If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. This is a popular example of what is called abductive reasoning, meaning that in all likelihood based on our observations, we conclude that the object is indeed a duck. However, it is not absolute proof that the object is a duck. For that proof, we need to use more watertight logical constructs, known as deductive reasoning. However, in everyday life, we don’t interpret the world around us by employing scientific experiments, we use in the main abductive reasoning and in the majority of cases it serves us well, or at least, it did in the past. Abductive reasoning serves to short-cut lengthy proofs so that we can understand what we perceive rapidly and efficiently. In certain cases, this kind of reaction could save our lives; for example, if we feel that a ferry is about to capsize, possibly because of unusual sounds or motions, we might rush onto the outer decks and prepare to grab a lifebelt, even before we saw water entering into the interior of the vessel.
But what if someone wants to fool us into believing that an untruth is really true, or that a truth is untrue? Many of us are taught by our parents that Father Christmas calls by the home once a year to deliver presents. The vast majority of young children trust what their parents tell them, and so they believe that Father Christmas will indeed pass by with presents, at least up to a certain age. The kids won’t see him appear covered in soot from the chimney, but on Christmas morning the presents are there, and those young kids believe that Father Christmas has indeed delivered his presents. This white lie, as improbable as it may be, works so effectively because young children trust their parents implicitly.
Homo sapiens is the only species which employs verbal communications, and this relatively novel method of learning comes with novel methods of interacting with the world. For example, instead of experiencing the pain of being burnt by fire, someone else can warn us about it. If, as young children, our parents tell us not to stray into a busy road because we might get run over, we tend to believe them. This is abductive reasoning applied to verbal communication and involves trust.
However, if we encounter a confidence trickster, at school, say, who tells us that a particular ticket is good for an entry to a local football match, but he is willing to sell it to us at half price, then maybe the first time around we trust him, we buy the ticket, but get refused entrance to the match because the ticket is a fake. So, we learn that not everything that we are told is true.
How can we possibly tell when someone is telling the truth or lying? It is a complex business, but to make the task simpler and faster we often resort to this thing called trust, which is a manifestation of abductive reasoning. Do we trust the person who has given us that information? If we do trust them, then without putting his statements to exhaustive tests, we tend to believe them. The exhaustive tests would require submitting the statement to deductive analysis, a time-consuming business which not everyone possesses both the time and the means to perform. In other words, we cut corners to gain time and save energy when we receive information, by subconsciously rating the source of information as trustworthy or not.
When we look at the issue of trust and how it has developed in this way, we realise that there is a huge potential flaw in our self-defence mechanisms. We may be tricked into trusting a source which we believe to be reliable and trustworthy, yet it may not be. This flaw can leave us wide open to becoming manipulated unknowingly.
Trust is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as: ‘firm belief in the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing; confidence or reliance’.
Psychology Today considers the role of trust within society: ‘ … trust also cultivates a larger sense of safety and allows individuals to devote energy to social improvements, rather than self-protection.
The state may provide education, police, tax credits, and any manner of apparent benevolence to achieve trust and then mandate dangerous medicines, declare unnecessary wars and so on, on a trusting population. The process is very simple to exploit the flaw of mis-placed trust discussed above. First, create an atmosphere of trust over time, then exploit it in a surreptitious way that appears consistent with a benevolent action.
If, for years, an organisation or state actor has been seen to be working in our interests, and proved over time to have been scrupulously impartial, then we might be justified in trusting it implicitly. But what if that organisation underwent a discreet change of policy and decided that instead of acting in the interests of the population at large, it wanted to exploit that population in the interests of, say, a particular stakeholder?
The abuse of our inherent abductive reasoning and the manipulation of trust is therefore an ideal way of exerting changes on a population which would not necessarily be in its best interest, and furthermore that population might well not even realise that it is being manipulated and tricked.
Even though for many thousands of years abductive reasoning has served us well, allowing us to make rapid and reasonably accurate assessments of the world around us and events that we encounter, it has now become our Achilles’ heel. In the world of mass media, deepfake videos and stake-holder manipulation; abductive reasoning is like a hide shield protecting us against an AK47. To return to the start of the article, it may look like a duck, swim like a duck and quack like a duck, but it may simply be just a collection of binary digits on a hard drive. How can we tell what is real and what is fake? Who can we really trust?
If we are truly interested in protecting ourselves, our families, and those closest to us, we need to rely less on abductive reasoning and trust and reassess all sources of information for their truthfulness. It is not only con artists purporting to request personal banking information, but also state institutions and all forms of media outlets that we need to be wary of.
In this chaos of conflicting sources of information, the state and the media step into the breach. ‘Trust only us’. ‘We are your most trustworthy source of information’. ‘Do not trust any other source of information’.
If they are indeed insisting on their own trustworthiness, it is probably a good initial indication that they cannot be trusted at all and want to circumvent your natural scepticism and gain your trust. Once the trust is gained, manipulation can begin. Trust is a precious asset, and a double-edged sword. In today’s world, do not give it lightly.
Main image: Illustration from The Pied Piper of Hamelin, Wikimedia Commons | licence CC BY-SA 4.0
