The difference between facts and truths: Why we see the same things differently

Imagine you are watching a juggling act. The performer is juggling three balls. One of them lands on the ground. You probably want to know what happened and why. What happened? There could be at least three explanations: The juggler dropped the ball. The juggler allowed the ball to fall to the floor. Or some force -- wind? ghosts? -- caused a ball to leave its trajectory and escape the juggler's hands.

Ok, that's simple enough -- if we were to leave it there. But it's part of human nature to want to know more, to know why, to construct a story that connects actions and motivations. Even if we were to follow one line of reason -- the juggler dropped the ball -- there could be at least three reasons why he did so. Maybe he was distracted. Maybe he was drunk. Maybe he couldn't move his hands fast enough.

And of course, we wouldn't leave it at that. We want to know more about why any of those three things happened. And as all of us follow different storylines and add layers of meaning, we come up with at least dozens of "truths." (In this case, we could get to 81 different interpretations of the facts by going through 4 levels of inquiry.)

Which truth is the right one? Any of them could be. Facts -- like objects or numbers -- may be objective. But truths about relationships are socially constructed. Consider a romantic relationship you may have been in. It existed only as long as the individuals believed that there was a relationship. Your sense of various relationships -- involving people and situtations -- impact your sense of truth and your actions.

This helps explain why it is so difficult to achieve consensus in a diverse group, even when everyone is looking at the same facts. It also demonstrates why simply giving people more information -- the old "tell and sell" approach -- by itself doesn't help to get consensus.

Building consensus is one of the biggest challenges in our work in planning, policy and community development. Getting people to nod their heads in agreement is one thing; getting to a shared understanding is far more difficult. It takes time and a commitment by leadership to a process that allows people to get and reflect on new information, and share what they believe. Under the best of circumstances, the participants create new "truths" that become the foundation for a group action.

For the professional leading the consensus building effort, perhaps the most difficult challenge is accepting that his or her truth is only one of several valid interpretations. If you're not willing to do this, you're not building consensus, you're selling your ideas. And if you have improper assumptions, or if participants get wind of what you're really doing, you run the risk of getting into uncomfortable and stressful situations.

Here are some tips on managing multiple truths:

• Seek to understand before seeking to explain.
• Work to help others understand your views. Understand why you might see the same facts and come to different interpretations. Then share your views.
  
• Many professionals assume that when others disagree with them, it's because "they don't know." This thinking is often wrong and, frankly, insulting to our clients and colleagues. If we're going to have effective conversations, we need to have the courage to look into our blind spots.