---
# System prepended metadata

title: 6. Building between the Truths 建立自己的真相
tags: [Keywords]

---

---
title: 'Building between the Truths 建立自己的真相'
tags: keywords
author: Tzu Tung Lee
link: https://hackmd.io/@BOTAMEVE/Keywords_LandingPage
---

# Building between the Truths 建立自己的真相

As women or those conditioned to internalize their suffering often gaslighted or self-gaslight through the manipulation of patriarchal and ableist structure, I intend to spend a little of my writing talk about truth, how it flawed and how we build it for ourselves and the society.


## 1. The Truths Value
![Four quadrants of Truths](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/B1Na1rmBJe.jpg)


Truth and fact overlap but are separated by a thin veil that often seems impenetrable.

The notion of “truth” shifts depending on context. Legal training commonly explores four “quadrants of truth”: **objective truth**, **subjective truth**, **normative truth**, and **pragmatic (or practical) truth**. Each quadrant holds distinct value based on its applicability and relevance—making them also “economical truths.” Understanding this diversity and contextual fluidity is crucial for effective communication and decision-making.

The #MeToo movement, alongside numerous cases of abuse, bullying, and manipulation , offers a vivid example of how these four quadrants of truth intertwine.

### I. Objective Truth
Objective truth is generally understood as truth independent of personal feelings or cultural context. This concept dates back to Plato’s theory of “Forms” and Aristotle’s emphasis on empirical and logical methods for ascertaining reality. Today, scientific methods, data, verifiable evidence (like legal documents or recorded incidents), and so called "fact" are commonly included as the pillars of objective truth.

In the context of #MeToo, objective truth might involve documented evidence of sexual harassment or assault: recorded video footage, witness testimony, medical or forensic reports. These serve as the foundation for holding perpetrators accountable. However, because these incidents often occur privately and involve power imbalances, strictly “objective” evidence can be hard to obtain. Societal biases and institutional structures can also skew or suppress evidence, and what considered "factual".

### II. Subjective Truth

Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard brought the idea of subjective truth to prominence, defining it as an individual’s lived experience and personal authenticity. Subjective truth is thus inseparable from one’s internal perspective.

A core element of #MeToo is survivors stepping forward to share deeply personal accounts of sexual violence. These stories represent a subjective truth that may not always be backed by external proof. Yet, they resonate because they highlight the genuine harm — physical, psychological, and social—suffered by victims. Acknowledging the inherent validity of these personal narratives challenges traditional expectations of proof and affirms the importance of lived experience.

### III. Normative Truth

Normative truth represents value-laden or prescriptive statements (e.g., moral obligations, social ideals) that guide how we ought to behave individually and collectively. Feminist critiques of patriarchal structures and postcolonial theorists to euroamerica centric epistemilotical violences advanced the notion that norms reflect power structures, leading to debates over whose norms become codified in law or policy. Therefore, normative truth as justice and fairness should be the guide to social institutions. 

The #MeToo movement embodies **normative truth** by reshaping cultural expectations around consent, respect, and gender equity. It calls for systemic accountability, reflecting a moral stance that sexual violence and harassment should no longer be tolerated or dismissed. By challenging long-standing patriarchal narratives, #MeToo seeks to redefine societal norms.

### IV. ragmatic (Practical) Truth
Philosopher John Dewey, in particular, advocated an “instrumental” view of knowledge, where theories and concepts are tools whose value lies in how effectively they help us cope with situations or achieve goals. Pragmatic truth is results-oriented and adaptive. A claim is “true” insofar as it proves itself useful, actionable, or beneficial within a given context.

The pragmatic truth of #MeToo is evident in its legislative, workplace policy, and public opinion impacts. Even when evidence or justice is imperfect, the movement fosters power rebalancing and future harm prevention.
    
:::spoiler 中文

真相與事實交疊，卻相隔一層永遠無法穿透的薄紗。

所謂的真相會因情境而異。一般討論真理，包括客觀真理、主觀真理、規範性真理和積極真理。而真理的價值，則取決於其在特定情境中的適用性和相關性，因此，他們也是「經濟的真理」。理解真理的多樣性和情境對於有效溝通和決策至關重要。

#Metoo 運動與眾多權勢不對等的虐待、霸凌、操縱相同，真相也落在不同的真理象限之間。

1. **客觀真理**

在#MeToo運動中，客觀真理體現在對性騷擾和性侵的紀錄證據上，例如法律文件、調查報告或經過佐證的證詞等。這些事實為追究加害者責任提供了基礎。然而，由於此類經歷通常發生在私密且權勢不對等的情境中，並無目擊者、直接證據、甚至因社會情境，權勢與裙帶結構都在幫加害者說話，並非所有案例都能依賴單純的客觀證據。

2. **主觀真理**

#MeToo運動的核心是倖存者說出他們遭受性暴力的經驗，這些屬於主觀真理。這些故事揭示了倖存者在生理、心理和社會層面層面所受的傷害，但經常缺乏證據來向外展現。然而，運動的力量來自於肯定這些個人敘事的重要性，即使這些敘事挑戰了傳統的證據觀念。

3. **規範性真理**

這場運動體現了規範性真理，重新塑造關於同意、尊重和性別平等的社會價值觀。#MeToo挑戰了舊有父權架構、那些集體曾忽視與輕視的不當行為，並倡導推動文化改變，促進問責與賦權。規範性真理在此有道德層面的昇華。

4. **積極真理**

#MeToo的積極真理體現在對立法、職場政策以及公共輿論的現實影響，即便在證據或正義不完美的情況下，也可以視為解決權力不平衡和預防未來傷害的力量。

在主觀真理上，加害者與受虐者在與外在敘述經歷的過程中，經常會得到相矛盾的敘事。此時，對於真相的判定便更加仰賴客觀真理。但是處理客觀真理的系統並非不會出錯。
:::

## 2. GIGO Confusions

![GIGO](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/SkfGWSXH1x.jpg)


In artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, there is a term called GIGO - "Garbage In, Garbage Out," meaning that if you feed a language model with flawed, garbage-like data, the output will also be flawed as garbage.

When systems — whether cognitive circuits, legal frameworks, AI models, or medical diagnostics — evaluate real-world situations, they often interpret data by mobilizing resources from these four quadrants of truth, However, errors in interpreting or applying truth can lead to confusion. This is where the confusion matrix (commonly used in machine learning) becomes relevant, as it helps categorize how well predictions align with reality:

1.  **True Positive (TP):** Correctly predicting a positive case that truly is positive.
    -   _Legal Parallel:_ Pinpointing a sexual assault suspect when ample objective and subjective evidence align.

2.  **False Positive (FP):** Incorrectly predicting a positive case that is actually negative.

    -   _Legal Parallel:_ Accusing an innocent person of assault without sufficient evidence.
    
3.  **True Negative (TN):** Correctly predicting a negative case that truly is negative.
    -   _Legal Parallel:_ Clearing someone of false charges when objective truth confirms innocence.

4.  **False Negative (FN):** Incorrectly predicting a negative case that is actually positive.

    -   _Legal Parallel:_ Failing to recognize a genuine survivor’s claim in the absence of concrete evidence.

In abusive relationships, survivors may take more than a decade to fully recognize and name what has happened to them. Even after enduring violence, it often requires significant time and effort to move from a state of denial to acceptance. The acronym "DENIAL" — "Don't Even kNow I Am Lying" — reflects how individuals may unconsciously deceive themselves to avoid confronting painful truths. It can take the **cognitive system** considerable time to acknowledge that someone who once love-bombed them is also an abuser.

Historically, an example of **medical** misjudgment is the now defunct diagnosis of **hysteria** — for nearly two millennia, male-dominated medical authorities believed hysteria was a female-only disorder caused by a wandering uterus or sexual repression. The prescription is for male doctor to penetrate women or give women sexual orgasm. The belief persisted until the late 20th century, when the term was finally discredited and recognized as a misclassification of various psychological disorders. Such misjudgment highlights the tainted consequences of patriarchal-centered value and its biased information system.

Similarly, **legal** systems, influenced by varying evidence and the value judgments of prosecutors and judges, can produce biased outcomes. Gaps in evidence, statutes of limitations, and societal stigma often hinder survivors from establishing their subjective truth. Meanwhile, perpetrators immersed in misogynistic cultures, power, or driven by narcissistic tendencies, may believe they have done nothing wrong. These conflicting subjective truths further obscure the pursuit of justice, plunging the truths into confusion.

Within the **AI** realm, an notorious case is that George Washington University law professor [**Jonathan Turley**](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/05/chatgpt-lies/) who was falsely accused of sexual harassment by ChatGPT. The chatbot mistakenly generated a claim that Turley had been involved in a sexual harassment incident in a school trip to Alaska, citing a fabricated article from The Washington Post. Turley has never taught at the institution mentioned, never took the trip described. Yet since the news is created by a poisoned AI, there was no real journalist or writer to correct from. What's more, after Jonathan Turley advocated for his case, the seemingly omniscient ChatGPT now can't produce any anwer related to his name. All mentions and any related news are censored, even just to translate the related information, ChatGPT is hard-programmed to malfunction in creating relating outcome.

Whether in one's brain, or in medicine, law, or AI, the most concerning challenges in each domains lie in **false positives (FP)** (e.g., wrongful accusations) and **false negatives (FN)** (e.g., failing to identify genuine victims or perpetrators). These errors occur when a judgment system mistakenly treats flawed data or incomprhensive database as sufficient evidence, leading to flawed conclusions — or worse, revealing the system itself has largely wrong or needing modification. When a system makes a false positive (FP) claim, it’s often possible to gather evidence to prove guilt —but proving innocence is more complex. What evidence can one provide to establish definative innocence? of nothing happened? Conversely, for surviors of abusive relationships or sexual violations, the lack of witnesses or the survivor’s shame and denial may lead to the difficulty to prove harm. This lead false negative (FN): legitimate claims being dismissed or overlooked, harmed experiences unrecognized and unresolved.

:::spoiler 中文
在人工智慧（AI）和機器學習中，有一個詞叫 GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out 也就是你如在語言模型中倒入垃圾，他所產出的結果也會是垃圾。

混淆矩陣（confusion matrix）便是其中一種工具，用於評估在大型語言模型裡預測結果與實際情況之間的對應關係。這包含：
1. 真陽性（TP)：模型正確地將實際為正類的樣本預測為正類。例如：判定有咳嗽有COVID 的人為陽性 --> 判斷正確。
2. 假陽性（FP)：模型錯誤地將實際為負類的樣本預測為正類。例如：判定只是咳嗽但沒有 COVID 的人為 COVID。--> 判斷錯誤。
3. 真陰性（TN)：模型正確地將實際為負類的樣本預測為負類。例如：判定只是咳嗽但沒有COVID 的人為陰性 --> 判斷正確。
4. 假陰性（FN)：模型錯誤地將實際為正類的樣本預測為負類。例如：判定沒有症狀但有COVID 的人為陰性。-> 判斷錯誤。

在醫療診斷中，假陽性可能導致健康個體接受不必要的治療，而假陰性則可能導致疾病未被發現亦無從治療。以現在已從DSM-III除名的歇斯底里症為例。在19世紀前的兩千年裡，以異性戀本位、男性為主的醫學權威們，一直認為歇斯底里僅有女性會發生，且是因女性子宮擾動、遊走或倒錯造成的，是女性缺乏與男性性經驗與過度壓抑造成，因此，當時認為使患者達到性高潮或使之懷孕可消除症狀。直至 1980 年後，歇斯底里才被逐漸發現是對轉換障礙、分離障礙等不同精神障礙錯誤的分類，醫學界也才停止使用該詞。歇斯底里症的出現與判斷，完全就是男性為中心的知識偏差，造成的偏差結果。


法律系統在面對各式證據、檢察官、法官的價值觀輸入，也可能會輸出不同的偵查結論。眾多的性暴力、虐待與不義，不論法律系統、倖存者、甚至加害者個人，都很輕易地進入困惑與混淆之中，因為許多的初始資訊，很有可能都**非**積極真理，而客觀真理也因為價值系統的不平衡而有顯著的偏差。


無論是醫學、AI 還是法律，我們最擔心，便是**假陽性（FP)** 與**假陰性（FN)** 的情況。2023年，美國George Washington University 的法律系教授 [Jonathan Turley]([https://](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/05/chatgpt-lies/)) 被 ChatGPT 莫名指控為在他未曾去過、為曾教過的一間學校的旅行中對學生性騷擾，這樣的資訊出現，代表模型錯誤低將錯誤的資訊判定為足以支持的資訊，並給予出錯誤的結論，而這個**假陽性（FP)** 的例子中，最困難的是，一個人有罪是可以證明，但無辜無法證明(要輸入什麼樣的資料去證明無辜？)。反之，對於#Metoo、虐待關係、身體經不義對待的人也是一樣，在沒有目擊者的空間，甚至自己都在否認事件發生時，就出現了 **假陰性（FN)** 的錯誤。

#Metoo 運動是一個調度真理資源的案例，倖存者調度心裡資源、溝通能力、支持系統，來複雜地經驗、連結調度不同象限的真理：從**主觀真理**開始，分享自身經歷、透過證據或法律過程等**客觀真理**來尋求認可，強調**規範性真理**，來挑戰社會對權力和性別的僵固錯誤，並透過**積極真理**創造系統性的變革。
:::

## 3. Pragmatic fear and Subjective desire


![Metoo事件-律師函 1](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/ByuDzH7Byg.jpg=150x)
> A statement against defemation lawsuit in #Metoo, image by Author


Decades ago, incidents such as being inappropriately touched by a boss or harassed by a spouse were frequently downplayed or dismissed by society. They were often blamed on women or brushed off as a man’s way of flirting. Over time, movements like **#MeToo** have shown that exposing these injustices and creating genuine accountability is a lengthy, complex process. Survivors must gradually assemble what I call “resources” from four quadrants of truth—subjective, objective, normative, and pragmatic—to ensure that each new truth they reveal becomes new reality, and shields them from manipulative rhetoric.

Survivors draw upon psychological resilience, legal channels, communication skills, and support networks to build truths from each quadrant. They share subjective truth of personal experiences, seek validation through objective truth in the form of evidence or legal proceedings. They emphasize normative truth to challenge society’s ingrained misconceptions about power and gender, ultimately relying on pragmatic truth to drive systemic change.


In my own writings, I have not revealed the identities of those who subjected me to sexual or emotional abuse. This choice does not imply these incidents never occurred or that I am reluctant to speak. Rather, it underscores how long the journey can be from subjective truth to normative and pragmatic truths. While legal process demand exhaustive evidence and are constrained by statutes of limitations, it is a system that is not yet to establish (objective) truth for many survivors.

Even with years go by, the trauma remains vivid, yet perpetrators frequently believe they did nothing wrong. Structural abuse—whether rooted in patriarchal misogyny, power imbalances, or abusive personality networks runs so deep that obscuring both victim and perpetrator in understanding their respective roles. Until additional “truth resources” become accessible, ambiguous writings and the “whisper networks” that circulate among the oppressed serve are among the actions taken to construct different forms of truth.

After all, after all these survival years in struggles, ambiguous writings, advocacies, and facing the counter-effects of activism ... quoting from Gisele Pelicot: I want some day that the shame will shift from the survivors onto the prepertrators. I still want one day, that they will know their wrongs and repent.

:::spoiler 中文
在幾篇寫作裡面，我並沒有提及性暴力對待我的人是誰、那曾經在有毒關係裡情緒虐待我的人是誰，我沒有提，並非事情沒有發生、並非我不想提，只是除了我擁有的主觀真理外、實踐規範性真理、積極真理的路漫長，而法律過程所需要的證據與時效，不僅沒有辦法為我建立客觀真理、甚至將耗費我龐大的時間精力與金錢。時至如今，多年前的創傷仍對我歷歷在目，但自戀型人格或是性暴力加害者，他們都「覺得自己沒有錯」、「不知道那裡做錯」。在前面的書寫中，已經提過，無論是父權厭女、或是自戀型人格的關係網路，這些結構性的虐待往往深層而讓受害者與加害這都難以發現自己的角色。在其他真理的資源調度而來以前，讓羞恥終於能從受害者方轉向加害者的陣營以前，似真非真的文字，以及蓄積能量在受壓迫者之間流通的耳語網路（Whisper Network），也是去建立各種型態真理的行動之一。我還是，非常非常的希望、也不時不時的想像，他們悔過的一天。
:::

