Every year the Oxford English Dictionary chooses a Word of the Year that achieved special prominence that year.  As you might know, the Word of the Year for 2016 was “post-truth.”  Here’s the definition: “Circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal opinion.”

It used to be that objective facts created a level playing field for intelligent argument.  Whether you were a politician discussing climate change or a Cubs fan arguing whether Antony Rizzo or Kris Bryant should be MVP, you might argue the meaning or interpretation of the facts, but you agreed that objective facts existed.  Batting averages, RBI’s, home runs, do exist. Increase in global temperatures, rising sea levels, drastic shrinking of polar ice caps, do exist. It used to be when someone said, “just look at the facts,” they were taken seriously.

But No More!!  In a post-truth world, facts have no authority. It’s how I feel about something that makes it true. It’s whether something lines up with my personal opinions or worldview that makes it true.  If I have an inherent bias toward Italians, I’ll never think Anthony Rizzo could be MVP, no matter what his batting average or how RBI’s he has. If I can rally my political base by denying climate change, all the facts in the world mean nothing to me.   I get to choose what is true, based solely on my feelings and opinions.

The recent flap about the photographic evidence of President Trump’s inauguration crowd is an obvious example. It resulted in another new term, alternative facts, an unnerving parallel to George Orwell’s novel 1984 in which the government defines facts and truth and most everyone goes along.

But I’ve noticed something about post-truth.  I’m guessing that most people engage in post-truth to the degree that they are not personally impacted by the “truth” they create. 

What if a congressman denying the science behind climate change suddenly has his doctor show him an MRI revealing he has cancer? Now he probably has a different attitude toward science! In fact, rather than discounting science, I’d guess he is eager to learn all that science might offer in treating his cancer.

Or what if the same congressman had to sell his house in a leafy suburb in the US and live instead on the one of the Solomon Islands that disappeared last year due to rising sea levels?

Or what if the same congressman had to move his three little children ages to parts of Africa where rising temperatures create warmer climates so that malaria carrying mosquitoes—which previously never existed there because of colder temperatures—are now causing a whole generation of children in certain areas to die of malaria for the first time, ever? 

Objective facts do exist and do have consequences.  We ignore them at our peril.   How to get decision-makers to believe in objective facts when someone else usually faces the consequences of ignoring those facts is the dilemma.  

Please Join My Newsletter!

Please Join My Newsletter!

You'll receive my weekly blog articles direct to your inbox.  Plus, periodic updates about my leadership coaching ministry in Africa. 

For subscribing, I'll send you a FREE copy of my new ebook that addresses a frustration most of us feel: "When Trying Harder Becomes the Problem: Overcoming a Paradoxical Barrier to Change"

You have subscribed successfully. Thanks so much! I look forward to sharing with you in the future.