Truth has no tribe — why intellectual honesty demands courage

What does it mean to pursue truth in an age like this?

Not capital-T Truth as a metaphysical abstraction, but truth as it operates in public life — in conversation, in journalism, in intellectual inquiry. What are we actually doing when we claim to seek it? And why does it so often feel like those who shout loudest about truth are the ones least interested in its pursuit?

These questions strike at the heart of what it means to think honestly. Because truth, properly understood, doesn’t play favourites. It makes demands on us — on our egos, our assumptions, our loyalties. And that makes it profoundly inconvenient in a tribal age.

We live in a time where ideological loyalty is mistaken for virtue. Political identities have become social identities. And to disagree with your own side, even in good faith, is not seen as evidence of integrity — it’s treated as betrayal. But if truth matters, then tribalism must come second.

Truth is not a team sport. It doesn’t care which banner you fly. It doesn’t bend to popular opinion or reward group cohesion. It simply is — often plain, sometimes painful, always indifferent to our preferences.

Why tribes win and truth loses

Tribalism is not new. It’s as old as the species. It gave us solidarity and protection. But in the modern world, it has taken on a new, subtler form — not just blood and land, but belief. And belief, when fused with identity, resists correction. The moment an idea becomes “mine,” its falsity becomes an attack.

This is how error becomes entrenched — not by lack of evidence, but by the cost of admitting it. Those who step outside the consensus of their camp face ridicule, exile, or worse: irrelevance. But this pressure to conform flattens thought. It replaces sincerity with performance. It discourages the kind of doubt on which actual thinking depends.

As Bertrand Russell put it, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

We see this constantly in media, where narratives are shaped less by fact than by tribal alignment. When your team says it, it’s truth. When the other side says the same thing, it’s propaganda. This distortion isn’t always malicious — it’s often subconscious. But it corrodes public reason all the same, turning discourse into theatre and thinkers into actors.

Sometimes this distortion is overt — like the way certain crimes or scandals are downplayed because they threaten a preferred narrative. Other times it’s more ambient, like the moral queasiness elites display when faced with populism or democratic dissent that doesn’t align with their class instincts.

But both are examples of the same pathology: the elevation of tribe over truth.

Think better. Get the FREE guide.
Join Veridaze and get 10 Mental Tools for Clearer Thinking — a free guide to cutting through noise, confusion, and nonsense.

Subscribe now

The search for good faith

It is no longer enough to be correct. One must also be aligned. One must strike the right pose, cite the right sources, hold the right enemies. Reasoning itself becomes suspect if it leads to the “wrong” conclusions. And disagreement, even when grounded in evidence and sincerity, is met not with engagement but with suspicion — or worse, silence.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” — Bertrand Russell

This is the death of good-faith discourse. When argument is reduced to signalling, persuasion becomes impossible. The point is no longer to find the truth, but to win the exchange, to defend the tribe, to punish deviation.

Yet philosophy teaches us that disagreement is not a threat — it is the foundation of thought. Socratic dialogue is built on respectful contestation. Intellectual honesty requires not just the ability to argue but the willingness to be changed.

In a time when people claim to "speak their truth" rather than pursue the truth, we are not witnessing moral progress. We are watching the slow substitution of reality for narrative.

Truth is not whatever flatters your identity. Goodness is not whatever validates your in-group. Thinking is not whatever earns you applause.

To seek truth requires humility — a rare virtue in the age of the algorithm.

The deformation of public reason

Public discourse has not merely declined; it has mutated. What once aimed toward understanding now rewards provocation. Speed has replaced thought, certainty has displaced curiosity, and moral outrage has become a shortcut to status.

Nowhere is this more evident than on social media. What began as a means of connection has become a ritual of tribal performance — a place where disagreement is often misread as aggression, and where nuance is algorithmically invisible. Reasoned debate loses out to slogan, sincerity to spectacle.

Even those who see through this distortion aren’t immune to it. Performative engagement — clever dunking, selective outrage, dog-whistle language — allows us to appear principled without actually being vulnerable to truth. The form of thought is retained, but the risk of thought is gone.

When everyone’s performing, no one is listening. And when no one is listening, truth becomes ornamental — something we reference for effect, but no longer submit ourselves to.

Truth, power, and the uncomfortable middle

There is a long philosophical tradition that treats truth as both fragile and foundational. Plato linked it to the soul’s alignment with the good; Kant rooted it in reason and duty. Nietzsche, ever the provocateur, saw it as something humans could scarcely handle. Yet all these thinkers agreed on one point: truth is costly. It demands something from us.

This is what makes truth politically inconvenient. It has a tendency to flatten hierarchies, expose hypocrisies, and unravel convenient lies. That’s why regimes censor it. But more troublingly, it’s why ordinary people now do too — not out of fear, but out of habit.

In many corners of public life, truth is increasingly treated not as something to pursue, but as something to manage. What matters is not whether a claim is accurate, but whether it serves the right moral purpose. Yet when truth is subordinated to ideology — even noble ideology — it ceases to be truth. It becomes propaganda.

This tension lies at the heart of many contemporary fractures: digital surveillance dressed as safety, scientific language used to evade moral clarity, and claims of progress masking confusion and collapse.

None of this is new. But what is new is the sheer speed at which falsehood can be reproduced, the scale at which social conformity can be enforced, and the extent to which critical faculties have been eroded.

Toward a better intellectual culture

If we are to rebuild the habits of honest thinking, we must start with the basics: clarity, curiosity, and good faith. That means resisting the temptation to flatten everything into ideological binaries. It means valuing questions more than slogans. It means distinguishing between personal offence and moral argument.

And it means defending spaces where ideas can be tested, not merely echoed.

Critical thinking, when done properly, is not defensive — it’s exploratory. It does not seek to win arguments but to understand what they reveal. And it does not mistake certainty for strength. Doubt, when disciplined, is not weakness — it is the beginning of wisdom.

To think critically is not to be contrarian for its own sake. It is to orient oneself toward reality, even when it’s uncomfortable. Especially when it’s uncomfortable.

Because if truth demands discomfort, then comfort is no guide to truth.