone else who’s listening. Might short circuit any possible violence or abuse. Then, perhaps the time may be useful. But some things, ideas, and people are better left alone.
Why do you trust who you trust? What qualities are necessary in engaged listening? What do you look for in those you place any faith in, and how do you model these qualities in yourself? In short, I can sum up what I look for this way: Is the possibility of doubt or mistake strongly or completely closed off, or are my sources open to constructive engagement that respects equality and freedom of thought - at least most of the time?
What are the qualities you look for in a trusted source? Is the premature foreclosure of truth and the absence of doubt important? Do we want a world in which all sincere voices have dignity, or one where only some are heard? This is a lesson for anyone - whether on the right, left, inbetween, or undecided - who seeks the truth, or so I believe.