Evaluation of Information
I have proven something very important to myself over the past few days, it has to do with the information or data that I subject myself to.
To think that the quality and slant or nuances of the data have no effect on the way I view a subject, person, health, geo-politics or anything for that matter is juvenile. My observations have proven to me that you simply must train yourself to evaluate data using logic as opposed to emotion. This may be based on how it aligns with what I already know (or think I know), my own experience, the source of the data and even a bit of information about either the individual or group who are communicating.
It’s OK to run with a certain viewpoint for a while but it is so, so important to remain open to other viewpoints, contrary data, new research, new information that I haven’t had access to or exposed myself to and if it makes any sense, after my own evaluation, to give it a go.
The other thing that has become super obvious is that if you follow viewpoints that are highly critical of a person, group or subject then you are going to pursue more and more of this critical information and close yourself off to any other viewpoint. You can even become addicted to what you are listening to or reading and totally lose your objectivity. It becomes easy to disavow “the other side” completely and totally lose your objectivity and allow your powers of logic to become alloyed or even broken.
As far as the source of the information goes I have to be able to clearly define where it is coming from, what the vested interests of the source of information are, who is financing it or stands to benefit from it and if it makes sense. For example you can be looking at a war or disagreement from the viewpoints of one side only and be totally convinced that the other side is bad or even evil. Conversely, if you then start looking at the history or events leading up to the conflict you will more than likely be looking at a totally different scenario or outcome.
So what have I learned from this?
- I have to be aware of the source of the information, what actual involvement the person disseminating the information has with the situation, where they get their data, what their vested interests are, do they stand to gain power or financially, then I need to review what I am looking at with these things in mind.
- I can’t allow personality to be involved in influencing the data. If I have a dislike of the person or group that is communicating I can’t allow myself to let this overly influence me because this will more than likely taint my viewpoint or worse still, completely stop me from looking.
- I have to trust my own judgement based on what I believe to be well intentioned and for the overall benefit or positiveness to myself, my friends and mankind. If something is real to me then I have to go with that although I must never think that I know all there is to know about anything.
- I have to remain non-aligned and not associate with any organised group or to attack any strong viewpoints unless they are harmful to the majority. I must remain fluid. There are positives and negatives in any given situation so I have to weigh up which is stronger. I can’t let myself get into a “them and us” situation although there are exceptions to this in the case of an individual or group with overtly evil intentions.
- I should be as open and tolerant as possible of any information that makes it past my “bullshit meter” to be able to evaluate it as objectively as possible to allow myself to come to my own conclusion.
- I should never agree with somebody who presents data that I wholeheartedly disagree with although I should remain as diplomatic as possible.
- Underlying all of this I have to lead by example, my only “weapon” is my ability to inspire others by my own actions, my words and the results that I achieve.
