Squirrels are just rats with better PR.
One of my friends from college once said this to me. William & Mary’s campus is heavily wooded and as such, squirrels were an extremely common sight while we walked on cobbled brick from place to place.
The reason this snarky throwaway comment has stuck with me over the years is because it underlines a fundamental truth of the human condition: We see the world through narratives. And those narratives are not defined by truth so much as by the collection of facts that we choose to focus on.
Are squirrels cute tree-planters or disease-ridden monsters? It depends on the facts you choose. If we focus on their fluffy tails, cute white bellies, and the fact that as many as half of the acorns they hide could one day grow into trees, squirrels seem like man’s best friend. If we focus on the fact that squirrels can carry diseases like the plague and tularemia, have taken down more power lines than hackers, can run faster than humans, jump 5 feet into the air, and are very strong swimmers, squirrels seem like some sort of evil super-monster designed by a mad scientist in a lab.
It all comes down to the facts that we choose to focus on. If you are a storyteller, you have a lot of power to shape your narrative. You can build two narratives that are diametrically opposed to one another simply by the facts that you choose to include or omit. Everyone has their own set of preconceived notions and biases and anyone who tells a story will inevitably be tempted to cherry-pick the facts that suit their existing expectations. This “narrative directionalism” means that whenever we hear a story, we need to pay special attention to the incentive structures and base assumptions impacting the facts that the storyteller will choose to include or not.
We are seeing a constant barrage of examples of narrative directionalism every day as people cover and discuss the evolving COVID-19 pandemic. You can construct a fact-based, top-down narrative about the dangers of this pandemic, the need to grant our institutions exceptional powers, and reasons why we should continue living under strict quarantine. You can also construct a fact-based, top-down narrative about how the dangers are overblown, our institutions are failing (or even abusing) what power they do have, and how the loss of life and liberty from staying in lockdown far outweighs potential dangers of reopening.
How can these two narratives exist simultaneously? Is one wrong and the other right? What is true?
I do not believe we live in a post-truth society. I believe we live in a fact-malleable society. Truth is not subjective. But facts are.
The phrase “the sky is blue” is true. “The sky is not red” is a fact, but it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of what is true. “The sky is a color that is not red, green, yellow, orange, or purple” is a selection of facts that tells a different story that much more closely aligns with truth.
Modern storytellers wield incredible power to define narratives based on the facts that they select. If we examine their incentive structures, members of the media are, consciously or unconsciously, incentivized to promote sensationalist narratives. In an advertising-based model, maximizing reader throughput is the chief goal. Brand and reputation matter yes, but not nearly as much as grabbing eyeballs. For a story to be told the fact pattern must lead one to the conclusion that things are either EXTREMELY good or EXTREMELY bad. It’s not news otherwise. This is not a new phenomenon. Look at the storytellers of old and you will see the same sensationalist tendencies.
The truth of course almost always lies in the middle. Things are neither as good as some would have you believe nor as dire. Peel back the incentive-informed narrative directionalism and you will often find that truth lies along a middle ground. This isn’t a surprise. Lay out a complete fact pattern in neutral language and people have a remarkable capacity to find the truth. Use charged, sensationalist language and tribalist battle lines will inevitably be drawn. How are storytellers able to so consistently guide others to the conclusions they want to be drawn?
There is one tool that they use more than any other to sway masses. Fundamental Attribution Error.
Fundamental attribution error is peoples’ tendency to overemphasize someone’s personal characteristics and personality traits as a primary driver behind their actions while simultaneously under-emphasizing environmental factors. When we eat a cookie while trying to be healthy we chalk that up to our being weak-willed instead of asking why we left cookies on the counter in the first place.
Sensationalism-incentivized storytellers know this and take advantage of it. Human beings understand the world through people-centric narratives. We view events through the lens of individual actors and their personalities. Heroes and villains. Bad guys and good guys. Republicans and Democrats.
In our estimations for why something occurred, we regularly underestimate structural, environmental, and systemic factors. We blame bad actors without asking ourselves what systems empowered, shaped, and motivated them. It’s as natural as it is unfortunate.
My challenge for you is to rise above that natural instinct. Think about who is setting the agenda and the narrative directionalism they are incentivized to pursue.
Critically examine each storyteller’s incentive structure (even mine) before you make assumptions about their credibility.
Understand that reality is a complex adaptive system and steer clear from placing excessive causality on an individual’s shoulders.
Find a middle ground and treat people with the respect that they deserve, irrespective of their political affiliation or personal characteristics.
“I’m very concerned that our society is much more interested in information than wonder. In noise than silence.” - Mr. Rodgers
Until next time.
If you have thoughts on this post leave a comment below or reach out to me on twitter @abergseyeview where my DMs will forever be open.
If you enjoyed this post, you can subscribe here to receive all of my posts delivered directly to your inbox every Monday morning.
If this is the first time you are reading something I wrote and you want to learn more about me, this is a good place to start. It includes some background on me as well as a collection of my top posts.