4. The Reality Principle (Tell me the truth: are you telling me the truth?)

In previous posts I presented a number of illustrations of the importance and difficulty of figuring out what to believe given the conflicting information available to us. Sometimes the topic of concern is rather academic or inconsequential. For example, were the Founding Fathers of the United States patriotic servants or patriarchal chauvinists? You can find book-length evidence on both sides.¹

But often the concerns involve decisions important to personal welfare or key public policies. Has the national and global “Obesity Crisis” been fabricated, fueled by “junk science”?² “Should the drinking age be lowered?” to ameliorate the problems of underage drinking? Both sides are supported by facts.³ I might have an opinion or a strong belief about these matters, but, actually, I mostly have no idea, and I have a skepticism that valid research studies exist that allow decisive conclusions to be made. On what basis does one choose to believe? On what ground does one justify one’s beliefs to others? Does one lean on the “experts” or “authorities?” On gut feelings and intuitions? On trusted sources? On one’s own observations and other raw facts? Or perhaps on “common sense” beliefs that everybody seems to share? A deeper look reveals that we are constantly using a combination of all of these criteria. (See This essay.)

The examples given so far have been from the media, which we are exposed to on a daily basis. But focusing there can lead us into big questions about institutions and society that seem distant from daily life. Lets take our exploration of knowledge, belief, truth, reality, and uncertainty closer to home. Consider scenarios like the following:

• At home two parents are having a discussion with their teenage son about whether it is safe for the son to travel to Chile with friends during summer vacation.
• As they do twice a year, church committee members meet to decide how to distribute a sizable amount of money that has been budgeted for helping the poor of their city. Many options are on the table.
• Three doctors meet in a conference room discussing which of several new drugs to recommend to a patient with a rare disease of the nervous system.
• The board of an international paper making company decides whether to upgrade all of their plants with the latest technology for cleaning up waste water. The technology is expensive and has a short track record.
• US State Department representatives meet with diplomats from a Middle Eastern country to help negotiate a treaty among several Arab countries.

When one deals in the intimate spheres of family, friends, and colleagues one sees the same issues emerge regarding incomplete knowledge and indeterminacy that are seen in media-based information, but with additional intimacy and poignancy. We see in our daily decisions the ongoing predicament of homo-judicius (man the decision maker); the vulnerability of having to rely on each others’ uncertain information, and the stop-gap layers of certainty we apply to move forward un-haunted by doubt.

Why is an inquiry into the nature of knowledge, belief, truth, reality, and uncertainty important? At the heart of communication and decision making are the questions “what is true?” and “what is right?” (or just, good, desirable, acceptable, beautiful, or meaningful). We will return to “what is right” in an latter essay, but for now note that determining “what is right” depends in large part on determining “what is true” as best we can. “Should we invade Iraq” depends on “are they harboring or producing weapons of mass destruction?” The moral judgment “How irresponsible!–he should have called me back by now” turns on its head when we discover that he was in fact in the hospital. Truth-finding and moral/ethical judgment are closely linked (later we will explore Habermas’ fascinating theory of how more ethical methods lead to more valid truths).

Freud coined the term “Reality Principle” for our inherent drive to make our beliefs match what is actually the case in the world. When we ignore this drive and focus on the pleasure-seeking drives of the immediate moment (Freud’s competing “pleasure principle”), we often do so at the peril of our future selves and others whom we care about. The benefits of understanding reality have been, arguably, the primary force behind the evolution of mental capacities from dumb fish to curious apes to reasoning humans. The more accurately an organism or species “understands” the cause-and-effect principles of its world, the better it can adjust its behavior to thrive.

The reality principle is a very powerful psychological drive. We can locate that drive in our felt experience: the desire too get to the bottom of what really happened, outrage at finding out we have been deceived, curiosity about how something works. Then again, all of the primary psychological drives that evolution has provided us with are powerful (see this essay). They wrestle and romp inside us, sometimes in conflict, sometimes in dubious alliances. The reality principle’s drive to discover truth becomes entwined with the ego’s desire to possess the truth. As much as we want to know reality’s truths, we so hate to be wrong. Bryon Katie notes with irony: “When I argue with reality I lose. But only 100% of the time.”⁴ Which, because it speaks to such a pervasive human frailty, reminds us that evolution still has a ways to go.

You may not spend much time philosophizing about the nature of Truth, Reality or Certainty and it might seem that those who do are locked in their ivory towers winding their way into pointless arguments of the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” variety.⁵ Yet, in this and the previous post, I gave numerous illustrations of why truth-seeking is not only important and pervasive, but fraught with difficulties. I indicated by the Einstein and Bohm quotes in Essay #1 that, when something is important and perennially difficult, it calls for climbing to higher ground to gain some perspective. To shift from being immersed in truth-seeking and uncertainty-generating activities to reflecting about their nature. We can do this to our advantage as individual actors, but of particular interest to me are the collective dimensions. Are there principles, approaches, or “cognitive tools” that can help organizations and communities navigate the waters of uncertainty with more skill and poise? The answer is yes. But, alas, unpacking this answer will take more than this one short essay.

1. Gordon Wood’s Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different, Penguin, 2006; Mark E. Kann’s The Gendering of American Politics, Praeger, 1999. [↩]
2. Valley Advocate article by Juliet Samuel, November 1, 2007. [↩]
3. Parade Magazine, August 12, 2007, by Sean Flynn. [↩]
4. See “I am a lover of what is, not because I’m a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality.” in this article by Byron Katie. [↩]
5. Following up on the theme of this essay I will note that there is even some controversy regarding whether this saying refers to an actual Medieval philosophical debate, see
   How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin . [↩]