"Pick and Choose Your Own Truth"
by Todd Hayen
"Here I go again. Getting perplexed by the sheep-types in my life. I seem to be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance. I’ve whacked my forehead so many times with the heel of my hand that I am surprised I have not seriously damaged my brain. Well, maybe I have!
It’s really crazy to me, how something can come forth that makes a point we have all made in the past into an incontrovertible truth, and these sheepsters will still not see it. I just got around to watching Mikki Willis’
"Follow the Silenced," and after getting 20 minutes into it, I said, “What could be better evidence of the truth that these vaccines were bad news?” I shared this with someone close, who is, believe it or not, a sheep, and they said, “That just isn’t true.”
What? They were quite casual about it, too. Like there wasn’t anything to argue about. It would be the same as if I showed them a movie of a human walking around with a rat’s head. They wouldn’t be freaked out wondering if it might be true; they would just know it wasn’t. No question. No second thoughts. “That just isn’t true.” Of course, this is different than a rat-headed human (although with AI these days it would be an easy “untruth” to pull off). I am talking about things that are facts, no question, clear and simple. Facts.
Sure, Willis’ film probably isn’t 100% factual. Or at least, what IS factual doesn’t necessarily prove it is widespread. But much of what is presented is factual. And the argument that what Willis is presenting is all play-acting just doesn’t cut it. Sure, that happens too, but there are times when that sort of manipulation is plausible. Willis’ film is not one of them.
And since when does something presented have to be 100% factual for it to be considered? We used to live in a time where we determined what was worth paying attention to by assessing its relevance, the percentage of accurate information compared to the whole, and the context of what was presented. Now, any idea at all must meet the “100%” test. This reminds me of the fact check that stated Paul Revere’s ride, where he is shouting “The British are coming, the British are coming!” was not a fact, because not ALL of the British Empire was invading the country, only a small military faction. So, the whole statement then is deemed incorrect. This is standard “fact-checking” on social media, and it is insane.
Still, there are many other examples of this demonstration of picking what you choose to believe. And there is something psychologically weird about how people respond to this stuff. So, what else is new? We truly have entered into a time where people are truly whacked. And I’m a psychotherapist! You can’t find this stuff in a textbook.
Take the whole climate change debacle, for instance. I’m not here to debate whether the planet’s getting hotter or if it’s all a cosmic prank - though I’ve got my suspicions about the latter. But watch how the sheep latch onto “their truth” like it’s the last lifeboat on the Titanic. On one side, you’ve got folks who swallow every alarmist headline hook, line, and sinker: polar bears drowning, cities underwater by next Tuesday, all because we dared to drive SUVs and eat steak.
Show them data suggesting natural cycles, solar flares, or even historical warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period (when Vikings were farming Greenland, for crying out loud), and they glaze over. “That’s denialism,” they say, as if the word itself is a magical shield against inconvenient facts. Why? Because it fits the narrative they’ve been fed - the one that makes them feel virtuous for recycling their plastic straws while ignoring the private jets of the elites preaching the gospel.
Flip the coin, and you’ve got the other crowd, convinced it’s all a hoax cooked up by globalists to slap carbon taxes on the little guy. Present them with satellite images of melting ice caps or rising sea levels, and they wave it away as manipulated data or “weather, not climate.” Both sides dig in their heels, not because the evidence is lacking, but because admitting the other side might have a sliver of validity would shatter their worldview. It’s tribalism on steroids, where “my truth” isn’t about seeking reality - it’s about belonging to the right club. Psychologically, this stems from confirmation bias, that sneaky brain trick where we cherry-pick info that strokes our ego and ignore the rest. Add in a dash of fear - fear of change, fear of being wrong, fear of the unknown - and voilà , you’ve got a recipe for intellectual stagnation.
Another prime example hits closer to home for me as a therapist: the mental health industry’s love affair with pharmaceuticals. I’ve seen clients come in, desperate for relief from anxiety or depression, and the first thing their doctor does is scribble a script for SSRIs like they’re handing out candy. Never mind the black box warnings, the withdrawal horror stories, or studies showing placebos work just as well in many cases. Show a sheep-type patient footage of people recounting their nightmare experiences - zombie-like side effects, suicidal thoughts, the works - and they’ll shrug it off.
“My doctor says it’s safe,” they insist, as if the white coat confers infallibility. Why do they cling to this? It’s easier. Popping a pill absolves them of the hard work: therapy, lifestyle changes, digging into root causes like trauma or diet. It’s the illusion of control in a chaotic world, wrapped in the comfort of authority. Question that authority, and suddenly you’re the crazy one, labelled an “anti-vaxxer” equivalent for mental health. But facts are facts: the overprescription epidemic is real, backed by whistleblowers and buried FDA reports. Yet, “their truth” prevails because facing the alternative means admitting the system might be broken - and who wants that headache?
Or consider the origins of COVID itself. Lab leak theory was once “conspiracy nonsense,” ridiculed by fact-checkers and banned on social media. Now? Even the FBI and DOE lean toward it, with emails showing scientists privately admitting it while publicly denying. But try telling that to the die-hards who still parrot “wet market” like it’s gospel. Why? Emotional investment. If it were a lab leak, funded by our own tax dollars no less, it would implicate heroes like Fauci and shake our faith in science. Easier to dismiss whistleblowers as cranks than confront the betrayal. This isn’t new; history’s littered with it - think Tuskegee experiments or MKUltra. People pick “their truth” to preserve sanity, avoiding the abyss of realizing power structures lie.
At its core, this “pick and choose” phenomenon signals a deeper malaise: the death of objective reality. We’ve traded shared facts for personalized bubbles, curated by algorithms and echo chambers. Why? Technology plays a part, sure - endless scrolling reinforces biases. But psychologically, it’s about vulnerability. In an uncertain world, clinging to “my truth” offers certainty, even if illusory. It’s a defence mechanism against overwhelm, a way to simplify complexity. As a therapist, I see it daily: clients rewriting personal histories to avoid pain, ignoring red flags in relationships because “love conquers all.” Scale that up societally, and you get mass delusion.
Yet, here’s the rub - and maybe a sliver of hope. If everyone’s got “their truth,” then mine’s as valid as any. So why not question everything? Peel back the layers, demand evidence, and risk being the odd one out. It’s exhausting, sure, but it beats forehead-smacking frustration. In the end, truth isn’t a buffet; it’s a hunt. And if we all stopped grazing like sheep and started tracking like shrews, we might just uncover something real. Wouldn’t that be a plot twist worth waking up for?"
Todd Hayen PhD is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read
here.
