A Truth Units Manifesto: Part 2
A guide to practical applications in everyday life
Truth units are a tool for addressing disagreement — an increasingly pervasive problem these days — by facilitating understanding, common ground, trust and resolution.
The conceptual validity of truth units is covered in these other truth units articles.
The two big practical questions from readers of past truth units articles are:
Question #1. How can they actually resolve disagreements?
Question #2. Why are they better tools than the alternatives?
This article attempts to answer these questions.
A brief recap
The concept of truth units is a blend of philosophy and science, tailored to address our disagreements at any level — from personal to social to all of humanity. It does this by redefining “truth” in terms that work at all these different levels.
As infants, we have the barest awareness of truth. That awareness grows in us through trial and error. We have an experience; we draw conclusions from it. We apply those conclusions to new experiences, see what happens, and refine our conclusions further. Over time, our conclusions are abstracted into a comprehensive picture of the world.
Truth units are our “building blocks” of truth. There is a truth unit for every conclusion we have ever drawn, and are drawing now — be it of past, present or future.
Our picture of truth is built brick by brick, like an Egyptian pyramid. Imagine the pyramid’s top brick is the thought “this is my world, my life.” That top brick would not be way high up there without the support of all the bricks below — layered atop one another one-by-one.
The purpose of thinking in terms of truth units is to see the truth units that lift us to the top of our pyramids. Of course we can’t see all our truth units. I’m now stretching the analogy in saying we can take any given truth we have and tracing down the bricks that support it. Each of these bricks reflects a test.
In truth units, the word “test” has very broad meaning. A test is whatever route you take to justify a conclusion or answer a question.
“Am I hungry? Test: I’m feeling hungry right now, so yes.” “Do I know where my keys are? Test: I have a mental picture of them on my dresser, so yes.” “Do I know what country I’m in? Test: the answer pops immediately to mind, so yes.”
By looking at how our truths evolved through our tests, we can fulfill Socrates’ dictum “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
Question #1. “How can truth units actually resolve disagreements?”
People disagree when they have different tests for answering the same question. The ensuing argument is over whose test is the right test.
You can argue about it, or you can use truth units. Someone says “my answer is x.” You then ask, “what’s your test for it being x?” They say “it’s test y.” You then ask, “what’s your test for using test y?”
You keep going on like that, but each time rephrasing the question “what’s your test?” to probe each answer. For instance, if someone says, “my political party supports my values” ask “what are your values?”
In short, truth units is a structured format — a modality — for Socratic dialogue. At any point descending from brick to brick — truth unit to truth unit:
1. You can find yourself more understanding of others’ positions, seeing them in their personal contexts.
2. The dialogue can move from “who’s right?” to “what are different ways to approach this?”
3. If people come to a common “brick” a mutually agreeable resolution can emerge.
4. Each step down to the next truth unit can bring the dawning realization that, as Socrates said, “all I know is that I know nothing.” (If I know nothing, then I don’t have an opinion to defend. I can be open to others’ new insights.)
5. It can become clear to people that they need to be pragmatic — to build a single pyramid between them on this one issue that they can all live with.
Question #2. “Why are truth units better than other modalities?”
There are many familiar “modalities” we use to address disagreement, including:
· Critical thinking
· Logic, reasoning
· Communication skills
· Emotional intelligence
· Conflict resolution
· Courtroom rules
· Psychotherapy
· Negotiation
In many situations, truth units will not be the better modality. However, truth units are better than other modalities at being a good modality for all situations:
1. Other modalities have limited domains. For instance, science is convincing to people who believe in science, but isn’t convincing to people who don’t.
2. Other modalities involve concepts, words, etc, that need to be explained to people unfamiliar with them, digressing or distracting from the dialogue.
3. Other modalities can come off as elitist, breeding distrust, resentment or adversarial relationships.
4. The concept of tests is intuitive. When “test” questions are phrased to fit the context, the answers are “top of mind” for the person being asked, easy to concisely answer.
5. Because the truth units process is personal and question-based, it prompts people to talk about themselves. The less they feel put on the spot, the more openly they share.
In short, they are more of a conversation and less of an inquisition or a lecture. The following details each of the above five points, keyed by number.
(For ease of reading, we’ll personalize the disagreements as those between Pat and Sam, rather than different people or sides in an argument.)
1. When other modalities hit a cliff
Pat and Sam disagree about vaccines. Pat brings up the statistics to make the case in favor of vaccines. Sam doesn’t trust statistics, believing that people manipulate the numbers to manipulate people.
So without statistics, Pat’s case hits a cliff. Statistics are what make the case for vaccines convincing. And Sam dismisses all the statistics. End of discussion?
But the principles of statistics are based on the work of mathematicians who developed statistical analysis. As with any knowledge, mathematicians asked questions and tested answers to develop and demonstrate principles. In other words, statistical principles are based on truth units.
Changing course, Pat outlines the development of statistical principles for Sam in truth units, then outlines the history of applying statistics to medical data. If Pat can keep Sam engaged, Sam might become more inclined to accept statistics.
Of course, Pat might not have the time, mental energy or interpersonal skills to fully bring Sam on board. However, even with minimal progress, Pat will likely create an opening for further dialogue. Sam will likely be more trusting of Pat’s intentions and willing to invest in further dialogue.
At a minimum, by not irritating Sam with a condescending lecture, Pat will avoid creating resentment and hostility. In retrospect, she could have avoided hitting the cliff by turning to truth units before uttering the triggering word “statistics.”
2. When dialogue goes over people’s heads
Many of the modalities listed above have their own “lingo.” Lingo offers shortcuts for otherwise dense, verbose communication among people versed in a given modality.
Pat sometimes uses lingo to inflate self-worth, or forgets others don’t know the lingo. Either way, when Pat talks in lingo, Sam gets lost.
Sam usually doesn’t admit to being lost. So Sam lets the dialogue proceed without being able to follow it. Or Sam misunderstands it. Or Sam tunes out on the dialogue in frustration.
A memorable example is polling for the 2016 election. Nate Silver of 538 worked hard to explain how to understand his polls — sometimes even using football analogies. Despite that, people took in only the poll numbers. Their takeaway was “Hilary will win.” Sampling, margin of error and confidence percentages didn’t register.
On a less technical level, Sam doesn’t really understand the concept of “average.” If Pat says, “the average person is such-and-such” then Sam shoots back “but not all people are such-and-such.” Both of them are in deeper trouble if Pat is trying to distinguish between a mean, median or mode average.
3. When dialogue becomes intimidating
Mr. Spock of Star Trek was an idol and model to me as a kid. I realized later what a turn-off that was for most people. To many people, Spock-talk is an attitude thing. “You’re a know-it-all, a snob, you feel so superior.” People stop listening and get hostile.
A similar effect occurs with other areas of “expertise” — like in law, science, statistics, psychotherapy — even with logic, reasoning and critical thinking.
A friend told me a story about a disagreement he once had. He was indignant, the other person “couldn’t see reason.” I said, “not everyone learns to reason.” He got more indignant. He thinks all people were born with the ability to reason at the level he does.
These days, any expertise gets labeled as “elitism.” Too many people see the value of your knowledge as a cudgel.
When Pat asks the essential truth units question “what’s your test?” in a conversational way, Pat averts the potential pitfalls of elitism. It can even make Sam feel a little superior. In answering, Sam is the one with exclusive knowledge.
Further, as Pat follows the “what’s your test?” path, Pat can meet Sam’s level of expertise, however low it is. For instance, Sam does “statistics” about personal things all the time. In that context, Sam values statistics as much as Pat does — but to Sam, it’s just common sense. Pat can then probe Sam’s “statistics” in using Sam’s terms, rather than the alienating terms of a statistician.
4. When dialogue is like pulling teeth
The truth units concept of tests is intuitive. Through practice, Pat gets skilled in developing phrasing to fit the context, so Sam is answering conversational questions — instead of questions in a modality, which are alien and potentially mystifying.
What happens is when asked a question, Sam’s answer is the first thing that comes to mind, even if not quickly. That’s because the question is essentially phrased in the terms Sam uses when thinking or talking about the topic.
Asking questions in familiar terms is a deliberate objective in the truth units modality. One benefit is it helps the dialogue flow more smoothly, which makes it less taxing and time-consuming and keeps it on point.
A key benefit to Pat eliciting “top of mind” answers is Sam is less likely to feel the need to justify answers. This is another deliberate objective. It’s fundamental to how truth units work that when Pat asks Sam, “what’s your test?” that Sam’s test doesn’t have to meet any kind of standard or criteria that are structural in other modalities.
Sam’s test is Sam’s test, be it illogical, emotional, unfounded, whatever. The test explains Sam’s position. If the test itself is not explanatory, Pat only needs to ask “what is the test for that test?”
5. When dialogue runs out of fuel
In a formal debate, each side presents their position and refutes the others’ all in trying to win the debate. The dialogue is not about solving a problem, it’s about choosing sides — often the lesser of two evils. There is no fertile ground for ideas to sprout and be cultivated.
When people try to resolve disagreement, they often fall into this black-or-white chasm. To get the upper hand, the two sides each will propose criteria for a decision — each side will say “a solution has to do such-and-such, and only our solution does such-and-such — their solution doesn’t.”
A truth units dialogue is essentially a series of questions. Questions get people talking. There is no saying “that idea doesn’t fit the criteria.” People are more open and comfortable in brainstorming. Ideas pop up and other people react to them, creating new ideas.
On top of that, the essence of the question “what’s your test?” is unintimidating and demonstrates curiosity, if asked conversationally. As they say, “people love to talk about themselves.” As they talk, they reveal points of engagement and common ground.
In summary
Asking questions in truth units is purposeful and directed, but without the limitations of more formal modality structures. The process might take longer, but the dialogue can go where it needs to go, without digressing or contention, just following the truth unit breadcrumbs.
The questions encourage unguarded conversation, to create trust and willingness to talk. No buzzers go off because of a wrong answer.
If there is an opportunity for resolving the disagreement, it will come out during the process. Experienced negotiators know this and use this. Their leverage is the information they draw out and gather. When they get everyone’s cards out on the table, they show how cards drawn from different people’s hands can be combined to create winning hands.
There’s more to be said, or said better, so please comment and ask questions.
A follow-up piece will talk about the stages of resistance people go through to avoid owning their tests, and how you can prepare and strategize to facilitate the process.
Thank you for reading!
Learn more about truth units:
