Two Kinds of People: Those Who Accept Reality and Those Who Do Not
- Charles "Ghost" Coutts
- 30 minutes ago
- 7 min read
You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
~Ayn Rand~
Face reality early, or reality will face you later — and on much harsher terms.
The way I see it, there are two kinds of manipulation in this world. Good, or constructive. Or bad and destructive. Manipulation itself is neither good nor bad, no matter if that manipulation is self-imposed or controlled by outside influences; it simply is what it is, a process, and it is how that process is used by humans that determines if it is destructive or constructive in nature. Without human interaction, manipulation is just a word. The primary way we open ourselves up to outside manipulation is by denying reality. Refusing to accept the truth even when all evidence points to it being the truth.
That means there are really only two kinds of people in this world. Those who accept reality as it is and act accordingly; and those who do not. Those who do are in a very good position to manipulate those who don’t. Ignorance is the tool of tyrants; it always has been, and it always will be, and there are also many, many people who accept reality who are trying to stop those tyrants because we see what is really going on where others do not. We are often called derogatory names like “conspiracy theorists”, crazy liars, or even get dehumanized by being called evil incarnate. All we do is tell the truth, but in a world driven by lies, the truth is very often seen as insanity and those who speak it as insane. So, let’s dig into this Part 1 of a 2-part essay on this subject.
Author’s note: My latest essays have been a bit long-winded, a bit too wordy in my opinion. I am going to try to scale that back a little and try to stay at ten minutes or less. Doesn’t mean it will work, but I am going to try. So, let’s dive right in and look at the foundations that I base my theory on. I say “my theory” only because I thought about it first and then verified it. I am not claiming ownership of the concept itself. That belongs to much wiser people than I.
Psychological Foundations: Willful Ignorance, Cognitive Dissonance, and Motivated Reasoning
Willful ignorance (also called willful blindness or conscious avoidance) is the deliberate choice to avoid relevant information because it would be uncomfortable or demand action. People often know, at some level, that certain facts challenge their beliefs or self-image, so they turn away. I believe this is a massive issue in the world today and the cause of a great deal of our collective problems.
Why it happens: It protects emotional well-being and a positive self-view. For example, choosing not to learn how one's actions harm others allows selfish behavior while still seeing oneself as "good." Studies show ~40% of people will opt for ignorance in such scenarios, leading to less true altruism.
Related mechanisms:
Cognitive dissonance: The discomfort from holding conflicting beliefs (e.g., "The world is mostly fair" vs. evidence of systemic issues). People resolve it by denying/rejecting the evidence rather than updating beliefs.
Motivated reasoning and confirmation bias: We eagerly accept information that fits what we want to believe and scrutinize or ignore what doesn't. This is amplified for self-relevant or identity-tied issues.
Ostrich effect or normalcy bias: Pretending threats don't exist to maintain psychological equilibrium. This is a big one! If you take a minute to look, you will see it everywhere, and I personally find it very alarming.
The "deniers" aren't always incapable of seeing truth; acknowledging it creates obligation ("not my problem" becomes "my problem"). Realists, by contrast, accept facts as they are and problem-solve, aligning with adaptive long-term strategies even if short-term painful.
Sociology: This ties into pluralistic ignorance, where people privately reject a norm or see problems but assume others don't—leading everyone to publicly conform or stay silent. This creates false consensus and perpetuates issues (e.g., everyone thinks "everyone else is fine with this," so no one acts).
Social conformity (e.g., Asch experiments) and the bystander effect reinforce apathy: diffusion of responsibility makes problems "someone else's."
Philosophical Perspectives: Plato's Cave and Beyond
Plato's Allegory of the Cave (Republic, Book VII) is the classic metaphor. Prisoners chained in a cave see only shadows cast by puppets and a fire, mistaking them for reality. One escapes, sees the real world in sunlight (Forms/truth), but returning to share it faces ridicule or violence from those comfortable in illusion.
The "truth-seers" are the escaped philosophers who endure painful adjustment for higher understanding.
The deniers prefer familiar shadows. Education/philosophy is the painful ascent.
PAY ATTENTION TO THIS VIDEO! Anything sound familiar?
Other traditions:
Stoicism emphasizes radical realism and acceptance of what is (amor fati — love of fate). Distinguish what you control (judgments, actions) from what you don't. Harsh truths are faced directly without added emotional judgment; this builds resilience and virtue. Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius stressed seeing things "as they are," not as we wish.
Existentialism (Sartre, Heidegger, Kierkegaard): Authenticity requires confronting absurdity, freedom, responsibility, and mortality. "Bad faith" is self-deception/denial to avoid the anxiety of true freedom. Living authentically means owning your choices in an uncertain world, rejecting "the They" (conformist herd).
NOTE: Even though, as with Ayn Rand and Sartre, and many others. I agree with a lot of what they say because it has been validated as a psychological/philosophical process. However. I part ways with them when they get into atheism. I am a Christian, and my primary advice to everyone is to seek a relationship with Jesus Christ and get on the right path. I see no conflict between the word of God and philosophy/psychology/sociology, etc. In fact, take Stoicism. Its core teachings of ethics and morality almost mirror those of the bible. The point is one must learn to separate the messenger from the message because the message itself is far more important than who said it or what they may personally believe. People are terribly flawed creatures; God is not, so I tend to follow the non-flawed side of things. Just saying, my personal opinion for what it is worth.
Living on lies/incomplete info is unhealthy because it leads to inauthenticity, fragility, and unaddressed problems that compound.
Breaking Out of Denial
Transitioning requires courage, as the initial "ascent" (like the prisoner's blinding sunlight) is disorienting and painful. Practical steps drawn from the fields:
Acknowledge discomfort: Recognize dissonance or ignorance as a signal, not something to flee and hide from. Mindfulness helps sit with uncertainty without judgment.
Seek disconfirming evidence: Actively test beliefs (Socratic questioning). Expose yourself to varied sources; practice "steel-manning" opposing views.
Change behavior first: Align actions with emerging truths (e.g., small experiments). This reduces dissonance more effectively than rationalization.
Build epistemic humility: Accept you could be wrong. Stoic practices like negative visualization or journaling facts vs. interpretations help.
Community and accountability: Find others willing to confront reality; pluralistic ignorance breaks when people voice private doubts.
Gradual exposure: Start with low-stakes truths; build tolerance for discomfort.
It's not about becoming cynical but grounded. Realism enables better problem-solving, as you noted.
Manipulation: Isolation and Pitting Groups Against Each Other
This is where "divide and conquer" (divide et impera) enters. Power structures (elites, media, politicians, narcissists in personal dynamics) exploit the realist/denier split:
Echo chambers and filter bubbles: Algorithms and self-selection feed confirming info, deepening divides. Realists may cluster in "red-pill" spaces; deniers in comfort bubbles. This magnifies extremes and reduces cross-exposure.
Polarization tactics: Amplify emotional triggers, seed disputes, create false binaries ("us vs. them"). Triangulation (involving third parties to stir conflict) isolates. Media and social platforms profit from engagement via outrage.
Isolation: Label realists as "negative/cynical/extremist" to marginalize them. Encourage deniers to dismiss problems as conspiracy or "not my problem." This prevents unified problem-solving.
Narrative control: Blame one group for another's issues; bribe/align subgroups; foster mistrust. In society, this maintains the status quo by keeping the masses fragmented.
Sound familiar? It should because it is happening all around us.
The result: Realists burn out fighting alone; deniers remain apathetic; society stagnates while manipulators consolidate power.
This phenomenon has existed since the dawn of humanity but has intensified in modern information environments. Realism isn't about superiority; it's a tool for better navigation through life. We can always come up with countless reasons not to take action—it's a skill humans have perfected over time: we make excuses. However, there is really only one reason to take action: the desire to become a better person. This means being more grounded in reality and more in control of your own words, actions, and life.
It's a straightforward concept, but this empowerment comes with a cost that too many people are unwilling to pay. That cost is responsibility—total and unwavering self-accountability in all aspects of life. The harsh reality is that our decisions determine our paths. We choose to turn right or left, to move forward or backward, or to remain stagnant. These decisions manifest in tangible events in our lives.
For example, if you decide not to pay your power bill and instead buy a new outfit you've wanted for a long time, the consequence may be that your power gets shut off before you get paid again. You might rage at the power company, thinking, "How dare they turn my power off!" But the harsh reality is that if you had chosen to pay the bill instead of spending the money on yourself, your power would still be on. In this case, you have no one to blame but yourself for the situation you find yourself in.
Accepting reality and learning to live within its parameters eliminates a tremendous amount of stress created by trying to get reality to reshape itself to one's own image. It's not going to happen, guys! We must live life on life's terms, or life will kick our asses regularly. Personally, I got pretty tired of getting my ass kicked regularly trying to ignore reality, so I did the only smart thing there is to do. I stopped doing that!
Now, I see the world, the people in it, and the events that unfold for exactly what they are. Effects with a cause, and that cause is our flawed human nature. That is the deeper subject: human nature, because all behavior can be traced back to instinct.
That is the subject of Part 2. We will dive deeper into the science of it all, so see you there.
“All human unhappiness comes from not facing reality squarely, exactly as it is”
~Gautama Buddha~
AI disclaimer: This work was edited using an AI-driven program and may contain AI-generated images.
Connective Tissue- A deeper look at the aspect of divide and conquer.
Please be aware that the woman in the upcoming video is highly accurate in her insights. However, she is also quite straightforward, occasionally using strong language, including some explicit words, due to her passionate delivery.
The following video deals with isolation on a more personal level; however, the tactic and the methodology itself are universal. It can be scaled up to a societal level through peer pressure, groupthink, and propaganda.