The human world is a dynamically interactive space between numerous natural and manufactured systems. On top of that we layer complications resulting from the assumptions, emotions and behaviours of around 7.8 billion inhabitants. This space contains so much that we are unable to comprehend because of the sheer amount and complex nature of the data. Our habitual answer is to try and sort information into compartments, simplifying the complexity in order to get to the core of what matters to us. But each day even that becomes more difficult, at least with any assurance that we are not falling into a pit of distractions, given our clumsy methods of analysis and penchant for generalizations.
The advent of new digital technologies means we have all become much more aware of how others are going about ordering their lives - relating and interacting across a spectrum of ingenuity, corruption, banality and inspiration as we conduct our activities and govern our affairs. Meanwhile, news headlines batter us with reports of events that trigger emotions ranging from outrage to fear and every other sentiment felt by humankind.
In past decades life was relatively simple in that most people were happy to accept the information conveyed to them by sources they trusted. Trusted sources were easy to identify: newspapers, state broadcasting entities, our teachers, the local GP and even politicians. But today, in a world populated by deep fakes, rumours, opinions posing as facts, and sensational fictions, it is far more difficult to make sense of what is going on, and to trust that we are being told the truth.
Truth has become a stranger. While untruths, cleverly nuanced and packaged as propaganda, have become a global lingua franca - a channel and knowledge portal in which all kinds of conspiracy theories and fictions can germinate.
Recently I have been examining a number of online sites (like David Fuller's Rebel Wisdom and Sam Harris's Making Sense podcast) populated by digital cognoscenti in the field of strategic inquiry and sense making (intellectual celebrities like Jordan Hall, Daniel Schmachtenberger, and Bret Weinstein) who are intent on advancing their own (and others) practice to make better sense of the complex, ever-changing world, in which we find ourselves.
These are all highly intelligent, thoughtful, well-intentioned individuals who bring a gravitas to the conundrum of sense making that is both uncommon yet welcome. Good intentions are all very well. But advancing our capacity for authentic sense making is not at all easy. As I watch these intellectual giants twisting their tortuous interpretations of information into incomprehensible knots, afflicted in part by their own unconscious sets of misunderstandings and constrained abilities for meaning making, I am moved to offer them some fresh insights.
What is Truth?
At its core, sense making is the task of discovering what is true or not in preparation for taking action of some kind. But what is the meaning of this term truth that we use so casually? How do we know when something is true? How can we be sure that we know? Are some truths absolute and others subject to change depending on circumstances - such as the community laws and values where we live, or how we were socialized into that society?
If we take scientific evidence to be sufficient for validating the truth, for how long should any single principle hold? Does truth depend on evidence, or can faith contain the truth? As science is an exploratory field of discovering 'the new' how should we account for truths that change - such as the virus leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, initially pronounced a nonsense and a conspiracy theory but now, just two years later, the most likely scenario?
On a social plane, can truth be negotiated? If we are working on the basis of sacrificial logic it seems possible that we would want to be able to negotiate truthfulness. Perhaps we all hold different truths and can accept, discard or favour specific aspects of our truth within prescribed or intuited limits? This 'internal integrity compass' seems often to guide what we consider possible, probable, and preferable after all.
Finally, how is truth communicated and then interpreted? Where is the source of truth and in what conditions does it thrive? What are its various aspects? How do we sort fact from fiction, diagnosing untruths wrapped up as facts? What happens when truth is fragmented - as in conspiracy theories, for example, where shards of truth are woven into fanciful conclusions that are mistaken and therefore untruthful? How do secrets, gossip and rumours feature in disturbing our ability to make sense? Can feelings of guilt or shame or humility keep the truth hidden or confined to a small circle of confidantes? What are the consequences of that?
Dance of Shiva
These are all important questions. In a way, sense making is the process of excavating the architecture of events and transactions, and the multiple layers of meaning within the narratives we tell each other, to which we are subject, so that we are better able to set aside semiotic distortions, rumours, and gossip that all tap into and fuel our fears, anxieties and delusions, to reveal a version of reality upon which we can rely.
So is the truth, then, merely a product of our collective interface with varying degrees of purpose, influence, power and impact? Or can the truth be 'coloured' by our own perceptions and ingrained beliefs? And, if the latter, to what extent can these shift by listening to and processing contrarian views?
For example, is the brutal Taliban of 20 years ago the same Taliban that has won back power in Afghanistan today? By adopting modern technologies with which to communicate they are demonstrating an ability to stay up-to-date that is novel. Their declared intentions, too, are certainly more inclusive than before. They are at pains to convey to the wider world how much they have changed. But is that assertion conveyed in their messaging consistent with a new reality, or are we simply being misled by propaganda? Is it just the aspiration of the leadership and, if so, does it accord with various field commanders whose actions seem to indicate they have not yet grasped the need for a less cruel policy towards women?
As I review the news surrounding global events (such as mounting tensions on the Russian border with Ukraine for example, or the theory that 'mass formation psychosis' explains Australia's high level of compliance with Covid-related government edicts); compare our 'contagion of anxiety' with mostly disregarded or misreported events of far greater magnitude in terms of existential threat (like international apprehension and media hype regarding China's supposed intentions to invade Taiwan, for example); and then take into account the tsunami of trivia that quivers constantly in our field of vision as the most seductive and addictive dance of all, I am troubled. For what I am observing is the destructive dance of Shiva.
The following practice fields are mostly missing from our sense making inquiries. They are the generic rationale for why we fail so often, individually and collectively, to discern facts from fiction, and have trouble making sense of our everyday world. The problem is that poor sense making can unintentionally heighten all manner of risks: systemic, strategic and operational.
Bandwidth: The amount of data we routinely create, capture, copy and consume through the technological domain is increasing exponentially. Today it is around 65 zettabytes. Over the next five years global data creation is projected to grow to more than 180 zettabytes. At the same time our ability to turn data into meaningful information - by what is often colloquially referred to as connecting the dots - appears to have stalled. There are some suggestions that our sense making ability might be diminishing still further because of a lack of critical thinking being taught in schools. And this has been associated with the observed decline of IQ rates in some developed nations.
Thus, this is not just the sheer amount of data that is at issue, but rather the topological complexity of (potentially conflicting) information derived from that data which is aggravating the problem, together with the bandwidth we have available to process large exponential streams of data.
Navigation: Human interactions, and events within the various environments we inhabit, are all part of an ambient reality we are constantly trying to pin down and decode. This context is never static, as it might appear, but always shifting. So, for example, looking out of the window to decide whether we should take an umbrella with us as we leave the house might give us an accurate snapshot of current weather conditions. Based purely on that information we cannot know what the weather will be in several hours time.
This means that most knowledge, though not quite all, is provisional. If we have the right tools, we can see complex events unfolding - simulated weather patterns displayed on the evening news for example. With more sophisticated tools we can see those same trajectories alter course, or speed, and assess their impact as they wax or wane over time.
The moment we arrive at any hypothesis, the ground may have shifted - sometimes to such an extent that decisions we thought fixed become open to interrogation again. Sense making therefore is not a discrete exercise in itself, but part of a cycle of sensing, making sense, reacting and monitoring complex patterns. A process of ongoing navigation.
Information Processing: Like all other sentient beings, humans absorb and process information synesthetically - through all five of our senses. Adaptation over centuries has honed these senses. So although our sense of smell is weak compared to an African elephant, and our hearing positively primitive in comparison to a bat, our ability to see is pretty good. As a consequence, a staggering 85 per cent of the information absorbed by the human brain is visual - in the form of movements, colours, patterns, trends, and factors to do with our identity and whether that information is important to us.
It stands to reason then that when we are analyzing any aspect of a dynamically complex system (the ongoing clinical trials of Ivermectin and its use in treating the Covid-19 virus within the context of the pandemic let's say), we need a way to visualize the data, preferably in an immersive environment where distractions are few. Only when we can see patterns can we forensically examine the data from every possible angle and viewpoint.
Even using the most precise and comprehensive verbal language is no substitute for visualization. Using the spoken and written word as the sole mode for making sense is entirely inadequate. Even ignoring such issues as translation, words by themselves invariably lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations, which can then result in a further weakening of our sense making capabilities.
Visual expressions of data, like pictures, maps and diagrams, are not without their own problems. We can be so easily misled by being presented with a photograph that has been cropped to such an extent that vital elements of apprehension go missing - meaning that our conclusions about what is being conveyed by the imagery, based purely on what we are seeing, can be skewed or even entirely wrong.
Forms of Inquiry: Most conversations and methods of inquiry in the West are fashioned to fit dualistic models of discourse that emerged during the European Enlightenment. Cartesian logic prevails in debates, negotiations, and tools constructed primarily for deductive reasoning. Deductive modes of dialogue are commonly used within the court system, schools, debating societies, and democratic parliaments.
This is different to Eastern modes of discourse which tend to be inductive - where deductive conversations can often be regarded as crude and unhelpful. Conversations for sense making could be enhanced by including both deductive and inductive forms of reasoning when examining information, or arguing a case for one position over another.
Whereas we look to provide absolute answers in the West, decision makers in the East are perfectly comfortable to withhold a final definitive solution, keeping inquiries open and maintaining a balanced view of the fluid situation. Is it possible that inductive reasoning in more open inquiries will find alternative truths to those established prematurely when using deductive methods of inquiry requiring 'the truth' to be found quickly?
Emotive Prejudice: Humans are primarily emotional beings. Initially we seek to absorb information kinesthetically. This is often instinctive. Most decisions we make are triggered or informed by an emotional reaction to a particular situation or set of circumstances, and only rationalized later as we search for evidence to support our position.
So it is important to ask how we feel about a certain event, individual, or policy in order to fully comprehend any bias we might have. Indeed affective information is often more important than anything else in arriving at the truth.
Layers of affective content are often subliminally packaged within conscious reason. Feelings are filters. They cannot be separated from interpretations of factual evidence attempting to find out 'what happened'. Nor should they be discounted as being of secondary importance to rational thoughts. They must therefore be taken into consideration as one, if not the most important way, in which 'the truth' is allowed to emerge.
Epistemology: Epistemological differences within participants in any discourse should be openly declared as part of framing any conversation aimed at shedding fresh light on an issue. Our 'ways of knowing' about the world are all inimitable because we grew up in different societies, with differing beliefs and assumptions, and distinctive cultural traits and acquired values. As we mature we are further conditioned into believing some things, but not others.
That does not make one episteme more right or wrong, true or false. It simply means that our sensing mechanisms, which inevitably precede sense making, are different and will invariably 'colour' our sense making. If these different epistemological nuances go undeclared we can be drawn into a Cartesian trap of erroneous and endlessly dualistic disputes, while stepping into new epistemologies can reveal possibilities previously hidden.
Ontological Framing: Our ontology is our 'window' onto the world, acting on many levels from the individual to the collective. It frames and informs what kinds of things exist in the social world and our assumptions about the form and nature of that reality. We will never discover the truth by asking close friends - especially if we know they are likely to agree with us - as they will probably have similar ontologies. They will 'see' things the same way and make the same assumptions. The best we can know in such circumstances is that our friends see reality through a similar lens.
Differing ontological frames offer us insights into different sets of truths. Asking an indigenous Australian woman how best to protect a local urban ecosystem, for example, will most probably reveal an ontological response that is fundamentally dissimilar from that of the female European scientist living next door to her. Introducing laws that give other species the constitutional privileges of 'personhood' would immediately alter our perspective regarding how they should be treated differently.
Adopting 'polyocular' diversity, too, is critical for making sense of what might be possible (distinct from making sense of what happened, or what is happening) because our views regarding the nature of what it really means to be human, or ethical, or a doctor (our ontological framing) will be different in each case. Including this kind of framing in conversations about the future is essential if breakthroughs are to be expected.
Space-Time: The present moment - the palpable 'here & now' of our actuality - constrains our ability to imagine anything beyond or outside the current manufactured normalcy. Only by repositioning an 'issue' within a broader metaframe, an 'expanded now' of awareness and interconnectivity, can we draw on a deeper understanding of what happened and what might still eventuate, as we learn to more fully appreciate what is going on 'right now'.
Levels of Conversation: We generally only notice stuff, and talk about matters superficially - skating on the surface of our perceptions and totally ignoring underlying factors - such as the inherent code that compels us to see and explain the world and our role in it a certain way. The scope of most discourse relates to an immediacy of what we can see, recall, and 'understand' clearly. Other vital information remains hidden below a surface we hesitate to penetrate for fear of causing offense or discovering unpalatable truths. That will not do if we are sense making for enlightenment or design.
Questions and explanations for 'how' we see and 'why' we interpret the world the way we do, or what it is about our thinking that allows some things but not others to endure, are usually to be found under the veneer of inconsequential chatter. The tools on which we mostly rely cannot 'see' the bulk of the ice (knowledge) below the tip of the iceberg (information) on the surface of the water. Just as sonar is required in order to estimate the bulk of the hidden ice, and the dangers it might represent, so deeper levels of conversation are needed to probe the parameters of a complex systemic issue if we expect to escape the cognitive prisons of our own invention.
Learning Metabolism: A key lag factor in sense making is the time taken to engage in the process of transforming newly acquired information into insights, which can then be incorporated into purposeful adaptation. Our speed of learning - or 'learning metabolism' - is the time it takes to sense a variation or change in the environment, make sense of what that means, and respond or adapt to it accordingly. Often we experience delays in the time between these functions. Delayed response times is the reason sense making is best curated as a continuous process.
It seems to me that our ability to make sense of the human condition, to examine the 'deeper news' as a way to imagine viable forms of renewal, has hit a wall. Indeed, the human family seems to be in a cognitive gridlock from which escape seems improbable. Unless, that is, we can bring a new consciousness to bear on our capacity for collective sense making and regenerative responses.