Living in the Grey

Accepting you don't know everything you think you know.

Most people think that the world is black and white. Right or wrong. The truth is two things that seem to contradict each other can be equally true.

Something can be partially true and partially incorrect.

Logic 101 uses an example about a wet sidewalk and whether or not it rained. It is called if A then B, but if B then maybe not A. If it rains all night the sidewalk will be wet in the morning. However, if the sidewalk is wet in the morning it maybe because of a broken sprinkler or some other reason than it rained during the night.

The truth about the truth is that it is many faceted. There are layers to the onion. Since most of life is dynamic, looking at anything in a static vacuum can lead us to the wrong conclusion. Throw in the "red scarves" of the mind and the selective observations of the mind, two people can have vastly different views of the truth.

Science itself is not without its contradictions. Even in quantum physics where the goal is the ultimate truth, there is debate if the ultimate building blocks are particles or energy. The problem with determining the answer is the same experiment can be done but produce different results at the different times .. AND... the main factor in which result is produced is the belief of the person conducting the experiment. Science can tell us one thing one time, then latter say further research shows that was incorrect or one scientist can say one thing based on research but another says the opposite based on their research.

Throw in the the onslaught of the media ( including social media and the restriction of postings) that seem to have various biases and the truth seems more black and white depending on what you listen to.

To help us navigate through this journey to the truth of the grey I have elected to use a debate model. The art of the debate seems to be used less and less in our society. We listen to news sources that fit our view and ignore, debunk, or even restrict sources that do not fit. In a debate, a debater is often forced to take the side they do not agree with. I see a great value in this as getting to see an issue from the other side often helps us earn respect for those who disagree with us, even if we ultimately do not agree. This is a cornerstone of the journey to purple.

Lets take a low emotional level example. A football player is extremely good while they are on the field but they are often injured and as a result his career was cut short. One sport's analyst says if it were not for the player's injuries which were out of his control, he would be a hall of fame player. Another says the number one ability of a player is availability and being injury prone is a part of who he was as a player. A third says the player did not work hard enough in the off season to get in shape and frequently came to camp 10 lbs overweight and was therefore more open to being injured and was to blame for his career being cut short. All three of these view points probably hold some truth. The player's injuries might have been due to freak situations and bad luck. He may have had some genetic disposition to injury such as weak ligaments. All that might have been offset if he had conditioned himself better.

Question: Do you have think one of these three factors is more true that the others and if so why?

Throw in the the onslaught of the media ( including social media and the restriction of postings) that seem to have various biases and the truth becomes more black and white depending on what you listen to.

Let's look at something that is a currently a very hot topic: The recent increase in the number of new COVID-19 cases.

Many people see the main reason for this rise as the softening of restrictions including the wearing of masks. Some are even suggesting we need to go back to SIP.

Question: To what degree do you think the number of new cases is due to a relaxing of the restrictions?

90 to 100% ____

80 to 90% ____

60 to 80% ____

40 to 60% ____

20 to 40% ____

10 to 20% ____

Under 10% _____

But others have questions such as:

1) The increase in testing. If you double or triple the number of tests it makes sense you will have more positives, especially in asymptomatic cases. If true you don't actually have more cases but are simply recognizing a higher percentage of existing cases that were missed when testing was lower.

The fact that deaths are level is seen as support for this reason for more reported cases. Of course there is also better treatment and earlier diagnosis as a reason for deaths rates leveling.

Question: Do you think that the increase in testing is a factor in the increase in reported new cases?

90 to 100% ____

80 to 90% ____

60 to 80% ____

40 to 60% ____

20 to 40% ____

10 to 20% ____

Under 10% ____

2) There seems to be an issue with testing. Recently the NFL had a 77 positive new tests. After further testing they ALL turned out to be false positives. In California it was recently admitted that some cases had been double counted. Then it was announced that the cases in California were down once they increased restrictions only to find out that perhaps that was due to a back log of tests.

I personally know of four people who went to be tested, filled out the forms but three of them, after a long wait, left before being tested. Yet two of the three were latter notified they had tested positive. We also have heard of the doctors (This has since been taken off of social media) who sent in 10 tests that had simply been dipped in saline water to have the majority come back as positive.

The NY Times just release a report that up to 90% of positive cases should be listed as positive. The US has different testing that the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the world uses 30 cycles to test, the US goes up to 40 which means the viral load can be so low as to be non-contagious, or old dead viruses that the rest of the world would not clasify them as cases. Also there is one testing process that is vunerable to having contaminated equipment that results in false positives.

Question: Do you feel that issues with testing and accounting are a factor in the reported number of new cases?

90 to 100% ____

80 to 90% ____

60 to 80% ____

40 to 60% ____

20 to 40% ____

10 to 20% ____

Under 10% _____

3) Others point out that the recent protests lead to more new cases as they meet five of the main criteria for danger; Large crowds, together for more than 15 minutes, talking loudly or exerted breathing, cases of not social distancing, and not everyone wearing a mask. Even the CDC said they fit the profile of dangerous situations although they left it to others to decide if they should be band.

Question: Do you feel the nationwide protest have played a role in increased new cases.

90 to 100% ____

80 to 90% ____

60 to 80% ____

40 to 60% ____

20 to 40% ____

10 to 20% ____

Under 10% _____

These are but a few of the alternate reasons that take away from the argument that the recent rise in new COVID-19 cases are due almost exclusively to the softening of restrictions or opening of the economy. I encourage you to look at your answers again. Realize that the sum of the four areas can not exceed 100%. With each answer ask yourself why you give the answers you give. Is there a red scarf anywhere? Is there a reluctance to go against anything or group your self-image associates with? What biases influence your answers?

Finally, can you see why someone might disagree with you or do you feel they just place a different value on human life?