IT’S AN INTERPRETATION, NOT A FACT!

In the field of communication, a basic and fundamental distinction is that between facts and interpretations. The reason is obvious, we are much more likely to agree about the facts of a case than how to interpret those facts. When it comes to interpretations— everything can be viewed in multiple ways and the more diversity there is, the greater the extent of viewpoints and perspectives. From the beginning, NLP, as a communication model, has stressed the difference between descriptive and evaluative words. This is the basic distinction between fact and interpretation.

But here’s the problem— interpretations are constantly being put forward as facts. And to deepen the problem, the sources we use to gain information of the facts are often oblivious to this distinction. It is either that (i.e., incompetence) or it is dishonesty. If they know the difference, but they are trying to deceive us by propagandizing our minds, then it is dishonesty. Where facts should be the basis for interpretations, many news agencies of today’s media frequently turn this upside-down and present interpretation as if they were facts.

Even to discern what is a fact is not all that easy. Generally if something is sensory-based, that is, empirical (you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste it), then we treat that something as a fact. But not so fast. Even in this realm, facts are not so clear-cut. What about visual illusions, auditory illusions, and illusions of the other senses? Magicians earn their keep by playing tricks on our eyes and ears so that we think that something is a certain way, “It’s a fact! See it!” Then they pull the rug out from us and what seemed factual is revealed to not be so.

There’s also the problem of the multi-ordinality of facts. At best the first primary level of facts are descriptive and “things” or actions and therefore empirical. Even here, things can get really complicated and messy. That’s because the word “fact” is not very factual. You can’t see it or sense it. It’s a nominalization (a false noun). It sounds like a thing, yet it is not. The word fact is a category and into that category we put see-hear-feel things. And after that, when we move up the levels of facts— facts become less and less empirical. We can have facts about facts. A whole set of facts, say all of the facts about a chess board and the chess pieces, now you can have facts about those facts— the guidelines, rules, and procedures for how to play chess. Again, those are facts, but you cannot see them. They are not things.

You can have facts about when something happened, where, who was involved, who said what, etc. That would be a set of descriptive facts— a police report. Then we can have facts about police reports— their nature, form, style, etc. Above the descriptive facts we could draw conclusions and create statistical facts, sociological facts, psychological facts, ethnic facts, etc.

This past week I listened to the controversy that Liz Cheney stirred up. The person “reporting” on the story, a “supposed” journalist presented what he thought were facts. About the 2020 election “Cheney was right in accusing Donald Trump of ‘the big lie,’ namely, that the election was stolen.”

Of course, both interpretations are interpretations and not facts. Actually, the fact is that we do not know if the election was stolen or if it was fair. Trump’s statement that it was stolen is not a fact, it is his interpretation of certain facts that he’s referring to. Cheney’s statement is also not a fact, it is her interpretation that she has concluded from other facts.

The reason that neither statement is a fact is because the actual facts of the case have never been presented. Yes, there were several lawsuits in the six states where there were accusations of voting fraud, but not a single one was ever accepted by a court to be heard. All were dismissed out of hand. So we do not know. There were plenty of suggestive evidence to indicate fraud, but we cannot say it was or was not a fraud. The ballots, the sworn testimonies, the videos, etc. that were presented in the media and on social media was never brought into a court and considered, so we simply do not know.

And without any determination of the facts, whatever conclusion anyone draws is just that— a person’s interpretations. And as an interpretation— it is that person’s understanding, belief, perceptive, etc. The most truthful thing would be for all to acknowledge, “This is my opinion.” So here it is, six months after the election, and we still do not know what the facts are, and the likelihood at this point in time is that we never will know.

But the reporters did not distinguish his interpretations and evaluations from the facts. If unintentional, then it is a case of being incompetent. If he knew what he was doing, then it is a case of being dishonest. In either case, that media reporting was a case of false information. No wonder we all need to learn to read or listen critically and carefully if we don’t want to be deceived.

Finally, I am reminded that Korzybski warned that “the ignorant or pathological use [of language] becomes a public danger” even greater than that associated with unlicensed automobile drivers. (Science and Sanity, p. 486). That’s why we teach the NLP Meta-Model as one of the very best models for critical thinking (Communication Magic, 1997; Executive Thinking, 2018). It will keep you sane!