Even if the news outlets are all lying, that doesn't mean they aren't useful.

Some helpful tips for gleaning meaning from erroneous maps of unseen territories.

I had a fun conversation the other day with a friend of mine that I think you all may find interesting. It’s about how we know what we know, and understanding what we don’t know.

We were talking about the unreliability of our news sources, broadly. And as is my nature, I made the subject hyper-broad to try and get at some essential truths.

I said (as I often do): “The map is not the territory”. And he (knowing me well, and exactly what I meant) said, “Maybe we’d be better off with no maps, then.”

I say that all the time, about the map not being the territory. The “territory” refers to the actual, real, physical, objective, base-reality world. The “map” refers to our necessarily limited understanding of that reality. We often confuse the one with the other.

Let’s leave aside the various imperfections of our flawed human senses and how much they tell us about reality. For now, let’s assume that what we perceive directly is pretty much true (or true enough).

But the vast majority of what we think we know about the broader world comes to us not from our senses directly, but from some narrative or group of narratives given to us by other people. These are maps of a territory that we do not (usually) perceive directly.

A couple examples:

You’re a somewhat green captain of a Spanish sailing ship, heading south down the coast for the first time to seek your fortune. Due to a tragic accident of wind and weather, the only map you have was drawn for you that morning by a Portuguese captain who has gone this way many times before.

Unfortunately, he is hung-over today, you couldn’t pay him well, and has a dim opinion of Spaniards in general, and you in particular. Obviously that map is not going to be identical to the coast you’re preparing to sail down.

Or think of your neighbor Nancy who is complaining to you about her husband and the terrible fight they were in last night. She regales you with a tale about her virtues and travails and his vices and transgressions.

There is a reality about what happened in their house last night, but the only map you have (Nancy’s narrative) is certainly not identical to that reality.

Which brings us to “mapmakers” like MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post (or its sister paper, the National Enquirer). How much should we rely on these maps to give us an understanding of places and people and events we can’t experience with our own senses?

And of course, there are other, worse maps. I’ve written before about some of the horrible economic models and climate models that our myopic society often confuses with the actual reality they are trying to understand.

Or what about documentaries? Many people believe that once they’ve watched a documentary on a subject that they’ve learned all about it. The opposite is more often the truth. Documentaries are narratives told by people with agendas. They are basically your neighbor Nancy if she had a film crew.

If you don’t believe me, try a little experiment. Watch the following four documentaries — two about Michael Jackson and two about Steven Avery: Leaving Neverland (2019, HBO); Michael Jackson: Chase the Truth (2019; Amazon Prime) Making a Murderer (2015, Netflix); Convicting a Murderer (2023, DailyWire+)

These are all convincing. They tell completely opposing narratives. Loose Change (the “OG” 9/11 Truther documentary) was also very convincing (2005, YouTube).

The map is not the territory.

So, back to the conversation I was having with my friend. We were remarking about how increasingly inaccurate our trusted “maps” have become, while at the same time we are expected to navigate the bewilderingly complex “territory” that is the modern world.

So what about his assertion, “Maybe we’d be better off with no maps at all.”?

That’s an interesting question. If you know the maps are in error, should you just throw them out? Listen to the ghost of Obi-Wan and turn off your targeting computer on the final trench run to blow up the Death Star? Just “trust your feelings, Luke”?

I think not.

A poor map is better than no map at all — so long as you don’t fool yourself with it. Recognize that the Portuguese sailor is still drunk from the night before and doesn’t like you very much. Keep in mind how dishonest Nancy is about her own failings when she badmouths the husband she despises.

Keep in mind the political biases of the talking heads on CNN or Fox. Understand what it probably means if Pfizer and Lockheed Martin are paying these “mapmakers” millions of dollars for running ads on their shows.

Keep in mind the motivations and incentives and perspectives and intelligence and honesty of all your mapmakers so that you can guess what kinds of errors will be on the maps they make.

That’s key. Never forget it. To understand a map, you must understand the mapmaker.

And you should also never rely on just one map. Consult several. Understand the possible biases and errors in each. Don’t rely on only the hateful drunk Lisbonian, ask more captains. Ask Nancy’s husband about what happened that night.

When possible, check the map with evidence from your own senses. Look out your porthole and check the coastline against the map. Do that often.

Seek out mapmakers who have proven trustworthy in the past — and still don’t trust them. Always be calibrating their claims, weighing the evidence, keeping a healthy skepticism. And always try to actually look before you leap — both figuratively and literally.

A perfect understanding of reality is unobtainable, but don’t let that traumatize you into inactivity or despair. A bad map is much much better than nothing — as long as you know it’s a bad map and have some clues as to how and why it’s bad.

I hope you’ve found this map to be a helpful guide.

Naturally,

Adam

Follow me on Twitter(X): “@Rerazer”