Brief Overview

The idea of truth units merges philosophical and scientific perspectives to tackle disagreements at various levels—from personal disputes to societal issues, even global challenges. This approach redefines “truth” in a manner that is applicable across these different contexts.

As children, our grasp of truth begins at a rudimentary level, developing through experience and reflection. We encounter situations, derive conclusions, and apply these insights to new experiences, leading to a refined understanding of the world over time.

Truth units act as the foundational elements of our understanding. Each conclusion we reach, whether concerning the past, present, or future, corresponds to a truth unit.

Our comprehension of truth is constructed piece by piece, akin to building an Egyptian pyramid. Visualize the apex of the pyramid representing the idea “this is my world, my life.” This top block is firmly supported by all the layers beneath it, stacked one upon another.

The goal of conceptualizing truth in terms of units is to identify the elements that elevate us to the pinnacle of our understanding. While we cannot always perceive all our truth units, we can trace the foundational blocks that support any specific truth. Each of these blocks represents a “test.”

In the context of truth units, “test” encompasses a wide range of meanings. A test can be any method employed to justify a conclusion or answer a question.

> “Am I hungry? Test: I feel hungry right now, so yes.” > “Do I know where my keys are? Test: I can picture them on my dresser, so yes.” > “Do I know what country I’m in? Test: The answer comes to mind immediately, so yes.”

By examining how our truths develop through testing, we can embrace Socrates’ assertion that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

Question 1: How can truth units resolve disagreements?

Disagreements arise when individuals possess different tests for the same question. The debate then centers on which test is the “correct” one.

Instead of arguing, one can utilize truth units. For example, if someone asserts, “my answer is x,” you can ask, “what’s your test for determining x?” If they respond with “it’s test y,” you can follow up with, “what’s your test for using test y?”

This questioning continues, rephrasing the inquiry to explore deeper levels of understanding. For instance, if someone claims, “my political party aligns with my values,” you might ask, “what are your values?”

In essence, truth units provide a structured framework for Socratic dialogue. At any stage of this inquiry—moving from truth unit to truth unit—you can:

1. Gain a better understanding of others’ perspectives, contextualizing their positions.
2. Shift the conversation from “who’s right?” to “what are different approaches to this issue?”
3. Reach a shared understanding that can lead to a mutually beneficial resolution.
4. Experience the realization, as Socrates noted, that “all I know is that I know nothing,” fostering openness to new insights.
5. Recognize the necessity for pragmatism, working towards a unified understanding on the issue at hand.

Question 2: Why are truth units preferable to other methods?

Various familiar methods exist for addressing disagreements, including:

• Critical thinking
• Logic and reasoning
• Communication skills
• Emotional intelligence
• Conflict resolution
• Legal frameworks
• Psychotherapy
• Negotiation

While truth units may not always be the best choice, they offer advantages over other modalities in a variety of situations:

1. Other methods often have limited applicability. For instance, scientific arguments may persuade those who trust science but fail to convince skeptics.
2. Many approaches require explaining complex concepts, which can distract from the dialogue.
3. Certain methods may appear elitist, fostering distrust or antagonism.
4. The notion of “tests” is intuitive. When framed appropriately, answers are readily accessible.
5. The personal and question-driven nature of truth units encourages individuals to share openly, reducing the pressure of feeling scrutinized.

In summary, truth units foster a conversational atmosphere rather than an interrogation or lecture. The following sections elaborate on each of these points using a hypothetical disagreement between two individuals, Pat and Sam.

1. When other methods reach an impasse

Pat and Sam are at odds over vaccination. Pat cites statistics to support the pro-vaccine stance, while Sam distrusts statistics, believing they can be manipulated.

Without the statistics, Pat’s argument falters. Since Sam dismisses the data, does the conversation end here?

Pat can pivot by explaining the foundations of statistics to Sam using truth units, detailing the historical context of statistical applications in healthcare. If Pat engages Sam effectively, he may become more receptive to the statistical evidence.

While Pat might not have the time or skills to fully convince Sam, even a small breakthrough can pave the way for future discussions. By avoiding condescension, Pat fosters trust and opens the door for further dialogue. In retrospect, she could have sidestepped the impasse by introducing truth units before mentioning the contentious word “statistics.”

2. When communication becomes convoluted

Many of the aforementioned methods come with their own jargon, which can obscure understanding for those not familiar with the terminology.

Pat sometimes resorts to jargon, either to elevate her status or simply forgetting others may not understand it. When she does, Sam often becomes confused.

Sam typically won't admit confusion and may allow the conversation to proceed without grasping it, leading to misunderstandings or disengagement.

A striking example occurred during polling for the 2016 election, where Nate Silver of 538 endeavored to clarify polling methodologies, even employing football analogies. Yet, many only absorbed the raw numbers and concluded that “Hillary will win,” neglecting sampling methods, margin of error, and confidence levels.

On a simpler note, if Pat states, “the average person is such-and-such,” Sam might counter with, “but not everyone is like that.” Their discussion complicates further if Pat attempts to differentiate between mean, median, and mode.

3. When dialogue becomes daunting

As a child, I admired Mr. Spock from Star Trek, only to realize later that his demeanor alienated many. His style can evoke feelings of superiority, leading listeners to disengage or react negatively.

This phenomenon occurs across various fields—law, science, statistics, psychotherapy—where expertise can be perceived as elitism.

A friend once shared a story about a disagreement where he felt indignant that the other party “couldn’t see reason.” I pointed out that not everyone possesses the same reasoning skills. He grew more indignant, assuming everyone could reason as he did.

Today, any display of expertise is often labeled elitist, with many perceiving knowledge as a weapon.

When Pat asks the fundamental truth unit question, “what’s your test?” in a casual manner, she mitigates the risks of elitism. This approach allows Sam to feel knowledgeable as he shares his insights.

Furthermore, as Pat navigates the “what’s your test?” route, she can align with Sam’s level of understanding. For example, Sam engages in personal statistical analysis routinely, valuing it as common sense, which can then be explored through familiar terminology.

4. When discussions become tedious

The concept of tests within truth units is straightforward. With practice, Pat hones her ability to phrase inquiries in a relatable manner, prompting Sam to respond to conversational questions rather than jargon-laden ones that may confuse him.

When posed with questions in familiar terms, Sam’s responses emerge more organically, even if not immediately. This is because the questions resonate with his thought process.

Aiming for clarity in phrasing is a key objective of the truth units approach. This strategy promotes smoother dialogue, minimizing the effort and time required while keeping discussions focused.

One significant advantage of eliciting immediate responses is that Sam feels less compelled to justify his answers. The essence of truth units ensures that when Pat asks, “what’s your test?” the criteria for Sam’s answer need not conform to the rigid structures of other methodologies.

Sam’s test stands as his own, regardless of whether it seems illogical or unfounded. If further explanation is needed, Pat can simply inquire, “what is the test for that test?”

5. When conversations lose momentum

In formal debates, participants present their arguments while aiming to refute the opposing side, focusing on winning rather than problem-solving. Such dynamics leave little room for collaborative idea development.

During attempts to resolve disagreements, individuals often fall into dichotomous thinking. Each side proposes criteria to validate their position, claiming, “our solution meets the requirements, while theirs does not.”

A dialogue based on truth units unfolds as a series of inquiries. Questions encourage conversation, leaving no room for dismissive responses. This fosters a more relaxed atmosphere for brainstorming and idea generation.

Moreover, the essence of asking “what’s your test?” is non-threatening and expresses genuine curiosity. People enjoy discussing themselves, and in doing so, they often reveal points of commonality and engagement.

Conclusion

The process of asking questions within the framework of truth units is intentional and focused while avoiding the confines of more structured methods. Though it may take longer, the dialogue can evolve naturally, following the path laid by truth units without unnecessary detours or conflicts.

These inquiries promote candid conversations, fostering trust and openness. There are no penalties for incorrect responses.

If a resolution to the disagreement exists, it will naturally emerge during the discussion. Skilled negotiators are aware of this and leverage the insights they gather. By revealing everyone’s perspectives, they can illustrate how diverse viewpoints can be integrated into a cohesive understanding.

There’s always more to explore, so please feel free to share your thoughts or questions.

A subsequent article will address the stages of resistance individuals encounter in acknowledging their tests, along with strategies to facilitate this process.

Thank you for reading!