Where Truth Lies

The Space Between Entitlement and Disentitled Egos

October 20th, 2023
The Conspiracy Theorist lives in world which is stuck between, “I deserve to know this,” and “My claim to this information is being denied.” Audaciously, they interpret this denial of their self-proclaimed right as evidence for the conspiracy: “It’s a cover up,” they say. They will carry on this way spending countless hours developing ways to challenge who they believe to be the holders of the information and pressure them to disseminate the information they believe is being hidden, and when it doesn’t come, they pat themselves on the back proclaiming, “See? I told you they were hiding it.” Perpetually, this dance they impose on the “keepers” of information becomes an infinite feedback loop, constantly reaffirming their belief that their entitlement is being disentitled, and the information they claim is out there is being nefariously hidden.

Rarely do these conspiracy theorist get the correct challenge to their feedback loop. Arguments against their claims tend to fall along the lines of validity regarding the content itself rather than the validity of the need for the claim in the first place. For instance, if a conspiracy theorist claims there are aliens at Area 51, arguments will likely fall along lines about whether aliens exist at all. Still, this misses the underlying cause of the conspiracy theory: Entitlement being disentitled. The hard question is this: why does anyone deserve to know whether there are aliens at Area 51, especially if the main content of the argument is simply going to lie in whether aliens exist in the first place? Wouldn’t we be able to find our answer to whether aliens exist outside of knowing whether they are kept at Area 51? If so, then the conspiracy about aliens at Area 51 has nothing to do with aliens.

This idea that conspiracy theories aren’t really about the content of the theory applies generally to conspiracy theories as a whole. Pick any conspiracy theory out there as we can trace its origins back to this underlying idea which states, “we are being lied to.”
- Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat, but to put it the correct way: Flat Earthers believe we are being lied to about the true shape of the Earth.
- Anti-vaxxers believe vaccines are dangerous, but to put it the correct way: Anti-vaxxers believe we are being lied to about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
- Moon-Landing-Deniers believe no one landed on the moon, but to put it the correct way: Moon-Landing-Deniers believe we are being lied to about the video and images of people on the moon.
- Grassy-Knoll Truthers believe the CIA killed JFK, but to put it the correct way: Grassy-Knoll Truthers believe we are being lied to about who killed JFK.
The one and only thing all conspiracy theories share is the overwhelming idea that the “keepers of information” are intentionally hiding some nefarious truth from people who deserve to know it (that’s the conspiracy part of it). The conspiracy theorist then becomes outrageously offended at the idea of being lied to. Their egos take a hit, and the sense of entitlement grows with each instance of being “denied the truth.”

There was a time in human history when people were okay with not knowing everything. They were able to trust others to know things and disseminate the information. Somewhere along the lines (probably with the popularization of the internet), people started believing they could be experts in everything. In my opinion, this is why people feel entitled to know everything. They can’t sell the idea that they indeed are an expert or authority on a subject unless they have all the information for it. A major problem arises, however, when the information people seek and “know” exists doesn’t actually exist. What if there aren’t aliens at Area 51? What if no one was on the Grassy Knoll? What if NASA really did land men on the moon? What if vaccines really are safe and effective? What if the Earth really is a globe? Of all the question conspiracy theorists love to ask, they never seem to want to ask the ones that could potentially eliminate the need for a theory in the first place.
The Critical Thing about Thinking

October 6th, 2023

What does it mean to think critically? Let’s examine that question with an experiment. If I told you, “Don’t think about a purple elephant,” are you now thinking about a purple elephant. The interesting thing, though, is not that I was able to make you think about a purple elephant. The interesting thing is why you thought about it. Was it reverse psychology? Did I trick you into thinking about something you didn’t want to think about? How did you end up with an image of a purple elephant in your head? These questions reveal something about human nature that you might just find to be revealing of yourself.

The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.
– Thomas Sowell

To be clear, it wasn’t a trick. In fact, the purple elephant didn’t come from me at all. YOU created it in your own head. By choosing to not only read the sentence, but accepting the reality of it presence. The words we choose to consume, drive our thoughts toward the subject of their meaning. This really is the foundation behind why critical analysis of every thought is so important. When we allow our thoughts to run amuck without internal guidance, they will go wherever the wind blows, so to speak. That is to say, they will go wherever the world around us takes them. If we aren’t careful, that wandering may lead us down a dangerous path.

“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
– William James

Let’s begin by defining reverse psychology and diving into why this purple elephant thing may or may not be exactly that. According to Cambridge English Dictionary, reverse psychology is “a method of trying to make someone do what you want by asking them to do the opposite and expecting them to disagree with you.” The pertinent question is then, “did you disagree with thinking about the purple elephant?” If not, then I could argue that this really wasn’t reverse psychology. I didn’t quite persuade you to do something with which you disagreed… or did I? It’s not often that we think about purple elephants. Of course, I don’t mean to speak for everyone, some might think about them often. Still, were you on track to think about it at this current time? How abruptly did this purple elephant change your train of thought? Did it feel abrupt?

The reality about the purple elephant is that you really didn’t disagree with thinking about it. Again, I don’t mean to speak for everyone, but the thought of a purple elephant isn’t necessarily harmful or threatening in any way. Your brain didn’t set off warnings about the thought because it posed no danger to you to entertain it. As is true with almost every thought that’s ever crossed your mind. Thoughts aren’t dangerous, at least not to our physical health. So you accepted the idea without protest and entertained the thought.

“Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours.”
― John Locke

Ok, then how DID you end up with an image of a purple elephant in your head? The simple answer, you thought about it. You took what you read and processed into a thought. The instruction “don’t” was deemed irrelevant and you proceeded to entertain the thought anyway. Why? Well, because you wanted to. Maybe it was an act of defiance. Maybe you were simply curious about it. It could have been simply that you felt as though the image might make you laugh, or happy, or entertained. Whatever your personal reason for doing so, you chose to do it. It may not have been a conscience decision, but your brain worked it out based on the way you’ve trained yourself to process information. This unconscious processing and decision making about what to think and how to think is generally referred to as, “personal bias.” We all have it. It’s based on prior experience and trial and error dating all the way back to when we were just babies. A lifetime of practice.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens

When we encounter new information, we rely heavily on this practiced way of thought processing to evaluate many aspects about the information. Thoughts are generated; hundreds sometimes thousands of thoughts are produced just in a few minutes of content consumption. This is why the ever present question we should be pondering now, especially in the age of information, is what do we do with all those thoughts? Do we simply let our personal bias run on auto to organize and process the thoughts as our minds have always done? The advantage of auto-pilot being the least amount of effort we would need to apply. The other option, is to re-evaluate our thoughts critically; to consciously go through the the work of questioning ourselves.

Too often do we look outwardly when applying critical thought. We are critical of other’s opinions, other’s ideas, other’s content in general. We are proficient in picking apart the most minute details of other people and the information they convey, but we still let our own thinking run on auto. We get validation in ourselves from critiquing others, but the work of evaluating ourselves is often too revealing of our own faults.

“The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.”
― Horace Walpole

Still, with an ever present desire for clicks and engagement on social media and the internet as a whole, the ability to critique one’s own thoughts about a matter is more important now than it’s ever been. People will lie, exaggerate, manipulate, and contort reality to feed people any sort of information that continues to drive engagement up, and they’ll profit off ad revenue without a second thought about what effects their actions have. Due to this, we can’t simply allow our thoughts to run on auto; the purple elephant in the room will eventually need addressing.

“If you make people think they’re thinking, they’ll love you; but if you really make them think, they’ll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison

Here’s the critical thing about thinking: our thoughts require more thinking. We can’t simply consume information and accept the reality of its presence as THE reality that now exists. It is certainly good to have an open mind; that is, one which isn’t completely closed. Still, your mind can become too open and too accepting of every statement proposing itself as truth. Do be taken for a fool. Do the work to think more about your own thoughts. Ask questions of yourself. Wonder, where did these thoughts come from? Why am I now thinking of this? Does the person presenting this information gain anything from me thinking this way? Are these thoughts present because of something that happened to me in the past? Criticize yourself. Put your own biases to the test.

“Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out”
― G.K. Chesterton

I’ll leave you with this final thought: you aren’t responsible for how anyone else thinks. You neither have the ability to change how they think. You can give them something to think about. Still, they will revert back and rely on their personal biases to process that information. Your personal biases confirm within you that purple elephants don’t exist in reality. You’ve never seen one, or heard of someone seeing one. You realize people might paint an elephant purple, but that’s not the same as a naturally occurring purple elephant. These truths can only be derived by thinking further about the thoughts we had when we chose to entertain them to begin with, and THAT is what it means to think critically.