We See The World The Way We Are

An old story about two travellers arriving at the same town, asking the same question, and receiving two opposite answers.

A traveller stops at the edge of a town and asks an old man sitting there what the people are like. The old man asks what they were like in the place he came from. Selfish, says the traveller, dishonest, impossible to trust. You will find them much the same here, says the old man.
Later a second traveller stops and asks the same question. The old man asks the same question back. Kind, says the second, generous, sorry to leave them. You will find them much the same here, says the old man.
Both answers were accurate
That is the part worth sitting with. The old man was not being clever. He had watched enough people arrive to know that what they found would match what they brought.
The town was the same town. The people in it were the ordinary mixture people always are. What differed was which half each traveller noticed, and how each interpreted anything ambiguous.
The mechanism is boringly well documented
We notice what confirms what we already hold, and we read unclear behaviour in line with our expectations. Someone who expects to be cheated finds evidence of it constantly, because most transactions contain something that could be read that way.
The expectation does not just filter. It changes how you behave, which changes how people respond, which supplies the evidence.
The useful question
Not whether the world is good or bad. That question has no stable answer.
The useful one is what you keep finding. If every workplace turned out political, every neighbour difficult, every friend eventually disappointing, the common element in that data set is not the world.
That is an uncomfortable thought and it is also the only one of the two that leaves you anything to do.













