I'm talking about a specific definition of "right," here: an ultra-rational, emotionally-cold, facts-only, can't-fool-me kind of "right."

It's a kind of "right" arrived at through a strict adherence to stats and figures and nothing more.

It parades as a "perfectly rational" kind of "right;" as simply "a pursuit of real truth." I used to hold it in high regard. It was almost...sacred—or noble. It came with a badge of pride for not being swayed by feelings or getting lost in anecdotal weeds.

There's a problem with this kind of "right," though: it almost always misses the point. As you try to stay rational, you end up putting on blinders. You dismiss both personal stories and shared experiences—as long as one random sample or survey counters them.

You say you're building a worldview based on tangible proof, but boy: your figures miss a lot of the picture.

Maybe you have a research paper that explains away the gender pay gap, or shows cops to be equally violent towards white and black men. Maybe that's A part of the story. It's far from the WHOLE story. There are millions of people with undocumented experiences that tell a different side of it.

You can hear the collective murmur of those stories; you can feel the collective outrage that clearly says, "something is going on here."

There is information in those stories. In fact, they often paint a better picture of the whole story than one niche stat. It may be a blurrier picture. It may not have all the details ironed out. But when millions of people move in the same direction, telling a similar story, a shape does emerge whether your data supports it or not.

If you dismiss those because the information isn't presented in the quantitative, inarguable format you use to form your stance, it doesn't mean you're more logical; it doesn't make you a steadfast supporter of truth.

It just means you're burying your head in the sand.