Message > Messenger? I Think, Yes.

Ask yourself a question. Are you an objective person?

I’ll expound a bit. Do you have the ability to analyze information in an unbiased manner?

If you just said yes, are you sure? Don’t be insulted, lets talk about it and see how objective you are.

Objectivity Exercise…

Let’s engage in a mental exercise. Ready?

You are leaving a restaurant where you just had dinner (this is in a pre-COVID universe). The meal was amazing and the evening is beautiful. The air is crisp and cool. As you and your loved one walk towards your vehicle, you hear, “The money you save now, increases your financial stability later.” You don’t give it a second thought until you hear it again, only louder.

- Pause Exercise - Is what you heard sound advice? Is there merit to the statement? Does it make sense? Is the statement something that could benefit you in your personal life? - Continue Exercise -

As you get closer to your car, you see something moving out of the corner of your eye. It’s a homeless man. He looks unwashed and his clothes are ragged. His hair is disheveled. He repeats his mantra.

Now, it’s time to be honest with yourself. How does the awareness of the source of the the information change your view of the information itself?

I’m going to tell you something you are not going to like. If you said, in your head, “it doesn’t,” you are lying.

Objective is not something most people are. Objectivity is something we must train our minds to practice.

I’ll prove it.

• Regular exercise, getting the proper amount of sleep, and having a balanced diet are great contributors to improving personal health, according to a local garage mechanic.

• According to the Chief of the Dietary Health Department at the Mayo Clinic, regular exercise, getting the proper amount of sleep, and having a balanced diet contribute to improving personal health.

Do you see what your mind just did? What the hell does a local garage mechanic know about personal health?

Both of the substantive statements above, which are the same, are true. However, the vast majority of people would accept the information from the Chief of the Dietary Health Department more than the garage mechanic. Why? Collectively we fall for a logical fallacy called ‘appeal to authority’. In our minds, the source alone makes information likely to be true. Depending on the source of the information, we may not even question the information.

The vagrant happens to be correct…

Research into the power of this bias has shown that even when the observer thinks the information they are hearing is false, when the information is tied to a supposed authoritative figure, the skeptic is likely to concede the point. Conversely, when the information is connected to someone universally accepted to not be an authoritative figure, the skeptic is more likely to hold their position… even if the information is correct.

We have probably all seen them, the politically-charged “man on the street” videos where someone with a microphone frames a policy as attributed to one person to see how the citizen will react. When the person supports the policy, they are then told that the policy is that of the other politician. Even after learning the error of their thinking, they make excuses as to why their particular candidate is the best.

This is the embodiment of illogical thinking and bias in action.

Collectively, we are not objective people.

A Historical Example of the Extreme

One of our most famous Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, arguably undertook the most extreme of examples of selecting the message over the messenger. For those students of history, you probably know what I am talking about.

“Never trouble another for what you can do yourself”- T. Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson is well known for having created what we call the Jeffersonian Bible. As a fervent consumer of information and student of moral teachings, Thomas Jefferson took to the Holy Bible and committed what some Christian-leaning historian have considered blasphemy. He removed references to Jesus, miracles, and dogmatic information.

What he retained was the passages that speak to the sound moral teachings in the text! Why? What in the world was Thomas Jefferson thinking?

Simply speaking, who could disagree with an argument to be a good person? Who would protest if someone said, “be charitable?” Who in their right mind would make an argument against the Golden Rule or a variation of it?

No one. The message, in Jefferson’s mind, would stand on its own and the only thing that would make the message potentially divisive is the Messenger and associated dogma. WOW!!! I am not making an argument for or against Jefferson’s actions. However, I will applaud his sense of foresight. To borrow from an example used before, let’s test it.

• To better our collective social condition, we should be kind, charitable, and treat others how we want to be treated, according to Jesus Christ.

Now, almost no one would ever have an issue with this statement. Universally, it is understood that we should be kind and charitable. What people may attack, however, is the source. People that subscribe to different religious teachings, people of differing world views, or maybe just people that oppose the Christian figure Jesus, may. In attacking the supposed source, they attempt to undermine the statement.

Jefferson just may have understood how faulty our thinking and information processing practices are.

Bias Exposed In the Critique Itself

Earlier this year, we wrote and article in defense of Dave Ramsey’s financial strategies to reach financial independence. Specifically, our focus was what is called ‘Dave Ramsey’s 7 Baby Steps.’ In that article, we cited two YouTube videos where individuals noted their critique of Ramsey’s financial strategy.

Among the relevant critique of the strategy was, Dave Ramsey’s sex, race, and age.

Yea…

They then went on to critique how difficult it was to employ his strategy while also trying to to live a life that got them in the financial position where they needed to seek out a financial strategy to remedy.

Yea…

In one of the videos, one of the individuals said they took issue, “taking financial advice from an old, white male.”

It’s obvious the issue here is not the information…

Jefferson may have been on to something after all, huh?

I’ll admit that if you are not serious about living debt-free and achieving financial independence, Dave Ramsey’s 7 Baby Steps may sound like a murder sentence. However, we don’t think so. Nor do millions of other people that have employed the strategy [the message] to improve their personal and financial standing.

So let’s try another exercise.

• Reducing expenses, increasing savings, adapting frugal financial practices, and aggressively paying off personal debt will improve your personal financial position, according to Joseph Stalin.

It’s okay to laugh!

Joseph Stalin didn’t actually say this! However, if he did, would you take issue with it? Would you, in protest to such a horrible person say, “I’m going to increase expenses, decrease savings, and go into mind-numbing debt!” simply because Stalin made the proposition?

Of course not… (I hope). Although this was an extreme and ridiculous example, the premise is sound. For all the faults of Stalin, which there are many, if he did happen to make the aforementioned statement, would it be wrong because of who he is?

If your answer is yes, there are much more significant issues to address.

Be Objective!

Information is information. It can be analyzed based on its merits. A message, if sound enough, will stand regardless of the Messenger.

Depending on your level of academic education, you are taught that the source of the information is directly tied to the information itself, and that’s fair. But no where are we taught, even at the collegiate level, to allow bias or fallacies to drive us to discount information.

Analyze the message based its factual basis. Understand the messenger and their association to the information. But don’t discount the former because of the later.