I had an interesting discussion with a colleague recently, regarding the transparency of information provided by an organization to the public and how that information could get twisted or misunderstood by some. His point of view was that perhaps some information should not be made public, even if merely informative in nature, because some people aren’t responsible enough to understand or use the information correctly.
I disagreed. My response was that instead of the information not being made available, efforts should be made to more widely train people to analyze and understand information like this that is presented. This allows them to better receive the provided information, speak logically and intelligently about it, and help others do the same.
There are three starting points that must be covered in order to do this.
Three Ways to Analyze Information
- First, we must actually gather our information from reliable sources. This includes:
- Respected print journalism using verified sources (not commentators on cable TV)
- Subject matter experts (actual practitioners and academics, not merely “pundits” or “critics” – if specific credentials aren’t provided, they probably don’t have them)
- First hand sources – people who have had direct knowledge or involvement with a subject
2. Second, we must understand what a good argument is and is not. Logical fallacies are types of arguments that appear to support an idea, but are under closer examination are actually incorrect in what or how they portray the information. I highly encourage you to educate yourself more on this subject because these types of arguments are rampant in today’s communication – both public and private.
Some examples of logical fantasies:
- Ad hominem – instead of presenting sound reasoning or facts related to the subject, attacks or insults are made against the person presenting an opposing view.
- Strawman argument – arguing against a related subject that is grossly inflated to distract from the original argument premise. Often this presents as a gross oversimplification of an issue in order to make it more easily attacked.
- Casual fallacy – an assumption that something caused an event to happen without any actual proof.
3. Third, we should seek to actually understand the opposing viewpoint.
Understanding an opposing viewpoint makes it easier to understand how they may try to debate your own position, allowing you to see any legitimate gaps in your logic. If we are indeed after the truth of a matter, then our goal should not be just to win the argument. We must be open to new ideas and be willing to adjust our position and beliefs as sound and trustworthy information is presented. If your goal is merely to defend your position, but not learn the truth you are going to create blind spots in your life that are likely to hold you back or even harm you in the future.
So What?
What does this have to do with personal security? Information is power. Good, reliable information allows you to be better prepared for life, and respond more intentionally and intelligently to what life throws at you.
If we truly want to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe and secure, we must be mentally sharp and prepared to have civil discourse with people from all walks of life. A closed mind in one area is a mind that closes easily in other areas.
Be prepared to receive and analyze new information. Be ready to defend well and respectfully what you believe. Be ready to change your opinion when necessary. Arm yourself with good, truthful information.
