Fast Facters (#394)

When in a discussion or debate, speech velocity does not guarantee veracity

First and foremost, if you find yourself uncomfortable with the spelling of “facters”, you should read my Friday forward a few weeks back on grammerism, as it had the most feedback of any Friday Forward this year.

As communication technology accelerates and information becomes more readily accessible than ever, many of us have found ourselves in discussions with individuals armed with rapid-fire stats and impressive-sounding facts. I like to call these people "Fast Facters."

You’ve probably encountered several of these Fast Facters. These are the people who present every point like the opening statement of a trial, using favorable statistics and data points to make their pitch, and omitting information that undermines their viewpoint. Often, these individuals have such a polished, confident delivery that you might find yourself doubting your own understanding or intuition about a topic, especially if you disagree with them.

These interactions create a sensation I have felt many times, and I suspect many others have too: the unique intimidation of not having the information needed to counter a Fast Facter on the spot. While it’s good to be self-aware of what you don’t know, it’s also crucial to realize that sometimes a Fast Facter’s airtight arguments are not as impenetrable or impressive as they seem.

Sometimes a Fast Facter’s assertions are based on incomplete or inaccurate data. Sometimes they take stats out of context to make them appear more convincing, or they act as if correlation indicates causation, when it often does not. The most devious Fast Facters intentionally play these tricks, knowing that their convincing delivery will bulldoze you out of challenging their claims. Before you can even process or verify something they’ve said, a new statement is already flying at you.

I’ll share an example I have heard often, which I offer because it is a good illustration of the topic—not because I am aiming to express any point of view on gun control.

People who oppose stricter gun laws often use the talking point that “Chicago has the toughest gun laws and yet the most gun violence." At face value, it sounds like a clear, compelling argument against the effectiveness of stricter gun regulations.

However, when you investigate, you’ll discover that a majority of the firearms used in Chicago's violent crimes are sourced from out of state; they are purchased in areas with more lenient regulations and trafficked into the city. Additionally, many of Chicago’s laws are superseded by state precedent and have changed in the last decade; the letter of the law is stricter, but the implementation of the law is comparable to many other cities.

This example demonstrates how surface-level statements can be misleading, if not downright erroneous. Most topics are far too nuanced to be solved with a single statement, no matter how convincing it sounds at first.

In this era of high information velocity, we should resist the urge to prioritize speed and immediacy over accuracy. When you find yourself facing a Fast Facter, remember that it's okay to take a step back, slow the conversation down and ask clarifying questions. If you feel overwhelmed by, or uncertain about, the information you’re receiving, granting yourself the time to research and build an opposing viewpoint is not surrender. Instead, taking this time to do your homework can give you the clarity you need, or give you the chance to craft a well-informed counterargument for your next interaction with the Fast Facter.

We all feel the pressure for instantaneous results, but not every discussion needs to conclude immediately. Often, there's power in saying: "That's interesting. Let me look into it and come back to you.”

While there's a place for rapid assertions and well researched viewpoints—and the Fast Facters who offer them—these practices should not be used as intellectual bullying tactics by those with a natural ability for speaking and arguing. No matter how strong our convictions are, we should strive to allow space for patience, rigorous research, nuance and good faith counterarguments.

The next time you encounter a Fast Facter, remember velocity doesn't always indicate veracity. Don’t let the pace others set deter you from digging deeper and pursuing better insight and clarity.

Quote of The Week

"Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in." - Isaac Asimov

Have a great weekend!

Bob
www.robertglazer.com

New For Premium Subscribers

5 Things to Stop Doing on LinkedIn, Now

Why Founders Shouldn’t Rush To Take The CEO Title