The Purpose Of This Blog & Properly Vetting Your Sources
Periodically, it becomes necessary to evaluate the purpose of lifelong pursuits, which fuel our passions. I have been privy to many mission and vision statement revisions throughout my 20-year career as a state government employee. As the world and the needs of those we serve change, so do the founding principles of any undertaking. A thoughtful and intentional assessment of why we are doing, what we are doing will not only assist in maintaining relevancy but demonstrates a willingness to open the mind to other perspectives.
I have expounded in several posts and hinted at in more than I can remember, my own reasons for creating written content. I am unabashed in calling out questionable practices of those who have been given the opportunity to serve as caretakers of content, which have inspired generations of creators, such as myself to bring new worlds to life. Although it has been tempting to veer off in other directions, I have remained cognizant of why I write this blog and the Sy’Arrian Legacy Series.
It has been three-years since starting my blog and two-years since the publication of The Cradle of Destiny. I have shared my perspectives on the positive and negative elements plaguing much of the content creation being developed for our consumption. Predictable plot development and the kill a character just kill a character for shock value mentality are just a couple examples, where content creators with too much power and a lack of vision ruin many iconic universes with impunity.
I have also detailed my struggles and laid bare my ignorance of what the creative process should genuinely be about. It truly is the journey and not the destination that counts, especially where self-awareness is concerned. The day we concede to have learned everything about our chosen craft or life itself is the day humility and wisdom stagnate. Unfortunately, I have seen the latter all too often from those whose biases remain unchecked.
The purpose of this blog, writing about what inspires us to create, will not change albeit I may stretch my own vision statement at times to make connections, which may not be immediately apparent. Writing and content creation in general should always be malleable and nimble to change to reflect the era it currently resides. It is imperative our creations, no matter how large or small, challenge those who view it to think about the issues our characters face in a different way.
In an effort to remain flexible and open to changing how I present my own content, I will over time, be changing the layout of this blog. My intent is to create a main webpage with a design concept where visitors can access content in an organized fashion and have it be readily apparent where to go for said content. At present, I use a free service for those who may have visual impediments to listen to posts, which has worked wonderfully; however, I plan to begin using my own voice in recording posts. It is not a complicated process to implement given Squarespace makes it fairly simple and I have always been told I have a good radio voice; I will let you be the judge (smile…)
A final element to part one of this post, which I feel is the most important is citing resources and vetting stated resources. You may have noticed; I do not simply state my opinion and move on. When I cite resources, I will, at the very least, provide links to my sources even if they are simply a Wikipedia article. My intent is to help people make decisions for themselves if what I am writing about and/or criticizing, truly deserves the attention I am giving it or if I am way off base. Accountability in being intellectually honest does not fall squarely on the shoulders of an individual; it requires a community, which leads into part two of this post.
We live in an era where truth is not only relative but shaped by those, we perceive to be authorities on whatever is up for debate. I have seen plenty of people blindly follow what someone else spews simply based on the fact they were a doctor, scientist or their favored elected official without bothering to spend a little time online or in a library, yes they still exist, because what is said speaks to their viewpoint. Therefore, I have always been a proponent of researching the research in order to formulate my own conclusions, which will hopefully further illuminate the topic at hand for everyone involved to continue having a collaborative discussion.
Let me be clear. I am not saying you should not lend weight to an individual’s credentials just to disagree with them. Exploring what is behind the motivations of those with opposing perspectives is critical in determining if what they say and/or believe is truly based in fact. Simply because they have several initials after their name and possibly student loan debt coming out of their ears due to obtaining their second or third master’s degree, does not mean they are automatically authorities on whatever is being discussed. History is replete with examples of people who have committed horrible or altruistic acts with little to no education but where very charismatic speakers. Speaking with an air of confidence does not mean an individual’s perspective is correct.
Over the years, I have had the privilege of discussing a number of polarizing issues in a deep, philosophical manner where I was exposed to the aphorism, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or ECREE. This was made popular by the late Carl Sagan on his 1980 television show Cosmos and would applicably be called, The Sagan Standard. There are differing phrases but the crux behind them remains the same. Where most people fail is in the how, especially if they already are viewing the subject matter through a biased lens.
Let’s say you want to debate the validity of whether or not to wear a mask during our current pandemic or if the pandemic itself is a hoax. Take it a step further by making your case on a blog or YouTube channel. No matter the approach, I have seen at least two scenarios unfold, no matter what is being discussed.
In one example, an individual will state their case in a lucid and organized fashion by providing links directly to the sources they are citing and stipulating they have vetted those sources by investigating the authors or researchers to determine if their methodologies were based in the scientific method. In this situation it is generally much easier to formulate your own conclusion based on a preponderance of the evidence. Keep in mind you may have to adjust your stance on a particular issue based on what is found in your own research; the key is to remain intellectually honest.
The second example, which is more common in our current age of being overly triggered and censored by social media platforms, is where an individual will follow the same approach in example one but will not provide direct links to their sources nor will they vet them. In this scenario, the one making their case will inundate their audience with mounds of supposed research from other people, while not writing or speaking to any of their own opinions. Further, when you investigate the individuals they provide as experts to prove their case, you often discover the methodology these alleged experts utilized to support their findings to be highly flawed and discredited.
What I just illustrated is highly generalized. Argumentation, written or verbal, is exceptionally nuanced requiring years to understand and hone to a fine edge. The problem with what I just mentioned is most people, especially in my country, do not want to take the time to truly research and understand issues affecting them, allowing cognitive dissonance to set up shop. Change is difficult, especially when it challenges belief systems, we hold most dear to our hearts.
In my opinion as a content creator, I believe it to be absolutely essential to use my platform, whether it reaches a small number of people or a few million, to highlight issues objectively by not perpetuating false narratives nor promote quackery in all forms. It is also imperative I remain intellectually honest by admitting my own biases, which could potentially cloud my judgement when writing about topics related to the creative process and my own content.
I generally do not prefer to draw lines in the sand; however, if you use your platform be it YouTube, Twitter, blog, newsletter, or some other form of social media to spread information without first vetting it, dare I say you are a contributor to the problem and not a provider of potential solutions. It is irresponsible and tantamount to intellectual malpractice.
As always, feel free to post your questions or comments. I will respond, if need be, when I able.
Resources:
Sagan Standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard
Cognitive Dissonance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
