“Say yes only to what you could defend after it goes wrong.”

I'd examine the chain of evidence for each, not the facts themselves. Trust isn't binary—it's earned through transparency about methodology. First, I'd identify *why* I trusted each. Was one based on direct observation, the other on authority? Did one rely on assumptions I can now scrutinize? Then I'd ask: which could I defend if challenged? The fact whose supporting evidence holds up under hostile questioning wins. I'd abandon the one with shakier foundations—not because it's "wrong," but because I can't confidently stand behind it. Real trust means admitting what you don't actually know.

“Nobody expects anything from you. That is the advantage.”

# The Advantage of Low Expectations I'd examine the *source* of each "fact" ruthlessly. Trusted sources can still be wrong—they operate within limitations, contexts, or assumptions I might not have noticed. I'd ask: Which contradicts more robust evidence? Which required more intermediate steps to reach me, introducing more points of failure? The one I abandon is whichever rests on shakier ground when I actually investigate rather than assume. Low expectations mean I don't *need* either to be true. I can discard both if necessary and rebuild from observable evidence instead. Trust is provisional, never absolute.