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.
That's exactly what I was hoping the seminar format would do...make trust something you can actually see and compare...not just talk about in the abstract.
And...you nailed the key takeaway: trust isn't a one-time decision. When something feels off...that's your signal to re-evaluate...not to ignore it.
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.
More gentle therapy!! Thank you. I love the format! I want to make a poster of, “Trust should be proportional to demonstrated correspondence with reality.”
BG.. "Gentle therapy" might be my favorite description of this series yet.
And please...make that poster! That line is the whole framework in one sentence: trust isn't owed, it's EARNED through a track record of being right about REALITY.
If you do print it...I'd love to see it hanging on your wall.
These articles are better than any paid motivational seminars I’ve been to! Thanks Jack for presenting valuable information in a novel and extremely useful way! #HOLDFAST
The seminar format is doing something that straightforward political argument rarely manages: it creates the conditions under which a person can arrive at a conclusion themselves, rather than being told what to think. That distinction matters more now than it perhaps ever has.
The core insight here — that trust, once fused with identity, becomes immune to evidence — is not new as a psychological observation. What is new is the scale at which it is being exploited. Authoritarian movements have always understood this mechanism. They do not primarily win arguments. They offer belonging. They offer a story in which the believer is the hero and the facts are the enemy. Once that exchange is made, the ten false predictions on the board become not a pattern to update but a conspiracy to defend.
Note which historical moments follow that structure. Note which leaders rose not by being correct but by being constant — a fixed point of identity in a landscape of uncertainty. The reliability of the lie, paradoxically, becomes its own form of trust. People know what they are going to get. That predictability is mistaken for integrity.
What Jack identifies as the antidote — provisional trust, proportional to demonstrated correspondence with reality — is not merely a psychological prescription. It is a civic one. Democratic self-governance requires citizens who can update. A population that cannot revise cannot choose. It can only perform loyalty to choices already made.
The format serves the argument. A seminar implies a room of equals thinking together. It models the very epistemic posture it is describing. That is craft.
Stories help focus the input into imagery. Our minds work through imagery. That is why prior to written history, stories or lore were told. It imprinted. When you take us through the ‘seminar’ our ears hear the word but our minds see the picture more clearly. I appreciate the imagery to help me clarify the facts. The visual tool is an asset to the content. Thanks.
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
Thank you, Teri!
That's exactly what I was hoping the seminar format would do...make trust something you can actually see and compare...not just talk about in the abstract.
And...you nailed the key takeaway: trust isn't a one-time decision. When something feels off...that's your signal to re-evaluate...not to ignore it.
Grateful to have you here.
#HOLDFAST
-Jack
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.
Sara...I love this so much!
49 years of marriage...to a scientist sounds like the ultimate critical thinking bootcamp.
What you described...resisting at first, then recognizing the track record...is EXACTLY how real trust gets built.
Not blind acceptance...but evidence over time.
The fact that you noticed the 95% and adjusted? That's the skill ITSELF.
Thank you for sharing this...it's a perfect real-life example of what we've been talking about.
-Jack
Excellent presentation, Jack. Thank you.
#Holdfast
~Susan
Susan...thank you.
I'm glad it landed with you!
#Holdfast
-Jack
Thanks, Jack. This is a superb educational experience. I look forward to more. I appreciate the pictures you put in my brain.
DJP...I love how you described that!
Thank you. And...you're welcome.
-Jack
More gentle therapy!! Thank you. I love the format! I want to make a poster of, “Trust should be proportional to demonstrated correspondence with reality.”
BG.. "Gentle therapy" might be my favorite description of this series yet.
And please...make that poster! That line is the whole framework in one sentence: trust isn't owed, it's EARNED through a track record of being right about REALITY.
If you do print it...I'd love to see it hanging on your wall.
Thank you for being here.
-Jack
These articles are better than any paid motivational seminars I’ve been to! Thanks Jack for presenting valuable information in a novel and extremely useful way! #HOLDFAST
Elizabeth...that might be the highest compliment I've gotten...thank you!
The difference with most motivational seminars...is they're built to make you feel good for a weekend.
This is built to give you tools...that still work on a random Tuesday...six months from now.
Glad it's landing that way for you.
Thanks for being part of this community.
#HOLDFAST
-Jack
Thank you Jack for packaging a very important lesson in something not only relatable, but entertaining.
Sue...you are welcome.
I really enjoy finding ways to make it easier for your brain to get the most it possibly can out of the things I write about. I do.
I appreciate you confirming that, in this instance...I have.
-Jack
And it lands.
Before there were pictographs there were the stories, traditional wisdom passed from generation to generation.
Don’t fib.
Play nice.
Mind the patterns.
Hug your mama.
#HoldFast
Jack is correct.
The seminar format is doing something that straightforward political argument rarely manages: it creates the conditions under which a person can arrive at a conclusion themselves, rather than being told what to think. That distinction matters more now than it perhaps ever has.
The core insight here — that trust, once fused with identity, becomes immune to evidence — is not new as a psychological observation. What is new is the scale at which it is being exploited. Authoritarian movements have always understood this mechanism. They do not primarily win arguments. They offer belonging. They offer a story in which the believer is the hero and the facts are the enemy. Once that exchange is made, the ten false predictions on the board become not a pattern to update but a conspiracy to defend.
Note which historical moments follow that structure. Note which leaders rose not by being correct but by being constant — a fixed point of identity in a landscape of uncertainty. The reliability of the lie, paradoxically, becomes its own form of trust. People know what they are going to get. That predictability is mistaken for integrity.
What Jack identifies as the antidote — provisional trust, proportional to demonstrated correspondence with reality — is not merely a psychological prescription. It is a civic one. Democratic self-governance requires citizens who can update. A population that cannot revise cannot choose. It can only perform loyalty to choices already made.
The format serves the argument. A seminar implies a room of equals thinking together. It models the very epistemic posture it is describing. That is craft.
Jack is correct.
#HOLDFAST
Thanks, Jack!
Stories help focus the input into imagery. Our minds work through imagery. That is why prior to written history, stories or lore were told. It imprinted. When you take us through the ‘seminar’ our ears hear the word but our minds see the picture more clearly. I appreciate the imagery to help me clarify the facts. The visual tool is an asset to the content. Thanks.
#HoldFast
Wisdom is the willingness to let reality have the final vote. Well said! #HoldFast and #FightOn are the waiting for the final vote. 😎
“Trust should be proportional to demonstrated correspondence with reality.”
Truer words were never spoken. Another Hopkins Hammer nailing the truth.
Jack, this was great, when reading this my mind actually put me in the room.
#HoldFast.