The Problem With Certainty

What is the problem with certainty? None, some might say, and at one level I would agree. There can be only good in being certain that my wife loves me. Or at a mundane level, there can’t be anything wrong with being certain that my car will start in the morning, that the sun will shine, that most people have good intentions. Of course, for all of these there is a chance I am incorrect, and I cannot prove in any scientific sense that my certainty is warranted---due in part to the fact that the feeling of certainty is mostly subjective.

Certainty is relative for most things---we are certain to a degree. Naturally, each of us has one or two areas for which certainty is absolute, such as the deist’s complete acceptance that God exists or the atheist’s complete acceptance that God does not exist.

Certainty is the feeling that some things, events or even ideas, usually having some importance, are predictable or stable to a level that prohibits the rise of anxiety. This certainty offers support that everyone needs to some degree, each of us differently. For most people, the sensation that things are flying apart, are uncontrollable, that there is nothing to hold onto, induces fear and anxiety, often at extreme levels. Some uncertainty exists in all societies, but once it reaches an undefined level for an individual or for the general population (different for each person/society), societal unrest arises.

Thus, some level of certainty is needed for a society, family, or individual to function well. Such certainty is usually provided by various formal and informal structures, including governmental, civic and religious ones; by rules, standards, conventions, and moral strictures; and by individuals with some generally acknowledged authority. That group includes police, teachers, parents, priests/rabbis, the military, various experts, etc. We rely on all of these to some extent to give solidity and consistency to our lives. We know we can count on them to provide firmness to our existence.

But if certainty is part of how we live, and indeed that we need some degrees of it, what is the problem? There are two aspects, one societal and one individual, and the two are intimately connected.

At the societal level, the 60’s rebellion against authority led gradually to the degradation or elimination of structures, etc., that gave us solidity, and overall societal wellbeing suffered. Most dramatically this showed up in the loss of the sense that we had something we could hang onto, and which we could count on being there. I fully accept that many of these strictures, rules, etc., needed to be thrown out, especially those dealing with the repression of women and homo-phobia, for just two examples. Unfortunately, in proponents’ enthusiasm to dismantle authority of nearly any type, the baby was thrown out with the bath water. Little was left to give solidity to people’s lives, resulting in considerable anxiety and fear.

As social forces undermined even healthy authority and sources of certainty, individuals tried to instill stability in their lives by less healthy methods, one of which, going under the guise of free expression, is the powerful and often narcissistic emphasis on “me” first. Unfortunately, parents and some teachers aided and abetted this trend by emphasizing that self-esteem could be promoted in children by constantly telling them they are special, a view now solidly disproven. These efforts had the further effect of promoting the idea that moral relativism rules---I do exactly what I want to do, and no one can tell me differently. If you are offended, or even harmed, by my behavior, tough on you.

These efforts arose in part at least because of the vacuum of healthy certainty. They superficially appear to give the person license to do whatever he chooses. There are to be no repercussions or personal responsibility for his acts, and he can believe such actions will provide solidity to his world---an unfortunate failed view. Since these unhealthy methods do not work, anxiety and fear remain or increase, precipitating the endless search for anything that will fill the vacuum, that will provide the certainty so desperately desired. Paradoxically, taking responsibility for one’s acts was one of the important stabilizing elements in times past, something that gave both meaning and structure to one’s life.

Young people, teens especially, are in need of healthy stability systems, but finding few, they resort to looking for certainty in unhelpful places. For some youth, the need to find stability somewhere is so strong that getting a social media “like” is vital. But like all such efforts, it is unsatisfying because it is subject to whim, and temporary because it lacks any forms of permanence.

The latest vehicle for obtaining a sense of solidness in life affects young and old alike---“If there is no helpful societal certainty around me, all it takes is for me to be certain and all will be well.” The healthy desire for a normal level of certainty going unsatisfied has led to an exaggerated need for certainty in life in general and in interpersonal interactions in particular.

A high need for certainty breeds absolutism of thought and action---such folks (certaintists) MUST be right. Those who disagree are not only wrong on all counts, but they are likely to be seen as evil as well, and the topic is irrelevant---it could be anything. This augurs ill for quality and respectful interactions as the certaintist sees all disagreement as zero-sum, and his desperate need for certainty compels him to do whatever is necessary to win, no matter how unpleasant.

Unfortunately for the certaintist, even if he prevails over an “opponent,” he accomplishes nothing beneficial. Besides ruining relationships, he is trying to fill an inner emptiness with external elements---an impossibility, as youths discover in trying to fill an inner void with social media “likes.” Fear and anxiety continue, no matter what.

Excessive certainty is about removing ideas and actions from consideration. The stronger the certainty, the fewer avenues of existence, thought or action that are acceptable to a person. This challenges the life of a certaintist because having few options for response to differing situations is hugely detrimental for personal well-being.

The political landscape in recent decades has mirrored the great increase in the need for certainty at all cost. As people desperately look for ever-more certainty in all the wrong ways, the divide between left and right has grown, and along with it anger, judgmentalism, and overt hostility. Many in each party view those in the other party with total dismay and disgust. I do not know if the political and the need-for-certainty changes are causally linked, correlated, or unrelated. But my sense is they are connected in some way. As people’s options for dealing with the world diminish, they adopt a simplistic either/or world view, reflecting a resort to excessive certainty. Those with differing views represent a huge threat to well-being in the partisan’s eyes, which would account for the fear of, distaste for, and trashing of the “other.”

The dramatic need for absolute certainty means great difficulty in recreating, if along different lines than in the past, a more unified and healthy set of national values, behaviors, and structures. The excessive need for certainty is a separator. It divides people and causes the society to fragment. Because we lost some of the healthy elements that offered a sense of solidity and continuity in the past, we are indeed fragmenting, driven by an ethic of “every person for himself” and “every group for itself.” Naturally, the fragmentation is enhanced by the vicious denunciations of the “other” as like-feeling (it is not thinking at all) people coalesce around intense dislike if not outright hate. And contrary to much popular, but deeply erroneous opinion, one party does not have a monopoly on the hate of opponents.

Lastly, as healthy certainty dissolves, and the sense of being lost surfaces, people’s needs for control increase. Like the other false steps in trying to obtain more healthy certainty, increasing one’s control efforts usually back fires. Other people, including family, friends, or neighbors dislike being manipulated by pressure, victimhood, or guilt trips, all techniques controllers use easily and often. And those who disagree, who are on the receiving end of the most force, find such efforts to be particularly irritating. Attempting to increase control is akin to the Buddhist concept of clutching, much as a drowning man desperately tries to grab the water. He can save himself only by letting go, just as letting go is the only way to find healthy certainty.