Narrative Fallacies and How to Avoid Them
A Guide to Contextual Narrative Reasoning as applied to the JFK Assassination
*NOTE* This glossary is not yet complete and additional terms will be added as the Kennedy assassination series progresses.
The Kennedy assassination is a controversial historical event, subject to conflicting narrative accounts of the events that led to the murder of John F. Kennedy, the reasons he was murdered, the way he was murdered, who was responsible for the murder, and the aftermath of his murder.
In disputed areas of fact, competing narratives contend with each other to account for the facts of the case and how to interpret them. In such cases, a common error of reasoning is to arrive at a narrative prior to considering the evidence—a process I refer to as narrative frontloading. The following glossary lists a number of narrative fallacies that support or create frontloaded narratives.
The glossary also lists a number of narrative reasoning tools that can uncover the presence of narrative fallacies and the frontloaded narratives that establish them. The formula I recommend for using narratives in the reasoning process is called contextual narrative reasoning, which proceeds through the following steps:
Identify evidentiary questions of fact. Then identify the possible ways of interpreting that evidence.
Hold the competing interpretations open in a narrative frame comparison process. Each interpretation exists as a narrative frame in which some things must be true and other things cannot be true.
Explore the implications of each narrative frame by applying them in the context of other evidence and by eliminating impossibilities. The necessary implications of each narrative frame become more precise as a result.
Check for narrative consistency by considering all points of evidence in context with each other, and in the context of the implications that proceed from competing narrative frames. True evidence combined with true narrative frames will result in contextual narrative integrity. No points of evidence will contradict each other, nor will they contradict the implications of the narrative frame.
Over the course of steps 1-4, some narrative frames will be revealed as impossible and can be discarded. Some narrative frames will appear increasingly unreasonable while remaining technically possible. Some narrative frames that seem unreasonable may in fact be reasonable—their seeming unreasonableness may be pointing to the presence of an unexamined frontloaded narrative. Once an unexamined set of assumptions (i.e., a frontloaded narrative) is identified, it can be tested using another narrative frame comparison process.
The implications that proceed from surviving narrative frames become increasingly precise in their implications, and these implications are run through the four-step process of contextual narrative reasoning to sharpen their implications further. This is continually repeated with new narrative frame comparisons that arise from the process.
Throughout the process, impossibilities are continually eliminated. Certainties arise only through the elimination of these impossibilities. Unanswered questions always remain at the edges of the available evidence. Increasingly implausible narrative frames are still held open in case additional evidence comes to light to rehabilitate them; however, these implausible narratives are held to higher standards of substantiation the more implausible they become.
This process yields a narrative picture shaped by evidence and reasoning. Some things are established as certain, and some are presumed true due to the highly implausible, unlikely, or unreasonable nature of the alternative. Other things remain in the realm of the possible or unknown. In all cases, previously unexamined evidence and reasoning is welcomed. No conclusion, not even certainties, are ever held exempt from questioning.
The glossary of terms follows below. In some cases, examples from the Kennedy assassination case are provided to illustrate application of the concepts.
A
Authoritative narrative allure — The attraction to accepting a frontloaded narrative due to the authoritative veneer associated with that narrative. Capitulation to the authoritative narrative may also result from intimidation or awe due to the power of the source of authority.
Authoritative veneer — A projection of credibility onto a source by virtue of that source’s perceived authority. This veneer may adhere to the pronouncements of a government body, an academic institution, establishment media sources, or experts authorized by these authorities with access to advanced technological tools (in a combined approach of authoritative narrative allure and expert foreclosure). Search engines may also confer authoritative veneer to favored perspectives through over-representation in search results. Authoritative veneer may also adhere to individuals in our private lives who present themselves with unshakable confidence or charisma, and amplified by their measure of social status and power.
C
Concrete Corroboration — Witness testimonies that are independently corroborated by temporal or spacial circumstances that eliminate the possibility of witness error or fabrication. Types of concrete corroboration include evidence of prior knowledge, verified alibis, or evidence corroborated by known facts that are otherwise time and place specific. For these reasons, concretely corroborated evidence is extremely strong.
Example: Michael Paine reported being shown a print of one of the “backyard photographs” at Dallas Police Headquarters on the evening of November 22, even though the police reported first discovering the photos on the afternoon of November 23. At around noon on November 23, Captain Fritz took notes while interrogating Lee Harvery Oswald, and the notes showed that Fritz mentioned Paine’s statements from the night before about the photo.
Conclusion: Not only do Fritz’s notes independently corroborate Michael Paine’s reports of being shown the photo the night before, these notes were written four hours before the photos were officially discovered and could not have contained the information about Paine’s reports had Paine not actually given such reports. The evidence of the DPD having possession of the photos on November 22 is concretely corroborated.
Contextual narrative integrity — A narrative reasoning tool used in the narrative frame comparison process in which open narrative frames are tested for consistency with the evidence in the case. Each piece of evidence in the case must align in context with all of the other evidence. Any explanatory narrative that fits this evidence must demonstrate internal consistency, or integrity with these contextual evidentiary relationships.
Contextual narrative reasoning — The application of narrative reasoning tools to test evidentiary conclusions for consistency in the context of all relevant evidence.
E
Expert foreclosure occurs when a layperson abandons their own analysis of the evidence in question by deferring to an expert pronouncement, or by excluding the evidence in question from their own analysis entirely.
Example 1: Handwriting experts contracted by the state conclude the handwriting on the back of a print of the backyard photos belongs to Oswald. Even though the handwriting appears markedly different from other examples of Oswald’s handwriting at a glance, the experts must be correct. The experts could not be lying or inaccurate.
Example 2: .Expert photo analysts contracted by the state conclude the Oswald backyard photographs are authentic. Other experts disagree. Therefore it is not possible for a layperson to determine whether they are authentic.
N
Narrative fallacies — Reasoning mistakes that create or support a frontloaded narrative.
Narrative reasoning tools — Methods by which narratives can be utilized in appropriate relationship to applicable evidence. Primary examples of narrative reasoning tools include narrative frame comparison and testing for contextual narrative integrity. Both are examples of contextual narrative reasoning, in which narratives are shaped by the constraints of the evidence in question. This is in contract to narrative frontloading, in which consideration of evidence is shaped to fit a pre-existing narrative.
Narrative frontloading — The process of fixing beliefs and conclusions in place prior to the examination of evidence. Evidence or reasoning that contradicts this belief is discarded as soon as the contradiction is made apparent. The mind concludes, “There must be something wrong with this evidence or line of reasoning. Even though I can’t detect the evidentiary or reasoning flaw, I know it must be flawed because I know my pre-existing narrative is true.” In an accurate reasoning process, narratives must fit the evidence. If a narrative does not fit the evidence, the narrative must be discarded, not the evidence. Narrative frontloading reverses the process and discards evidence that does not fit the narrative. This forms the basis for all narrative fallacies.
Example: “There could not be a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination because major institutions of government and the corporate press could not have colluded to cover it up. The world just doesn’t work that way.”
Narrative frame comparison — In this process, competing narratives are both held as open possibilities and evidence is considered in accordance with both narratives. As more evidence is examined and incorporated, the competing narratives are winnowed down to sharper levels of specificity through a process of eliminating impossibilities. As the process continues, new narrative frames are suggested by the mounting evidence in question. These are likewise held open in a continuing narrative frame comparison process, and the narrowing of possibilities continues. Over time, some narratives collapse completely under the weight of mounting contradictions, and surviving narratives more closely approach the truth. Along the way, certain evidentiary facts are corroborated to the point that certainty can be reached in a number of areas. This is the process by which we can develop narratives and worldviews that match the evidence in our world, rather than developing a false and skewed view of the world by distorting or ignoring evidence to prop up a pre-selected narrative.
P
Psychological gain projection — A narrative fallacy used in service of narrative frontloading in which speculative psychological gains are projected onto another person in an attempt to discredit their evidence, testimony, or reasoning.
Example 1: “Conspiracy theorists are motivated to invent elaborate plots in order to direct their frustrations and disappointments at an imagined powerful enemy in the shadows.”
Example 2: “Lone nut theorists are motivated to ignore evidence of conspiracy and collusion because they would feel disempowered and depressed by the prospect of the entrenched institutional corruption this would reveal.
In both examples, a frontloaded narrative is established that creates a preemptive bias against evidence presented by the target of the projection. The secondary gains projected onto the target are speculative and intangible psychological gains rather than tangible secondary gains (identification of concrete material gains that can be used to evaluate credibility).
S
Secondary gains — Personal benefits made available through adherence to a frontloaded narrative, or the alteration or fabrication of evidence (by witnesses, law enforcement, or interested third parties). These benefits may include tangible gains such as wealth, access to opportunity, social propriety, or in extreme cases, preservation of life and limb. Some secondary gains provide psychological benefits, such as feelings of peace or security in one’s worldview, emotional relief, notoriety, or ideological promotion. If these psychological benefits also provide opportunity for concrete gains (e.g., increased notoriety can assist in book sales, and ideological promotion can provide social advancement) they can be considered tangible. Otherwise, their presumed benefit is speculative and intangible.
T
Tangible secondary gains — A type of secondary gain that is appropriate when considering the credibility of a witness or source. Adhering to a frontloaded narrative, providing false testimony, or engaging in evidence tampering can sometimes secure concrete or demonstrable benefits, such as wealth, opportunity, social advancement, or security. Consideration of tangible secondary gains is appropriate when evaluating evidence that lacks adequate corroboration or is contradicted by other evidence. Speculative projections of intangible psychological gains should not be employed in gauging credibility of information.
Relendra’s series of Kennedy Assassination Articles
An intro to the discipline and benefits of understanding the assassination of John F. Kennedy—with reference to its utility and applicability in understanding power dynamics and narrative reasoning on the macro scale of history and global politics, now and then, as well as in one’s personal relationships and spiritual journey.
An introduction to three images that open the mind to the Kennedy Assassination—and a guide to the process of encountering the doors of perception and the keys that unlock them.
JFK and the Doorways of Perception—Part Two: Entering the doorways of the Kennedy Assassination A deeper exploration of the path beyond the initial doorways of the Kennedy case through narrative frame comparison, guidance in the use of narrative reasoning tools, and identification of reasoning pitfalls and narrative fallacies.
A glossary of terms to aid in the process of contextual narrative reasoning. Includes descriptions of narrative fallacies and narrative reasoning tools, with examples and application to the Kennedy assassination case
A compendium of the books, websites, podcasts, films, and methods of research available in researching or learning about the Kennedy case, complete with links.