There was once a family of squirrels who lived in a tall oak tree. At the bottom of the tree lived a family of rabbits. Neither family trusted the other: the squirrels complained that the rabbits, in chewing the roots of the tree, made it unhealthy, and the rabbits complained about the leaves and dead twigs which fell on them as the squirrels scampered from branch to branch overhead.
One day, a young squirrel, exploring the highest branches of the tree, saw a great fire coming from far off. He immediately called out to the other squirrels, warning them of the impending danger, and soon all the squirrels were shouting to anyone who would listen: “Fire! Fire! Run away, run for your lives!”
However, the rabbits, hearing that the warning of fire came from the squirrels, said to each other: “We know we cannot trust squirrels – they are our sworn enemies! Certainly, this must be a false alarm.” By the time they realized that the young squirrel had been telling the truth, it was too late, and all the rabbits perished in the blaze.
Like the rabbits in this fable, we too often dismiss a viewpoint or opinion just because we dislike the person who voices it. Similarly, we may decide that all the information given in a certain journal or podcast is suspect, or even worthless, because we disagree with something else the author or presenter has said in the past.
This particular form of “tunnel vision” is a danger to anyone who wishes to practice healthy skepticism; just as we should not trust everything someone we like says without testing it, so we should also not dismiss anything said by someone whom we dislike, but instead examine it as carefully as any other evidence. Just as a broken clock is right twice a day, so even the most untrustworthy of sources might hold some truth, and even those we detest might have information that could save our lives.
What do you think about this article? Do you agree? Have you read Spike’s dystopian novel? Do you have a story about dismissing evidence that you’d like to share? We’d love to hear from you!
Hi, Spike et al. The story is interesting but not conclusive. The problem is that there is so much information. Recently a friend sent me a review of a book he thought I would like. The review was by John Gray. I took it to be the “Men are from Mars” John Gray. He is a Ph.D. But the first two degrees are from Maharishi University. The Ph.D. is a correspondence degree from an unrecognized university. Now the review is a long one. Forgive me. I didn’t read it. I didn’t like the source.
Now, my story is not conclusive either, but it fit the situation. So much to read, so little time.
Well, that is still taking a careful look at the information and the sources.
I was simply reacting to the kneejerk “we don’t like Person X, so everything he says is worthless” reaction that I see so much of – in particular, when Jon, in an interview, said something complimentary about Joly West and one of the commenters decided that, since he’d complimented him, nothing else Jon said over the course of a two-hour interview was worth listening to.
I agree though – too many books, too little time! 🙂
A good start to train people.
The tale must get a wider viewpoint. While being in a cult, i had the same concept of not listening to “SUPPRESSIVES” as it is dangerous to be in contact with such evil people.
Now i am widely informed about this hypnotic informations on “obey”.
Unfortunately following informations of cultmembers is highly risky for your mental health and the chance you cognite which infos are honest or which ones are computed to get you into a cult is not easy. We are not so smart as we think.
Be happy that you are out and free. Any group which demands a “WE” is hypnotic and put their thoughts over you.
Better listen and ask to the big amount of wise men and educated people around you if such WE-members “inform” you.