The Origin of Truth - Innovating Journalism Through Storytelling

These days, truth is perceived from points of view. Yet, truth is originally an

evolutionary survival mechanism, governed by emotions and communicated physically, allowing our species to better survive. In its roots, morality isn't derived from a viewpoint, but from accurate reactions to danger. So today, we explore how journalism can be more effective by embracing the storytelling principle of 'Truth as equipment for survival'. Fair warning, there is a punchline. But before we get there, back into the cave we go...

Yeah buddy, I feel the same way (Image license completed)

The Origin of Truth

Imagine us living in a cave in the stone age. We've already invented fire, so after we've hunted down a moose in the forest, we've made a fire to roast it. We're all merely eating, when a spark of the campfire reaches a bush, lighting it on fire and risking the forest burning down, and releasing smoke into the cave, threatening our livelihood and lives.

What do we do?

Evolution has taught the animal kingdom three basic responses: fight, flight or freeze. With immediate danger on the horizon, the response a human chooses (since yes, we are still animals) governs our chances of survival.

When we find the best response to a danger, we communicate this response through the communication tools that we've evolved. This started with grunts and gestures or eye and body movements, and has gradually grown into spoken language, written language, math, art, entertainment and media tools we have today. In other words: we use storytelling tools to communicate the best response, which we starting sharing around that campfire, usually after eating that meal.

Because the 'best response to danger' and in its wake the 'best response to thrive in life' are root-survival mechanisms, they are perceived as an absolute truth, no matter the medium of communication. As such, it is seen as 'morally right'. Or to drive the point home: when there is danger, truth is never about winning an argument or trying to be 'right', it's about accepting the danger and take the 'best response' action to stop it.

The truth is in its core the right survival response.

How We Determine Truth as Accurate

The human species has evolved a very effective way of determining this right response, based on the combination of stored information and the creative ability that allows us to react on the spot. Our responses are determined by two systems working in tandem, called 'Fast Thinking' & 'Slow Thinking' by Nobel price winner Daniel Kahneman, or 'Emotion & Ratio', paraphrasing ancient Greek philosophy.

Ideally, both systems interact to give the best options. Yet to understand the combo, we need to understand the differences. Our primary emotional system - the fast one - fires synapses in an instant to the rest of the body, so we can physically respond and react. For instance the flight response: blood is pumped to the legs, so we can run faster.

But if we haven't learned enough about fire - if our info on fire is inaccurate - we might responds in the wrong way. For instance, blood pumping to the upper body: we might start pounding wildly on the bush to attack it - literally fighting the fire - releasing more oxygen as a result. And thus, creating more fire.

Note the resemblance with our media landscape today. But I'm getting ahead of myself...

Emotions as Information Carriers

The fast system comes from the amygdala, our oldest 'lizzard' brain, where many emotions reside, such as the emotion 'fear'. Fear as an emotion prompts those synapses to a quick, physical response (usually a couple of microseconds), after which the 'slow' part can come into play, that takes about a second or so to kick in. This slow part of our brain is the part that has 'learned' and gathered information, either by previous experiences or knowledge passed on by peers and forefathers through stories.

This 'learned', slow part is what made us 'intelligent' and it is directly, even physically, linked to the origins of storytelling. We have used the power of this slow brain for 'imaginare' or 'logos' or 'ratio', where we can imagine, deduce and explain concepts that are not in the direct reality of the 'now', but could happen. We use our physical bodies as communication devices, and our other storytelling tools such as language, drawing and so on, to then convey the 'imagined' or 'logically deduced' concept.

The receiver of this message then stores these 'imaginares' as useful information for later use. In case for instance, there is a fire, as in our example. So, because of this 'logos' we make better survival decisions and actions that make us thrive, simply because we have more and better information.

However, if the fast thinking brain is more dominant - for instance because it is perpetually in a state of stress - it becomes harder for the slow thinking brain to pass on the right information. This 'panic' response of the fast brain, reduces survival chances.

Stories as Tools

The tool we use to share this knowledge of the slow brain has that before-mentioned umbrella name: storytelling. In essence storytelling teaches. It shares information for the ratio. Yet because we are emotional animals (85 to 95 % of all decisions are based on emotions - Harvard University) storytelling ads emotions to its stories, because feelings are what our body and mind automatically stores in the memory. Again, upping our survival chances.

By using storytelling in its many forms, we share vital knowledge. From fire to the wheel to the axe or how to catch a fish... all of these inventions have been passed on through various forms of stories, fueling progress. Without it, you wouldn't be reading this today.

Now, I hear you think, what does this have to do with contemporary journalism? Well, from a storytelling point of view, most journalists today uses a reversed notion of truth-finding: it tends to focus on being right or winning an argument, instead of on basic survival. I'm not saying this to criticize journalists, since I think they have a tough job. I'm saying it because I believe the different 'truth as equipment for survival' will benefit them.

You see, truth finding these days is mostly shaped through opinions and debates. That is of course, great. It is a sharing of information that activates and strengthens the slow part of the brain. This is a viable way to get to truth.

However, we are also seeing that often, this method fails to convince people who are more in the fast thinking brain. For this, emotional connection, not logic, is the best way to get there. And I don't mean the 'panic' that we see in today's journalism. I mean the actual, factual, direct and unequivocal naming of the exact danger.

This storytelling technique is these days rarely used at its root: for survival and making us thrive. In short, journalism is right to follow opinions and debates, but they are missing a crucial element to win them: naming the exact, objective danger. Truth right now, is used from a defensive position of 'being right'. But truth is far more effective if it used in the offense, as a means to alleviate danger. Allow me to elaborate further.

The root of all communication

Every piece of logical information that we have stored in the brain through 'imaginare' has made us survive and thrive in the real world, and as such, is perceived to us as truth. Or to make it even simpler: when stuff is stated that is not true, it lowers our chances of surviving that fire, and thus we perceive it as 'false' or 'bad'. If stuff is stated that ups the survival chances, we see it as 'good' or 'right'.

Even bad guys in movies are portrayed that way (Bond villains being the best example, read about that latest series on this blog or here on Medium). They seem unable - through pride or trauma or other emotions - to accept reality. As such, they deny danger, even their own demons and that they themselves pose danger, and as such they pose danger to the rest of us. Often while twirling their mustache.

It's a trick of the mind: morality is derived from survival chances and not the other way around. So, the essence of moral behavior is doing those things and sharing those pieces of information - through storytelling - that makes us better survivors and 'thrivers'. Which includes news stories, as this is also the key pursuit of journalism: to find the truth that is so real and undeniable, so we can survive and thrive better.

Recognizing Truth from Lie

Now you see it hopefully, the root of all communication and all storytelling is right there at that fire close to our cave: the emotional responses, used to communicate truth as a survival tool, evolving into the vast array of communication options we have today.

Including, the many channels that share the news. Or lie about it.

Although we can still fall for a lie if it is well told, our species has evolved an evolutionary, physical 'truth' radar to a great degree: we see it in someone's eyes, or hear it in someone's voice or grasp it from someone's gestures. And the reason we are so good at that is simple: we need truth-recognition to put out the fir at our cave, in the right way. Our entire physiology and sense-system is attuned to it.

So, most of the time we can see whether someone are lying or not. And if we have doubts, then further questioning often reveals holes in someone's story, or shows defense reactions. This questioning is of course, what good journalists do. As such, truth can be found by asking a lot of questions. Also known as The Socratic Method.

But these days, with all those channels... truth is obscured by the fact that people have strong ways to deliver their 'own truth', mostly through social media. It makes it easier to lie when acting on camera, or to hide behind a pseudonym online as a keyboard hero. As the saying goes, the best lies have an element of truth in them. And in an individualized era, that has accepted truth as a viewpoint and not a survival tool, it is now much easier to create shadows of the truth.

Plato's Cave

Let's fast forward a few eons from our Stone Age and we arrive at Socrates himself, plus Aristotle, Pythagoras and most crucially: Plato. The fun thing is, we can actually stay with our cave and that fire to progress this particular story.

In his famous thought experience Plato describes us observing shadows on a cave's wall that are caused by a fire. All we can see are the shadows. We have no idea that they are caused by real people interacting with the light of the fire outside of the cave. As such, we perceive these shadows to be real, even thought they are a lie. We even give them names. And we can choose to believe they are real with our imagination. Every good lie has after all, at least a kernel - or shadow - of the truth.

So, to further clarify, if you have no true understanding of the fundamental nature of reality stored in your ratio - in this case, the fact that these shadows are just shadows of real people and not the real deal - you will believe that the shadows are real.

Yet, when we start observing the shadows, and start exploring deeper, start asking our Socratic questions in our curiosity, we quickly understand that we are missing something: we are seeing only figments of the fundamental truth, not the fundamental truth itself. Now, this observation prompts us to look beyond the cave and beyond the fire. And then we find reality: the real people that cause the shadows.

We step out of the cave.

The Protos of Truth

We also step into reality. To the old Greek philosophers there was only one truth, and one truth only. Plato describes this as 'pure truth' or 'Protos' (I'm being a little rough here with my philosophy, but bear with me). In ancient Greek philosophy there is a ultimate form, a propriety of reality, a purity, an essence that is the truth at the bottom.

Of course, this is very much unlike the world we live in today, where truth is in the eye of the beholder and everyone is allowed to have their own truth with their own freedom of speech of it. Of course, having freedom of speech is the best. But these days, in a hyper-individualized society where truth is accepted as a viewpoint, people often mistake freedom of speech with actually holding the fundamental truth.

As a result, we now live in a world where the sky is green and Trump's reflecting pool is blue, instead of the other way around.

How did we get here?

The Trees in The Forest

Let's fast forward again, but this time, we'll stay with the forest instead of the cave and the fire. In the beginning of our modern era a new thought experiment surfaced in philosophy (no one knows exactly when or with who, but it's likely turn of the 19th century, give or take a few decades, see Wikipedia here): "If a tree falls in a forest or on an island, yet no one is there to observe it, does it make a sound?".

This philosophical notion basically asks the question: how important is the observer? Is the sound vibration physical and absolute? Or is it in our perception? If we are not important for reality to be real, the tree makes a sound without us near. If the observer and the observation are crucial for real reality, than the tree makes no sound without us.

Gradually, in science and philosophy, this notion of the observer at the center of reality became more important, arguably in direct correlation with the rise of individualism in Western society. This notion of the central-observer did had advantages for science because it sparked our 'imaginare' and thus, increased theory forming. However, it became so prevalent that it dripped into society as well, that was in itself becoming more individualized. Many started to follow the school of thought that the observer itself influences the outcome of reality.

In physics for instance, many believe that quantum 'decision making' is caused by the observer. Lately a deeper, better idea has emerged (thankfully) that states that the quantum world makes decisions on its own, like nature does. And that quantum is actually proof we have choice, depending on our mindset (see my popular blog on the Yin and Yang of Manifesting about that on Medium or on this blog). So yes, the observer is important still... but only in their own immediate surroundings and influence sphere.

So, there's nothing wrong with individuality and to a degree, we are in charge of our own reality perception. But when it comes to danger and truth, there is a limit. One would hate to think someone starting to debate their position as the observer of the campfire... while the forest is burning down.

On the streets we would say: 'Keep it real.'

We've Gone Back Into The Cave

But by now, the damage was done: the new concept in society was now that you, and your point of view - you as the eye of the beholder - goes beyond just having freedom of speech or expressing an idea... your opinion now also determines truth. You are entitled to whatever truth you 'feel' as the eye of the beholder. And if that's the shadows according to you, then sure, the shadows are the truth.

You're feeling me. This is directly contrary to Plato's cave and the notion of a fundamental truth, fundamental logos, pure, essential protos. All of a sudden, in this modern era, the shadows are again, the truth. In other words, many of us are back in the cave, chasing shadows.

Fast forward to today and our postmodern, individual era, and now, even if you see a green pool full of algae with your very own eyes, people will tell you it is blue because they feel it's blue. And that 'truth' can be spread online.

If it bleeds, it leads

The mistake that many newsrooms have made is that they have turned away from the philosophy of protos, the idea that there is only one truth, and have embraced 'the tree falling in the forest, making no sound'. They may not think they have, but they have put the pursuit of 'many truths' at their center, instead of pure truth, linked to survival.

Now, I'm not judging. As I said, journalists have an incredibly hard job, often dangerous too. I'm also not saying that is easy to find that truth. I'm definitely not saying that I know what the truth is. or that we shouldn't debate it. According to Plato, I can only reach the truth if I really go deep to find it. But I gotta walk the dog in the morning too. That's why I rely on journalists and science, to show me what's beyond the shadows.

Are they doing that enough? I say no. The story of most newsrooms, from all sides and all walks of life or political 'angles' is to play to the 'fast-thinking' brain, the amygdala, that governs fear, through a practice called: "If it bleeds, it leads". In other words, if it plays to the fast lizzard brain, it's the headline. And the panic button.

This gets news content lots of likes and views. And newsrooms, governed by advertising money that needs these likes and views (or at least, that is what they think they need), follow suit. That's why even on serious news channels, you'll still see clickbait headlines. This practice means that our 'fast-thinking' is dominant, even in serious news. It ads stress, favoring the amygdala. In essence, modern-day journalism (with exceptions) nullifies the slow-thinking, rational, logical, protos and truth-embracing part of our brains. And as a result, we are becoming less capable of surviving and thriving.

As a result of all of this, trust in newsrooms has eroded. And rightfully so. You shouldn't trust newsrooms that play to your amygdala. Only those that play to your logos. Again, not because that makes you a morally better person. But because it makes you a better survivor.

How do we break this paradigm?

How To Break The Truth Paradigm

So what I am saying is that everything that journalists already do, is good to do. Yet, I'm suggesting something extra to break the paradigm, based on storytelling roots: add the fundamental notion, that there is only one protos-truth at the bottom, that comes from the slow-thinking, logical brain, and this truth is found by pointing to danger. Not to panic. Nor to opinion. But objective danger.

Trust me, it will work. Our slow, protos-embracing part of the brain made us see beyond the shadow of the fire: the best way to quell the fire is to take away the oxygen, and throw your moose-hide over it. As was passed on generation upon generation with storytelling... and that's the kicker... even when all our ancestors did not actually observe oxygen molecules.

They saw beyond the shadow.

So, in their guts, they knew it to be true: a protos, a fundamental, indisputable truth about oxygen... that crucially couldn't even be observed yet... yet because danger was the context, logic dictated it was and still is the truth. Even hundreds of thousands of years away from that cave, it is still, exactly, the same truth.

In a sense, they created our first news stories, shared at the campfire with the kids: "...and then your uncle Ugh over here, threw his moose-hide on the fire, and it stopped! So remember kids, use your hide!" It's that story, at that campfire, that to this day means your uncle the firefighter stays alive when he takes away the oxygen of a fire.

These cavemen could use their logos and ratio to take action. They could use 'imaginare' to see beyond the shadows in the cave. And share the truth with storytelling.

Adding the Root of Storytelling to the News

It's the storytelling that makes us thrive. And if journalism wants to reinvent itself and become more effective, it's high time they embrace that. They should not claim truth. They should claim something higher: danger and survival. Truth follows from that, and not the other way around.

Of course, if some reporter sells the lie that the algae-filled green reflecting pool at the Lincoln Memorial is in fact blue, it pays to just confront them. They'll protest, threaten, beg and go through all stages of grief to deny it, but it will make them look ridiculous. The majority of people will use their evolutionary truth-tools to see beyond that shadow. Add in a few late night hosts and we can even have some fun with it.

Yet... you're seeing it now right? There is an even better way? Confront them with the color of the pool, and you get a discussion. You get 'my truth' versus 'your truth'. Confront them with the notion that they might get sick from algae... and the truth is reflected all over that pool baby.

According to Plato, truth is singular, fundamental, unavoidable, indisputable and undeniable. It is not easy to find this protos, to look beyond the shadows. Hence, the many viewpoints, many channels, many news outlets. In fact, it requires a lifelong pursuit, which Plato encourages and Socrates defines. But right there, on the bottom of it all, it is what it is. Basta.

Journalism has a world to win, if we put survival first, and argument second. Not to be right or to win a debate. But to prevent us from re-entering the caveman period in this crazy world. That after all, is the ultimate danger. In conclusion, when our world is on fire, it is much better to claim the thing that is beneath that truth: the actual fire. Truth as equipment for survival.

So, next time a reporter is bullshitting you that the reflecting pool is American flag blue and not filled with harmful green algae, take away their 'oxygen'...

... and tell them to drink it.

Luv, as always, Rogier

Want more insights into Storytelling? Check out my book The Whole Story - The Ultimate Guide to Storytelling if you too want to learn more!

If you like Medium to read more of these blogs on Medium, check out the three-part on Storytelling Techniques there through the links to Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3.