Actual Title: Finding the Ever-Elusive Truth. 

I’m kind of surprised I’m writing again, already, following such a significant absence previously. Geez, what passion.

I’ve thought a lot about what to write and even started a few drafts. Which, through school, I never once did. I had great pride that I could write 5-page papers in 1-3 hours and pass with good enough grades. I feel like my research and studying style actually existed for a long time but was hidden in plain view.

As I went up the chain of high school to a bachelor’s degree, to graduate degree (sick brag, and my debt says otherwise), I was forced into suffering through reading for school. I could write compelling book reports in literature classes, even though I only read one chapter. I wrote a 3-page report on Bill Clinton in middle school, and I maybe googled him for 35 minutes before determining what I thought about the guy, and I didn’t even watch any videos.

While I always focused on my writing as being my strength, and I do find my own self compelling, I think it’s actually my research and study skills that carried me through school. And it explains why the final year of graduate school was such a painfully slow experience that I hardly gleaned any information from it.

In the final year of my MBA, the reading became significantly more important to keep up on. Some classes also implemented a guided reader program to improve focus/memory. While you could still read with some speed, you had to click a few extra times on the page on some important note to remember. While I did feel like I got some more insight from reading more intensely, I struggled to retain it for longer than the necessary test or paper.

The point I’m making is that my personal study methods, which I believed never existed have deeply shaped my beliefs and opinions. And, while it may not make sense to you, I feel like it provides me great clarity on gray areas. (Side Note: I’ve always wondered if grey areas is actually “gray areas” or “grey areas”)

What are my study methods?

I really don’t think I’m alone in how I do it, and I just haven’t heard it described before.

I use Google. Wikipedia is my go-to source that I always click on first. First, is the important word there.  I remember being taught in school that Wikipedia was awful because anybody could edit it any way they wanted, you never knew the truth.I find the truth to be increasingly elusive to grasp, and it’s likely always been that way, but the deceptive tools to hide it must change as the culture changes.

From Wikipedia, I glean plenty of information. As a Gen-Z/Millennial Cusp baby, born conveniently close to 8-9 months after the Cowboys won the super bowl in 1996 (dad and I’s favorite team), I often wonder if having the Internet at my disposal so early helped in my ability to spot bullshit. Probably also helps that it was the height of fear in our parent’s minds about the horrors of the Internet. So, we were also preached that we couldn’t believe everything we read on the internet (a wise note that many seem to have forgotten). Spotting bullshit may be Gen-Z’s most favorite hobby in the world.

Wiki gives you links to the sourced information. Coupled with the links Google already provided, I delve into 1 or 2 data sets and Excel spreadsheets (unless I’m really intrigued, l read data for 4 hours nowadays), and while I only sometimes remember the exact stats, it’s usually easy for me to form an initial opinion on the data and what I think.

An Example: I read data during COVID, from the CDC, that would make it look like masks were very ineffective. It showed me that, if 2 out of 2 total people were wearing masks and one was infected in a room, then the transmission rate was extremely high. If 1 out of 2 total people wore one and were in a room, the transmission rate was shockingly lower. Even crazier, if neither wore a mask, the transmission was at its lowest rate in the data set.

Now, sometimes data can lead you to the truth directly, but not always. I feel like a good opinion can’t be formed on data alone, for the most part.

This is where my study methods probably start to align with more people, but again, I don’t hear anyone mentioning it.

The second, and probably most important step to my research. Is reading news articles from highly biased sources. NOT CRAZY SOURCES that commonly and boldly lie. The sources I want, are the sources whose lies are hidden and deceptive. CNN and FOX are perfect targets. The lies are so deceptive that many people who prefer those channels still believe they’re getting an unbiased opinion. For years, I was hardcore Republican, and I don’t even know where I stand anymore, but it’s certainly not close to aligning with the majority of either side.

FOX and Tucker, were unbiased to me. And even when I considered myself Republican, but no longer hardcore and had softened on many social issues, FOX could still get me riled up, and it would force me to anxiety-research to get to the truth. I knew there were lies, but my first thought still wanted to believe them as my formed opinion. And, even now, when I read CNN, I initially discredit most arguments. That’s why CNN, actually IS the news I follow the most.

CNN is the yin to my yang. The reason, is because I spot the bullshit faster than I can on FOX. With my history of being Republican, I just have a tendency to start agreeing right away and disagreeing when reading CNN. It works perfectly when I’m in a pinch and can’t do my third step, because generally I see through the bullshit and can read just the facts. Yes, I have to confirm later, but in a moment’s notice I can generally inform myself of what happened, but not my opinion by reading CNN.

Step 3, is when the opinion finally gets formed. And for me, it’s never really fully formed until I bounce the idea off someone later, too. But generally, somewhere during step 3 is when my opinions actually start to take form and I start to take a side. For the example of the COVID data mentioned, my opinion was fully formed only after this step and finally step 4. 

From the CNN and FOX news links, you HAVE  to use both links here. (If your mind generally gets an opinion formed just by reading FOX or CNN, skip the one that does it to you during step 2. But during step 3, BOTH must be used.)

If you fail to use both, your opinion might get dismantled with more ease later. Which is fine because our opinions might be wrong, but I prefer to have a more sealed shut case.

Use the article links, and if there are no links, copy the title of the article. Go to Facebook. I know you may not use it often, but it is the gold mine I’m arriving at. Find the article on Facebook using the links, or paste the title into the Facebook search bar. From there, open the comment section for the articles from whichever group posted it. At this point, you’ll recognize very quickly what people are thinking about the issue in the article. But to dig even deeper, you have to read the reply comments because it offers a glimpse into why people think the way they do. This is where I spend the majority of my time.

If someone’s bold enough to comment their opinion in front of anyone on Facebook, they will damn sure defend it to its death against even the best arguments. And listening to their replies, and the arguments presented, offers a glimpse of what the ever-elusive truth may actually be. The hateful or agreement replies are, sometimes, some of the greatest humor you’ll ever find too, and informs you of generally how each side is thinking about the issue when someone tries to provide the truth.

We’re already informed of what happened in step 2, so we don’t need much more help figuring out the ‘What’ question (sometimes yes, CNN or FOX misses facts or has an inaccuracy out of error). And step 2 is most important because it prevents becoming misinformed, which is an entirely other problem.

What we’re looking for, is maybe the Why. But I think, deep rooted in all of us is a longing to be right out of care and slightly fear. And I think I’ve only gleaned that from years of reading Facebook replies and comments. NO, not the politicians, corporations, pharmacies, celebrities, etc. The people living life with no fame or infamy, for their duration, generally care and want what is best for the most amount of people. For example, generally, I do lean right, still, on the Border Issue. I don’t care to explain why, but I do know that I deeply care and want what is best for those individuals. And I know my best friends on the other side want the exact same thing. The difference, is what we believe is the best solution. And why we believe it is so deeply nuanced that it’s hard to believe the other side feels the same way while thinking differently.

Step 4 and the hardest of all:

One of my best coworkers and I thought so differently on the border for so deeply nuanced reasons, and we got to share how we felt and why we felt without judgment.

I think that’s what America really needs: candid, honest, hard conversations about the hard topics. Border Security, Transgender Humans, Entitlements, Potential US-Forces Fighting Again, Legal Drugs, Crime, Racial Issues, Presidential Ability/Behavior, Deficit Spending, Economics, Electoral College, State Constitutions, Congress Insider Trading, Illegal Homeland Surveillance, and so many more I can’t think of, but I know you get the point. We’re divided because we form our opinions on the people who think differently about the issue and we’re incorrect about them. We can know what they believe, without knowing if they’re a net good or bad for society as a human. With each of us only living one life, we’re all doing this the best way we can figure out how for ourselves, and generally for the betterment of all. Many of the people who helped insert leaders like Hitler and Stalin did it because they thought they would help more than hurt and right the wrongs of the past. 

People seem to care, which is why Facebook comments rarely resemble real life. I’d die on the hill for most of my opinions. But when I’m at a restaurant, I don’t scream at someone who disagrees or makes their opinion known, and if I do openly disagree, I try to explain my care first and not debate, because I care about how they feel and want them to know I care about the issue too. But I also know that when I do see protests that stand against what I stand for, or people do voice their opinions in ways that could hurt others, they ACTUALLY also care about the issue they’re raising, and they probably need a good conversation that can only start when we start having them too.

Thanks for reading. I really do wonder if there will ever be a party that suits me again. I wasn’t old enough to know then, but I’d kill for Bill Clinton again. I think George Bush had generally decent intentions. I thought Obama did one the wisest things ever; he put a cellphone in every person’s hands and has likely saved millions of people’s lives. Trump kept the world powers peaceful, and if war in Israel is going to break out further, I think Joe Biden has enough classical-democrat left to be doing a considerably good job to this point.

When our capitalistic and democracy-styled system breaks, and it will one day. An entirely new, unheard-of-before system will probably take its place as I feel there is a growing number of people who want to see the ever-elusive truth.