Actual facts (in my opinion)

A recent Coeur d'Alene Press article began with the question, “Does high density mean high crime rates?” The story went on to say residents attending a recent public meeting in Post Falls felt that “high-density building projects planned for the area will equate to a higher crime rate.” Post Falls Mayor Ron Jacobson noted in response, “I haven’t seen any spikes in crime or any data to support a correlation to higher crime.”

In general, Mayor Jacobson is correct. Multiple peer-reviewed studies provide evidence that the socio-economic status of residents has far more correlation to crime rate than the housing itself. Despite that, I am certain the mayor’s words did nothing to sway those present who were angry about the issue. It’s a theme that seems to be emerging in modern society and, certainly, in our community.

At some point in history, the lines between opinion and fact began to blur. I recall a co-worker a few years back saying, “Opinions are facts that just haven’t been proven yet.”

It’s a ridiculous notion — completely, factually incorrect — but one that I’ve thought of frequently over the years as I have repeatedly encountered those who seem to value feelings over facts with a close-minded determination to ignore almost any evidence that does not support their views.

My personal instinct is to blame the problem on the advent of social media and the 24-hour-a-day infotainment news cycle, which is why it was disheartening to recall a statement made 80 years ago by George Orwell, in which he said of the success of fascist propaganda in the Spanish War, “This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.”

Sigh. I feel you, George.

Poets have always known the power of emotional response. Songwriters and advertising agents build their careers on it. Ask the mothers of toddlers and teens what role fact-versus-emotion plays in their interaction with their children and you are likely to get an earful. Emotion is powerful.

Emotion becomes problematic when we let that emotion blind us from reality. Let us consider other recent controversies wherein facts in evidence do not seem powerful enough to overcome the emotional response to the issue.

Nelly: Those excited about reliving a portion of their youth are in favor of his upcoming concert. Those concerned about the moral implications of his lyrics believe he never should have been booked for our fair.

Neither group seems to be paying attention to the fact that fair staff have vetted what songs will be performed, meaning the first group is likely not to hear some early hits they may be looking forward to, and the second group is concerned over songs that won’t be performed at the event.

Some mention he has been accused of criminal behavior, but they ignore that the charges were dropped and ignore his philanthropic deeds because those facts do not support their arguments. When we pick and choose the facts we accept, we encourage our own ignorance. In my opinion.

Optional Forms of Government: Those in favor are largely silent, as they have little emotional attachment to the issue. It’s a study. When a recommendation is made, they will decide whether or not to opine (and whether to do so based on emotion or fact).

Those currently in opposition are largely making emotional arguments based on the fear of possible outcomes. “They will take away our right to vote!" they cry, with no acknowledgement whatsoever that the committee may well recommend no change at all, or even an increase in elected representation. Never mind that, in the end, any recommendation must be approved by voters.

When we let emotions such as pride and fear hamper our ability to consider research and facts, we encourage our own ignorance — in my opinion.

Election Outcome: A recent social media post in our community featured a person sharing a new flag they were displaying, emblazoned with the words “Trump Won.” In the thread that ensued, one person commented that the owner of the flag was “entitled to their opinion.”

True, but election results, no matter how much we disagree with them, are not matters of opinion. Whether you bemoan that the winner of the popular vote doesn’t always win the election or insist a result was fraudulent despite more than 60 legal challenges to the contrary, you are having an emotional response to a factual situation.

If you don’t like the system or don’t trust the system, by all means, get involved with actions to make things better in the future. However, at least acknowledge that after the clerks have verified the counts (or the courts have heard five or six dozen arguments), the outcome is the outcome.

When we take the easy route and use ‘Well, I think,’ or ‘I don’t believe’ as our primary argument, we encourage our own ignorance — in my opinion.

The more we share verified facts that support our ideas, the more we get involved and take action to create change where we perceive injustice, the more we embrace that having differing opinions does not mean either person is more right or moral than the other, the more we encourage our own growth as individuals and as a community.

In my opinion.

(By the way – If, in reading this, you have found yourself getting angry with me or agreeing with me, I remind you that is also an emotional reaction. If you share any part of this with others, please focus first on the facts, not my opinion. Thank you.)

• • •

Shari Williams is a Coeur d’Alene resident.