Intersubjectivity: The Kind of Truth We Need Right Now
Western-style democracies are experiencing a crisis of truth-telling. Those of us who would like to stay informed about the world around us find the news to be laden with judgments and slippery with slants; and, so the “truth” is often hard to find. We may wish to decide for ourselves what to make of it all, but ascertaining the facts of what happened increasingly requires considerable effort and the discerning eye of a detective. This situation has made it difficult to create consensus even about what our problems are, much less to agree on their causes and how we might address them. We are living in a time in which a hyper-competitive “truth”-telling environment has developed; but not all the stories reported, even by major news outlets, can be true, because the details of the facts often seem to be diametrically opposed to other versions of the same story.
Whenever wrongdoing is discovered, and people point the finger of blame at one another, someone must be trying to cover up or fudge the truth. But the existing news model seems incapable of determining what happened in such a way that we can put it on the scale of our own consideration. Such a situation leaves us flying blindly, and the risks to our way of life cannot be exaggerated!
How can we determine which reporters and news outlets are acting in bad faith? There is a way to ferret out the real story, and we call it intersubjectivity. It’s the kind of truth we need right now if we ever hope to find common ground, a process leading to the truth through describing the facts in a way that we can all agree upon. By employing intersubjectivity in the process of determining the truth, we can quickly and easily arrive at the consensus about what has occurred that currently eludes us. Then we can move on to deciding underlying causes and possible solutions.
To understand intersubjectivity, imagine an artist’s studio. There is a subject in the center with painters standing at their easels all around. They each paint the model in their style and from their perspective. When the paintings are complete, each artist takes a turn acting as a critic by commenting on the biases, strengths, and weaknesses of every other picture. Since the artists are the most informed among us on the appearance of the model, as they have represented the subject on canvas, they are potentially the most qualified critics of the biases of their peers. The result of such a process of peer-review could be a rich and detailed description of the various points-of-view on the subject at hand.
When the assembly of such documentary evidence is complete and organized in a way that makes it easy to understand, those involved will present it to the public for consideration. In the process, a certain level of bias would be seen as an inevitable aspect of human diversity and a “matter of opinion.” And assertions of bias are themselves open to rebuttals. However, because all artists have evaluated the work of their peers and feel a sense of collegial responsibility to uphold professional standards, some of the analysis will have uncovered falsifications and intentional distortions made in bad faith. Because many informed voices have spoken together, the public may receive the most detailed and accurate representation of belief possible about the original subject. No one outside the group — no politician, pundit, activist, or lobbyist — could so easily dismiss the report, as is so often done in today’s overheated media climate.
There are now countless controversies towards which we can apply this method. Is climate change an urgent problem? Does President Trump suffer from Narcissism Personality Disorder? Who pays for tariffs? Do tax cuts for the wealthy result in gains for the general population? Will a raise in the minimum wage negatively impact the economy? Did Sarah Huckabee Sanders lie in her role as Press Secretary? Did the Obama administration wiretap Trump Tower? Is President Obama’s birth certificate a forgery? The list of controversies is endless, and you get to choose which you see as important! And to start with, you would have a reliable evaluation of the subject by experts.
To see how intersubjectivity would create a version of the truth that we could all agree upon, let’s consider a notable example: The Mueller Investigation and Attorney General Bill Barr’s subsequent conclusions and letter to Congress. The investigation itself was intended to be a truth-revealing process, but it has not resulted in a consensus around whether there were criminal ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. This controversy is a topic of extreme importance, and it is critical to the stability and security of our country that we be able to discuss such vital issues with some clarity.
Here is a timeline of important events:
• March 24, 2019: The Mueller investigation presents its report to the Attorney General.
• March 24, 2019: The Attorney General presents a summary letter to Congress, stating that the evidence “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense”.
• March 27, 2019: Mueller responds with a letter to the Attorney General, stating that, “the summary letter… did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the investigation’s report.
• 1,400 former federal prosecutors sign a letter contradicting the Attorney General’s conclusions.
• Trump asserts, without evidence, that he could find 5,000 former federal prosecutors who would support the Attorney General’s conclusions.
• End of story — no consensus has been achieved, and no further action is expected.
The failure to arrive at clarity speaks powerfully to the need for the process of peer review that would come with intersubjectivity. In response to the letter, the President invoked a distinct expert consensus opposing that of the 1,400 prosecutors who had agreed on the subject. The next logical step, however, was never taken, which would have been that of seeking to include those other purported 5,000 expert perspectives. Whether there are so many expert opinions on the other side of the issue or not, there are certainly some, and the process of trying to include them would bring us one crucial step closer to creating consensus about whether Attorney General Barr’s peers consider his perspective to have been mainstream or radical.
Another critical example is the debate around climate change. This contentious conversation has been going on for decades, with no resulting consensus having emerged — at least not in the US — despite the very high societal costs of the resulting inability to act. Here is one typical exchange on the topic, between Bill Maher, the host of his program Real Time, and ex-Senator Rick Santorum, from August 28, 2015 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMcpz87EahU&t=2m28s):
Maher: 97% of all scientists believe…
Santorum: That’s a bogus number.
Maher: That’s so not a bogus number.
Santorum: It’s so a bogus number.
Maher: [jokingly flailing his arms] Okay. Yours is, mine is…
Such a low level of dialogue that never even gets to the issue itself does not do justice to a matter of such importance, and yet, public opinion forms in two separate realities that are worlds apart. There are few reliable facts, and although no consensus can be found, there is an abundance of certainty on both sides. We can do better. Using intersubjectivity, we would poll climate science Ph.D.’s and ask them to proffer their informed and authoritative conclusions. There are no real obstacles to our starting to process information in this more fruitful way, so let’s start doing it!
When we receive detailed information directly from those with the most credibility on a topic, we must make sure to include perspectives from across the spectrum of informed belief. Then, no one could simply dismiss it, as typically happens today. Such a process would help move society from the consensus-building phase of problem-solving into the action phase.
At Concordis, we are integrating the spirit of intersubjectivity into an online platform capable of creating such issue-related summaries and reports of unimpeachable credibility and universal relevance. This project is a work-in-progress, and so you can participate in developing the model with us. If the issue of building societal consensus calls out to you as being a way to move towards more effective and productive communication, please join us. Thank you.
