Once you understand how to find the truth, it is equally important to understand how to know the truth, to hold onto the truth without being swayed from it, and apply it accurately. Searching for the truth is only worth the time if you then use the knowledge you have found in the truthful information by applying it to situations and holding on to what you have found.

What good is finding the truth if someone then tosses it away? Searching for the truth is the continual process of researching, questioning, verifying, and applying the truth to your understanding of issues and situations in the world around you.

Once you have found facts, don’t be swayed by opinion or persona

In the same way as you must avoid being swayed by someone’s opinion or persona (personality or image) to find the truth, you need to continue to avoid being swayed to hold on to what you have found to be true. If you turn from that knowledge just because a friend or someone online believes differently, then you have wasted your time searching for that truth to begin with. If you change your beliefs every time that you read something compelling, you will be constantly tossed back and forth between ideas and opinions, without standing firmly for what you believe and knowing why you believe that.

If you change your beliefs on a topic because someone persuaded you to do so, ask what was persuasive about what they said? Was it a compelling argument supported by actual facts? Then continue the steps to go to the source to verify the data before placing your belief firmly in what was said. But if it was their persona that was persuasive enough to get you to adjust your previous beliefs, were you persuaded by a compelling persona? If so, remember why it is important to guard against persuasion and instead take the steps needed to discover actual facts about a situation, topic or person before believing something about them, and to verify that someone’s words are consistently true and match their actions before believing that they are someone who is likely to tell the truth.

Sadly, sometimes those who want to persuade others may be so intent on doing so that they will go to any length to discredit a person or perspective on a topic, even attempting to discredit truthful information or a person who may be speaking the truth. To spot a potential trap, notice if someone seem to be cornered by a question that has no right answer. Also, be careful that you don’t step into a trap that is a setup to get someone to say or do something without realizing it. This can be a lose-lose question or a situation where both answers would be incriminating or dishonestly gain an answer that seems to be incorrect. Also be aware that this could be happening to others and when you read a story or dialogue take this possibility into consideration. Avoid these situations whenever possible or consider answering with another answer other than one of the anticipated options. Go another route to avoid traps if you think this may be occurring. And seek to hear the facts and the other person’s perspective fairly, apart from the situation of the trap.

Politicians have long been known to conduct a “smear campaign” through an intentional effort to discredit their opposition by dramatically focusing on something perceived as negative about that person, their words, or their actions. In the online realm today, it is not uncommon to see others attempting to conduct a similar type of smear campaign against a perceived opponent as well, whether it is another person, political view, or another side of a topic. The idea is that if there is a dramatic negative perception about a person or situation, then people will be persuaded to back away from that person or issue, and the person conducting the smear campaign is often hoping that those votes or opinions will be redirected towards themselves instead. However, the attempt can backfire if people look past the negative drama and notice that the person behind the smear campaign is attacking their own opponent, since people do not always agree with a person who seems to be “mean” or attempting to harm another person’s reputation.

The smear campaign can look like revealing something negative about someone, correcting or mocking someone, or shunning those who agree with that person or perspective, and it can include false or distorted evidence or hearsay. It is very different, however, then someone providing factual evidence without drama and welcoming a conversation or debate about it. Remember that one way to notice who is producing false information is that they often don’t want it examined closely, challenged, or discussed since they are not sure it will hold up under such examination. But those who are producing information based on factual evidence that is solid and backed up with other data, welcome a conversation or debate about the information since they are confident that it will withstand the challenge.

So, if someone is producing unfounded information that is not backed up with evidence that is factual and can be checked into or seems to be exaggerating the impact of the information, then question it. Similarly, if someone is being negative about another person, try to find out why and listen to the other person’s side of the story. Does the attacked person or topic angle seem to be their perceived “opponent” and are they trying to smear it rather than to allow others to seek the truth and hear both sides of the story? If so, do your best to listen to the other perspective and to find out the other side of the story before believing either side.

Example: Gatekeeping Theory

Many people online today see themselves as a “gatekeeper” or an informational decision maker in a position to guard against any information they disagree with or to hide any information they do not want to share.

The Gatekeeping Theory began in 1947 when Social Psychologist Kurt Lewin presented the term “gatekeeping” as part of his social plan and action research to determine how decisions are made. He used the term to explain that a housewife is typically the decision maker or “gatekeeper” of what meat is purchased and brought into her home. He mentioned in his article that a news item similarly can pass through the communication in a group, and that organizations tend to help people along once they have decided to let that person enter through the gate. Lewin developed the concept of “gatekeeping” for use in strategizing “social plan and action research” rather than directly for the field of mass communication, but he wrote that the strategy could also be used in mass communication. Lewin’s theory was that individuals or groups who have the decision-making power of what is “in” or “out” for a situation can be seen as “gatekeepers” or influencers who are in a position to sway social change and action.

Later, in 1950, David Manning White applied the gatekeeping theory to journalism through a study of how an editor chooses what articles to publish, leading to the common usage of the term in mass communication research today.

In 1953, Psychologist Theodore Newcomb produced a model of “co-orientation” to show the concept of interaction, as person “A” moves toward person “B” to send information about object “X.” Then, in 1957, Westley & MacLean added to Newcomb’s co-orientation model with the addition of a “gatekeeper” in mass communication as the following: Person “C” determines what information can continue in a channel or is stopped from continuing down the channel from person “A” to person “B.”

Decision making about newspaper content became the traditional usage of the term “gatekeeping” in mass communication theory. Typically, an editor decides what stories should be covered (often according to the publisher’s preferences) and may also dictate what angle the reporter should take on the story. The decision-making power of the editor is the “gatekeeping” of the news stories since resources prevent all stories from being covered equally.

But in the modern online realm, the term gatekeeping has taken on another related usage, as individuals can also be seen as “gatekeeping” information when they decide what information should be “in” or “out” on their personal social media channels. This reflects Lewin’s original use of the term even more closely since it is once again used to explain an individual’s decision making for what is included in their own realm.

Be fine with others disagreeing

If you set aside the desire to agree with the crowd, you can be steadfast in the belief that you have found the truth by your investigation into the topic. You will likely want to share the truth you have found at this point, which can be helpful to others who are also searching for the truth online. But be aware that there are some people who disagree with anything that goes against what they currently believe, which makes it difficult to introduce new concepts or information to them. However, it is still important to hold on to what you have found to be true, based on factual evidence, and try to talk with others about it.

While it can seem like a delicate balance to be open to new information yet not swayed from what you have found to be true, you can do so by continuing the process of searching for truth through examining facts and looking for consistency, while not being swayed by persuasion attempts. Keep a willingness to have new information introduced and continue to examine facts about topics and think it through.

There are others who are resistant to anything that goes against the status quo or the currently popular belief about something or someone within their social circle, but you share the facts with them in a gentle manner to see if they will be open to it. If not, that is their decision.

Be a leader towards the truth

When you are confident that you found the truth about a topic, you can share it with confidence, knowing that it is accurate even if others do not immediately agree. When you share the information with confidence, others can then find out the information and examine it as well. Lead towards the truth by sharing accurate data, citing the original sources, and avoid relying on emotion or persuasion techniques since you don’t need those when you have facts. The truth speaks louder than persuasion once it is brought into the conversation.

Again, do to others what you would want them to do to you. Wouldn’t you want others to clearly share truthful information using facts and data from original sources? Then be sure to do so as well. Would you want people to try to persuade you towards something they do not know to be factual? Then avoid doing that either.

Desire to know the truth more than to join with the crowd

To search for the truth online takes effort and remember that not everyone is willing to put in the time and effort that is often necessary to do so. Many people are less interested in knowing the truth than other pursuits of their time. And unfortunately, many people want to fit in with the crowd more than they want to know the truth. The goals of fitting in with the crowd and seeking out the truth can be conflicting at times, and if you are faced with this situation, it is important to decide ahead of time how you would handle this. It can be decided by determining your values according to which goal is more important to you. If it is more important to you to fit in with the crowd, then even if and when you seek out the truth, you will be unlikely to share it with others and may be susceptible to persuasion from the accepted viewpoints that are typically pressured by that particular crowd.

But if you are seeking truth because you want to know the truth, then even if it takes time or even when others do not agree with the truth you have found, then you will be difficult to persuade by the ideas of the crowd. But you still need to be aware of the danger of crowd persuasion and plan accordingly. One technique is to share the info you found, but that can take courage since the crowd could agree with each other to shun you or to assist each other in disagreeing when you share information. Another technique is to back away from the crowd and seek out others who may be more open to investigating information and who may want to hear what you found. There is a time and a place for each of those techniques and there are probably other techniques for handling this situation appropriately as well.