The Real Reason People Keep Believing Proven Liars
Trust isn't destroyed by evidence. It's destroyed when identity becomes more important than reality.
A few days ago, I shared a transcript from a fictional seminar I “conducted” to help a woman work through a challenge many of us face.
The response was overwhelming.
Hundreds of readers wrote to tell me that this format felt different…more engaging… more memorable…and…most importantly…more useful than a traditional article.
So…I’ve done it again.
What follows is another fictional seminar built around a problem that many people are wrestling with right now.
Like the first one, this seminar is being provided free to all subscribers.
And…because of the incredible feedback from readers like you, I’ve decided to make these fictional seminars a regular feature.
Beginning now, paid subscribers will receive a brand-new seminar each week…focused on a timely and relevant issue. Free subscribers will continue to receive one complimentary seminar each month…just like the one you’re about to read.
Enjoy.
The Real Reason People Keep Believing Proven Liars
Trust isn't destroyed by evidence. It's destroyed when identity becomes more important than reality.
The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter #926: Thursday, June 11th
JACK HOPKINS FICTIONAL SEMINAR: “WHEN SHOULD YOU TRUST SOMEONE?”
A woman raises her hand.
“I’m struggling with something.”
Hopkins nods.
“What specifically?”
“Trust.”
“In what context?”
She hesitates.
“Politics.”
“Go on.”
“There is a public figure who has repeatedly said things that turned out not to be true.”
She pauses.
“For years.”
“Yet millions of people still trust him.”
Hopkins smiles.
“Interesting.”
He turns toward the audience.
“Let’s begin with a distinction.”
He writes two words on a flip chart.
TRUST
HOPE
Then he circles them.
“Many people confuse these.”
He points at the first.
“Trust is based on evidence.”
Then the second.
“Hope is based on desire.”
Silence.
He turns back toward the woman.
“What happens when someone tells you something?”
“I decide whether I believe them.”
“How?”
She shrugs.
“I don’t know.”
“Excellent.”
The audience laughs.
“That is where we shall begin.”
He walks slowly across the stage.
“Suppose I tell you that tomorrow the sun will rise.”
He pauses.
“Would you believe me?”
The audience nods.
“Why?”
Someone says:
“Because it always has.”
“Exactly.”
He points toward the audience.
“You are not trusting me.”
The room becomes quiet.
“You are trusting a pattern.”
He writes:
PATTERN
→
PREDICTION
“Trust is often misplaced because people attach it to personalities rather than patterns.”
Silence.
“Now suppose a person makes ten predictions.”
He begins writing on the board.
Prediction 1 — False.
Prediction 2 — False.
Prediction 3 — False.
Prediction 4 — False.
Prediction 5 — False.
The audience laughs.
He continues.
Prediction 6 — False.
Prediction 7 — False.
Prediction 8 — False.
Prediction 9 — False.
Prediction 10 — False.
He sets the marker down.
“What would an intelligent observer conclude?”
A voice says:
“They’re unreliable.”
“Yes.”
He nods.
“Notice something.”
He taps the board.
“This conclusion is not political.”
“It is statistical.”
The room laughs.
He shrugs.
“The nervous system prefers stories.”
“Reality prefers patterns.”
Silence.
He turns toward the woman.
“Now tell me.”
“If someone repeatedly gives you inaccurate information...”
“What are your options?”
She thinks.
“I could stop listening.”
“Perhaps.”
“What else?”
“I could verify everything.”
“Good.”
“What else?”
“I could treat what they say as uncertain.”
“Excellent.”
He nods.
“Notice that trust is not binary.”
He writes:
FULL TRUST
PROVISIONAL TRUST
NO TRUST
“Most people operate as though there are only two positions.”
“I believe.”
“I don’t believe.”
He shakes his head.
“Reality is usually more nuanced.”
The audience nods.
“An intelligent person updates confidence according to evidence.”
He pauses.
“That process has a name.”
A man in the audience says:
“Learning?”
Hopkins smiles.
“Exactly.”
The room laughs.
“Imagine touching a hot stove.”
The audience laughs.
“How many times should you touch it before updating your model?”
More laughter.
“Twenty?”
“No.”
“Fifty?”
“No.”
He pauses.
“Yet some people allow evidence to accumulate for years without updating anything.”
The room grows quiet.
He continues.
“Why?”
He writes:
IDENTITY
on the board.
“Because sometimes trust is no longer about information.”
Silence.
“It becomes part of identity.”
He turns to the audience.
“And once a belief becomes identity...”
“Evidence begins losing arguments.”
The room becomes very still.
“People stop asking:
‘Is this accurate?’”
He pauses.
“And begin asking:
‘Does this fit who I think I am?’”
Silence.
He looks around the room.
“This is not a political phenomenon.”
“It is a human phenomenon.”
The audience nods.
“It occurs in religion.”
“It occurs in business.”
“It occurs in families.”
“It occurs in relationships.”
“It occurs everywhere.”
He turns back toward the woman.
“So let us ask a different question.”
“How should a person decide whether to trust someone?”
He begins writing.
What do they say?
What actually happens?
How often do those match?
He underlines the list.
“Notice what is absent.”
The audience reads it.
“No charisma.”
“No confidence.”
“No certainty.”
“No volume.”
The room laughs.
“No social media followers.”
More laughter.
“No applause.”
More laughter.
“Only pattern.”
Silence.
“Because reality does not care how strongly something is asserted.”
“It cares whether it is true.”
He pauses.
“Now let us take this one step further.”
He looks directly at the woman.
“What happens emotionally when a trusted source repeatedly proves unreliable?”
She thinks.
“You feel betrayed.”
“Yes.”
“What else?”
“You become uncertain.”
“Good.”
“What else?”
“You stop knowing what to believe.”
“Exactly.”
He nods.
“Many people mistake this uncertainty for weakness.”
He shakes his head.
“Sometimes uncertainty is intelligence.”
The room becomes quiet.
“Because certainty may simply mean you stopped evaluating.”
Silence.
“A healthy nervous system remains capable of revision.”
He points to the board.
“If new evidence appears...”
“Update.”
“If old assumptions fail...”
“Update.”
“If predictions repeatedly miss reality...”
“Update.”
He smiles.
“The alternative is not loyalty.”
“It is rigidity.”
The audience applauds.
Hopkins waits.
Then he says:
“Here is perhaps the most useful distinction.”
The room settles.
“Trust should not be given because someone agrees with you.”
Silence.
“Trust should not be given because someone makes you feel good.”
Silence.
“Trust should not be given because someone tells you what you hope is true.”
Silence.
“Trust should be proportional to demonstrated correspondence with reality.”
The room is completely still.
“And when reality changes...”
He smiles.
“Update again.”
A woman asks:
“Isn’t that exhausting?”
The audience laughs.
Hopkins grins.
“No.”
He pauses.
“What’s exhausting is defending predictions that failed ten years ago.”
The room erupts with laughter.
“Updating is easy.”
He shrugs.
“Reality is doing most of the work.”
The audience laughs and applauds.
He sets the marker down.
“And perhaps that is the simplest definition of wisdom.”
The room grows quiet.
“Wisdom is the willingness to let reality have the final vote.”
Standing ovation.
#HoldFast
Back soon.
-Jack
Jack Hopkins
P.S. There is actually a scientific reason many readers report that these fictional seminars impact them more deeply than traditional articles.
Your brain is not designed primarily to learn from facts. It is designed to learn from experiences…stories…social interactions…and simulations.
When you read a conventional article, you are mostly processing information. When you read a fictional seminar…your brain begins constructing a mental experience.
You unconsciously imagine the room…the audience…the conversation…the questions…and the emotional shifts.
Neuroscientists sometimes refer to this as mental simulation…the brain rehearsing experiences as though they were happening in real life.
Research suggests that information embedded in stories is often remembered longer …and understood more deeply…because multiple brain systems become involved simultaneously: attention, emotion, imagination, memory, and social reasoning.
In other words, your brain is not merely reading about an idea. It is…in a small but meaningful way…experiencing it.
That may be why so many readers have written to tell me they found themselves thinking about these fictional seminars days later…replaying certain moments…and seeing their own situations differently.
Sometimes a well-told story can slip past the defenses that a straightforward argument never could.
Love this format of a seminar. There is a real clear way to get people to understand trust. It helps to see the differences and the real need to re evaluate as needed if things don't seem right.
#HOLDFAST
Teri
A resounding YES to everything you posted here. I do enjoy this format. The younger me used to be the one who jumped onto the emotional bandwagon. Being married for 49 years to a scientist has forced me to change to a critical thinking format closer to what you have presented here. At first I resisted, then I realized he was correct in his assessments about 95% of the time.