Sifting Through the Chaff of Truths

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Ygnacio Flores, Tracy Rickman & Don Mason
October 27, 2025

Contemporary conversations are replete with compelling arguments to define truth in socio-political environments. Due to a tendency not to listen to those with different perspectives, it is difficult to know what to believe. Unfortunately, some disagreements on what is factual can lead to the use of violence as a means of imposing one person’s truth over another’s version of truth.

Understanding the diametric narratives bombarding us daily is a challenge. A person must own their own agency. Forfeiting agency for the ease or convenience of not thinking is a common practice. It is easy to follow social media pundits who proclaim they tell the truth. The lack of vetting information follows this error in judgment. Likes or reposts do not define an unequivocal truth. Often unaware of what is believed to be the truth, people take little notice of how ideas of truth are manufactured.

Validation of truth is not controlling the narrative. This is where a person must practice due diligence in discovering what they believe is the truth. A person must recognize that there are different versions and perspectives of what is factual. We propose one way to vet information, helping individuals develop their own perspectives. Deciding what is factual takes more than clicking through videos that are at most three minutes in duration or repeating what is seen on social media.

Some steps to take in navigating through the sea of information include considering how a narrative is created. The next consideration must focus on linguistics. Most people do not use language correctly. Colloquial uses of language are far from the meaning and purpose of the original intent of most words used in everyday conversation. Understanding the purpose of words can enhance communication.

The next issue in navigating contemporary truth is the art of framing. Framing requires the skill set of the conductor of an orchestra. Framing requires a person to understand the sources of the information they consider when forming their opinions. To avoid contamination or being led down the rabbit hole by those seeking to socially engineer what you think is reality, a person can use the analogy of looking through a kaleidoscope. The most accurate information is contained in the center of the scope, not on the fringes that change the most. Likewise, the further you are from the center of the scope, the less reliable the information is.

Individuals seeking to influence public opinion will often manipulate the narrative through deceptive language. Arguments are presented using biased language with the intention of informing others through persuasive propaganda. This technique is intended to shape the accepted truth. It is easier to repeat ideas heard through social media than it is to research a topic. Manipulators bank on the aversion people have to conducting research. A sign of manipulation is the use of “we” statements. This is when a person engineers your inclusion into the prescribed narrative by co-opting your consent. You can see this when large groups of people have a few members, or even one person, who decide on a collective viewpoint by incorporating the “we” perspective.

When considering the best information to use in the development of facts, work with information at the center of the scope. The information in the center of the scope remains the clearest and comes from people actively involved in the event being discussed. It also includes watching videos or reading records that include the unabridged context in which an event took place. Too often, people see information through filters created through life experiences or imposed on them through “trusted” sources.

Next, in the analogy, is information in the next ring and includes witnesses to an event. While not active participants in the event, they saw the events as they occurred. This does not mean their version of the event is the hard truth; it is only one perspective of the event. The next ring is where the pundits reside. These are people who study an event. They can be academics, think tanks, or amateur researchers. Pundits are vulnerable to the same dangers of social engineering, especially from those funding research.

At the extreme of the optical illusion are people who repeat what they heard. This is where a kaleidoscope’s mirrors create the most change to the illusion. They often talk as if they were participants, witnesses, or pundits. An example is a person who says, “The boss wants me to do this.” Often, these people never talked to the boss directly. Instead, they embellish their argument by selectively framing the information to their benefit.

When vetting information to form your own opinion, embrace facts, not emotions. If you do not understand words, concepts, or acronyms, learn them in their proper context. The truth can be a cross-sectional design, while the moment in time is collected yet not comprehended until other associated truths are revealed. Public administrators, before decision-making, may find it necessary to be those active participants who filter the source, strive for accurate information, and not allow personal gain or influence to skew their final decisions.

---

Authors: Dr. Ygnacio “Nash” Flores and Don Mason are faculty at Rio Hondo College. Dr. Tracy Rickman is faculty at Tarleton State University.

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...