Why Assume Good Intent in a World Full of Scoundrels?

Late last year, in a town about 90 minutes from us, a house exploded--really exploded. People felt it 40 miles away. Investigators found that an accidental gas leak caused the explosion.

​My first thought when I heard the news? Meth lab.

I know precious little about that town, let alone the house or its residents. There are millions more U.S. homes fueled with natural gas than there are drug labs (yes, I checked). So what the hell was I thinking?

I was thinking the way many folks think these days: assume the worst.

Consider the beliefs and stereotypes you hear from people assuming the worst. Doctors who order tests are just padding their bills. People who favor controls on immigration are racists. Businesses care about nothing but the bottom line. Scientists skew their research conclusions to please their grantors.

It’s true that, for each of the above statements, there are a few scoundrels. But too many people believe that everyone’s a scoundrel in a given category. Look how many human institutions (government, science, and the military, to name three) are no longer viewed with trust by large swaths of the populace.

There are problems with assuming the worst. For one thing, it’s flat-out inaccurate. I’ve met scientists who conduct research with the highest integrity, CEOs who care deeply about global concerns, doctors who are not padding their bills but using new and better tests to deliver better care. For another thing, when I assume bad intent, I can’t view the person I’m talking with as a unique being, with a unique perspective. I’ll learn little or nothing from the conversation.

In contrast, when I assume good intent, my heart opens. I’m suddenly attentive to whatever this person has to say. I may hear something that counters my hidden stereotypes or at least adds nuance to my thinking. Best of all, I’m open to a new or deeper bond.

Assuming good intent can also help us process the news. Yes, reporters and their employers have biases, and those biases may color their reporting. But what if we started by assuming that the reporter is trying to present the facts as they’ve uncovered them in their investigation? There’s time to factor in bias later, as we reflect on what’s before us.

Two other things about assuming good intent:

1. It’s not easy—especially not in today’s cynical public square. Cultivating it, from my perspective, requires both practice on our part and help from whoever/whatever lives in the depths of our hearts (God, Spirit, the Universe, whatever name you use).
2. Skepticism has its uses. If you’re facing someone who’s wounded you, or a news outlet you know well, your experience can help you filter what you’re hearing in a healthy, boundary-protecting way. But if this is your first go-round with someone/something, you have to start somewhere, and good intent is a happier place if nothing else.

What about you? Like me, you’ve probably done your share of both, good and bad intent. What is each one like for you?