Reading certain commentators’ views on current events, one is left wondering what version of them is real? Seven and a half years ago we were introduced to the concept of “alternate facts.” That hen has come home to roost and is raising a healthy brood of chicks.

The number of alternate facts we can choose from has grown to a dizzying array. They multiply daily. Which version of events is the most trustworthy? One news source will give you theirs, another one an opposite view. We have entered a period in our nation’s history which is unprecedented. Or perhaps it isn’t. It depends upon what version of history one wants to put their faith in.

That seems to be a key part of the phenomenon. When groups of people become isolated from each other they tend to select from sources of information that reinforce the opinions of their group. What is believed, by any one member, has more to do with how any interpretation of reality accords with that of the rest of the group, than on what that sole individual’s perception might be. As a member of such a group, one suspends judgment on any personal interpretation of events until learning which version has gotten the group’s sanction.

This problem exists in all political camps. It is a species of Orwell’s “doublethink.” People learned the art of holding two contradictory thoughts, simultaneously, as a way of gaining acceptance and greater status in their group, “the Party,” in the novel 1984.

That apparently irreconcilable positions can sometimes have equal, but contrasting, elements of validity has always been a challenge to successfully put forward. Now it has become almost impossible. You will be a traitor to your group by insisting that there may be two sides to the “truth,” rather than the single, group-endorsed, one. To even give examples here would be to incite labeling of the claimant as being someone from the “other side,” with both opposing sides accusing such a person of the same crime.

The problem has come about due to the separation, into warring clans, that we have been made subject to. How we were lured into these clans is a job for future historians to untangle. It’s not hard to imagine that it could have been purposeful. Humans can be tricked into such a state of mind using rather simple techniques.

One example would be the “Robber’s Cave” experiment of the 1950s. A group of 11 to 12-year-old, male summer campers, who were otherwise the picture of socioeconomic homogeneity, were strategically molded into two hostile groups by psychologists posing as their camp counselors. The process involved three phases. The first was “in-group formation” in which the boys were housed together and organic friendships were allowed to develop over the course of a few days. The second was the “friction phase,” in which, unbeknownst to the campers, their larger experimental group was randomly divided
into two equally-sized smaller groups who would then be pitted against each other in camp
competitions in which prizes were awarded to the victors while ridicule and shame were meted out to the losers.

Not surprisingly, both groups became hostile toward members of the competing group and 93% of their friendships were reported to be with other members of their in-group. Fortunately the psychologists did not allow the experiment to end there. There was a final “integration” phase which involved a series of engineered events, such as the camp’s water supply “failing,” which could only be addressed through cooperation between both warring groups. In the case of the failed water supply, the help of all the boys was needed to discover and correct the source of the problem. When it was fixed there was universal rejoicing.

Seeing that their “enemies” were actually not the demons they’d been imagined to be, lowered the tensions and resulted in a final, harmonious conclusion to the experiment. We seem to be in a “friction” phase, as a nation. If there is an “integration” phase to look forward to in our future the lesson from the experiment is that the sharing of hardships might be a necessary prerequisite.

Philip Lussier lives in Ashfield and is a retired educator.