The Defect in Popularity

If you are inclined to think for yourself, continue reading...

Why do we give credence to “they” - because it seems everyone does? “They”, who claim a thing is true and the media who report it as if it is true, persuade many to merely accept such a thing as true - and those accepting it will defend it and even propagate it as if they have personally witnessed the thing as true. It then takes on a life of its own.

How do we know it is actually true?

When we defined and propagate something as true born in perceived popularity invokes feelings of membership and belonging in what is perceived to be the group of truth, a defective phenomenon left-over from the Stone Age. The thing is, being popular includes no mechanism, nor has any ability within itself, to prove anything believed is true. In fact, the opposite is more likely so. The default tendency in being drawn to believe or participate in, or originate, something popular tends to switch off personal accountability by transferring it to the group. Then those who want to know for themselves, who vet “they” as well as the thing, are attacked by “they” and "they" wannabes, those accepting their claim. 

We saw that in all those news interviews of those claiming Russian collusion as absolute truth sometimes with details but otherwise denied it or knowing anything about it, under oath.

Consequently, so much of how we all view the world is distorted, misrepresented, or otherwise simply false, because of how we are wired to believe what is popular and those who bring us what is popular tend to do so with popularity being center stage (beat competitors to the scoop; "control the narrative"), not the truth. The end result is perceived public beliefs that have no foundation in reality and no real evidence substantiating them. And the wired tendency to attack dissent from this popularity can propagate such untruth believed by many, indefinitely. 

This is the main defect of our species and will prevent us from progressing as a society unless we educate the masses. Otherwise, we will be vulnerable to those who know better but do not have good intentions. Remember, popularity is not wisdom, and crowd wisdom theory does not apply.

To paraphrase Cicero, “For, if it be possible that [people] should arrive at wisdom, then it must not only be acquired by us, but even enjoyed. Or if this be difficult, still there is no limit to the way in which one is to seek for truth except one has found it; and it is base to be wearied in seeking a thing, when what we do seek for is the most honorable thing possible. [W]ho [would] deny us that pleasure?”

Some of those “truths” we are seeing in the media have absolutely no basis in reality. In some cases, the Dan Rather effect plays out resulting in completely false narratives and reports that are not true (though it propagates across media sources). Science has helped us move past some of this, but not in politics or the media where the term science is often wielded in the narrative. The unfortunate thing is our wired defect regarding popularity, such as we find in politics (and much of the media), will innoculate the public from accepting the real truth once it arrives. 

We've seen science distorted from its original form (and thus no longer science) to substantiate an ideology or agenda or scoop. This wired defect mentioned above can also posses scientists to join the chorus. And those who exert token efforts such as internet search for the purpose of looking for that one bit of evidence justifying their view ends up magnifying the chorus volume with those who do nothing but believe. 

Unfortunately, many believe multiple results of media sources reporting the same thing evidences the underlying story. But it does not. It merely evidences an artifact of that industry, which is to join the narrative chorus under our wired defect of popularity. In other words, journalism has no element in their ethics to vet other sources before reporting, especially when it fits the narratives or agendas they support.

Back to some “thing” as true claimed by “they”, it is true that some have witnessed effects that “they” have assigned a name as the cause. One example is social injustice. But does witnessing such an effect evidence the acclaimed cause? Do they even know anything about the acclaimed cause other than the automatic associations built by watching the news? When those witnessing don’t have the education or otherwise wherewithal to investigate otherwise, it becomes another voice in the chorus. None of which proves the thing is true.

The solution is to see this wired defect in ourselves and avoid joining the chorus. Once we have vetted and investigated we can be our own chorus of that truth, and if it fits the existing chorus, join. However, most of the time this has happened to me I discovered there are caveats to the extent and characteristic of what is true about whatever the "thing" is. My point is what I find rarely fully substantiates either side. This is another defect in our species. Our preference for symmetry in our tendency for false dichotomies. In other words, we are also wired to take a side and ignore any possibilities between the sides or outside the dichotomy altogether. 

It would seem our species is doomed. In some respect, we might be doomed in our vulnerability to those who would capitalize on them for dubious purposes and hidden agendas. The more educated all of us are and the more we prefer to think for ourselves and always fight against the wired tendency to believe what seems popular to be true, the more likely we will progress as a society.