Reading Comprehension

Philosophy

Medium

Many people believe that truth conveys power. Hence sticking with the truth is the best strategy for gaining power. Unfortunately, this is just a comforting myth. In fact, truth and power have a far more complicated relationship, because in human society, power means two very different things.

On the one hand, power mehaving the ability to manipulate objective realities: to hunt animals, to construct bridges, to cure diseases, to build atom bombs. This kind of power is closely tied to truth. If you believe a false physical theory, you won't be able to build an atom bomb. On the other hand, power also mehaving the ability to manipulate human beliefs, thereby getting lots of people to cooperate effectively. Building atom bombs requires not just a good understanding of physics, but also the coordinated labor of millions of humans. Planet Earth was conquered by Homo sapiens rather than by chimpanzees or elephants, because we are the only mammals that can cooperate in very large numbers. And large-scale cooperation depends on believing common stories. But these stories need not be true. You can unite millions of people by making them believe in completely fictional stories about God, about race or about economics. The dual nature of power and truth results in the curious fact that we humknow many more truths than any other animal, but we also believe in much more nonsense.

When it comes to uniting people around a common story, fiction actually enjoys three inherent advantages over the truth. First, whereas the truth is universal, fictions tend to be local. Consequently if we want to distinguish our tribe from foreigners, a fictional story will serve as a far better identity marker than a true story. The second huge advantage of fiction over truth has to do with the handicap principle, which says that reliable signals must be costly to the signaler. Otherwise, they can easily be faked by cheaters.... If political loyalty is signaled by believing a true story, anyone can fake it. But believing ridiculous and outlandish stories exacts greater cost, and is therefore a better signal of loyalty. Third, and most important, the truth is often painful and disturbing. Hence if you stick to unalloyed reality, few people will follow you. An American presidential candidate who tells the American public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about American history has a $100$ percent guarantee of losing the elections. An uncompromising adherence to the truth is an admirable spiritual practice, but it is not a winning political strategy.

Even if we need to pay some price for deactivating our rational faculties, the advantages of increased social cohesion are often so big that fictional stories routinely triumph over the truth in human history. Scholars have known this for thousands of years, which is why scholars often had to decide whether they served the truth or social harmony. Should they aim to unite people by making sure everyone believes in the same fiction, or should they let people know the truth even at the price of disunity?

The author would support none of the following statements about political power EXCEPT that:

people cannot handle the unvarnished truth, so leaders retain power by deviating from it.

while unalloyed truth is not recommended, leaders should stay as close as possible to it.

there are definite advantages to promoting fiction, but there needs to be some limit to a pervasive belief in myths.

manipulating people’s beliefs is politically advantageous, but a leader who propagates only myths is likely to lose power.

✅ Correct Option: 1

We need to find which statement the author would support about political power. The key is understanding the author's main argument about truth vs fiction in politics.

From passage: "the truth is often painful and disturbing. Hence if you stick to unalloyed reality, few people will follow you. An American presidential candidate who tells the American public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about American history has a 100 percent guarantee of losing the elections."

The author's core argument -> Truth doesn't win elections -> Fiction is better for gaining political power -> People prefer comforting lies over harsh realities.

Elimination process:

🟢 Option 1 -> correct -> "people cannot handle the unvarnished truth, so leaders retain power by deviating from it" -> This matches exactly what the author says. People find truth "painful and disturbing" so leaders who stick to truth lose followers.

🔴 Option 2 -> contradicts passage -> "leaders should stay as close as possible to it [truth]" -> Author never recommends staying close to truth. In fact, he says fiction has advantages over truth and "uncompromising adherence to truth is not a winning political strategy."

🟠 Option 3 -> adds ideas not in passage -> talks about "limits" to believing myths -> Author never mentions any limits or boundaries. He actually says fictional stories "routinely triumph over truth."

🟠 Option 4 -> contradicts passage -> "a leader who propagates only myths is likely to lose power" -> Author suggests the opposite - that fiction gives political advantages and helps unite people effectively.

The author clearly supports the idea that people struggle with harsh truths, so successful leaders use fiction instead of reality to gain and keep power.

Question 13

The author implies that, like scholars, successful leaders:

Question 14

The central theme of the passage is about the choice between:

Question 15

Regarding which one of the following quotes could we argue that the author over emphasises the importance of fiction?

The author would support none of the following statements about political power EXCEPT that:

Solution

More from this set:

Keyboard Shortcuts

CAT Past Year Questions (Topic-Wise)