The Consequences of Splitting Reality

In his book True Enough, Farhad Manjoo warns against the dangers of splitting reality. He shows that through different thought processes, such as selective exposure, selective perception, and central and peripheral routes to decision making, people can choose what to believe and can even create their own truths. The consequences of this division and creation of truth are especially interesting to me. In the epilogue, Manjoo describes a concept that I found intriguing: the difference between generalized and particularized trust. The decrease in generalized trust and the increase in particularized trust are consequences of splitting reality.

Generalized trust describes “how likely it is that two strangers from a given community will be willing to trust each other” (223). The level of this trust among Americans has plummeted in the last fifty years. For example, in 1960, “nearly 60 percent said they trust most people,” while in 2006, that number dropped to “32 percent, the lowest ever” (223). This drastic decline in trust amongst each other has led to a decrease in participating in civic activities, such as different groups and volunteer work. I think that this falling trust is a consequence of the increasingly split reality. The advent of new technology, such as television and the Internet, in the past few decades has given people too many options for their news and has altered their perception of reality. Therefore, it is easy to see why by the twenty-first century, not many Americans are willing to trust each other; because the media offers various understandings of the news, they can choose one to believe and distrust all others.

The other type of trust that Manjoo describes is particularized trust, which describes “how we feel about people who are like us—in our families, in our ethnic groups, in people at our company, or in other groups we may belong to” (225). The classic example of particularized trust is the small town, which reminded me of my father’s hometown of Reinbeck, Iowa, which has no more than 3,000 people. Whenever my family visits, it amazes me how trusting everyone is; nobody locks their doors when they go out, and everyone knows and cares for each other. However, there is a problem with this type of trust in that it destroys generalized trust. Because people tend to trust others who are similar to them, then they tend to distrust people who are unlike themselves. Manjoo supports this point with the examples of the Ku Klux Klan or a street gang because they involve high levels of trust within their groups.

In general, the new divergent realities that are appearing everyday are having a serious effect on people’s levels of trust. The escalation of particularized trust is creating prejudices and exclusivity, while the decline of generalized trust is causing suspicion and skepticism among Americans. I think that these consequences can be dangerous because they are detrimental to our country and its sense of community. If people cannot trust other people outside of their own groups, then they will not be able to understand others’ views or cooperate with each other, leading to a lack of unity.