Truth is messy. It’s jagged, inconsistent, and often lacks a satisfying arc. In a world obsessed with "storytelling," we’ve developed a dangerous habit of discarding facts that don't fit a clean narrative. This is the realm of things that are not good enough for truth.
Think about it. We want heroes to be perfect and villains to be purely malicious. When a real-life event happens—a business collapse, a scientific discovery, or a celebrity scandal—the raw data is usually boring or confusing. To make it "true" in the eyes of the public, we sand down the edges. We ignore the outliers. We create a version of reality that makes sense, even if it’s factually incomplete.
The Narrative Fallacy and the "Not Good Enough" Filter
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of The Black Swan, calls this the narrative fallacy. It’s our biological urge to turn a sequence of facts into a story. We do this because stories are easier to remember. But here’s the kicker: the more "perfect" a story feels, the less likely it is to be entirely true. If a piece of evidence complicates the plot, we subconsciously decide it’s not good enough for truth.
It’s a filter.
💡 You might also like: German Shepherd and Golden Retriever Puppies: Why You’re Probably Picking the Wrong One
Take the common success story. We hear about the college dropout who built a billion-dollar empire in a garage. It’s inspiring. It’s clean. But the truth usually involves boring details like high-interest bridge loans, a lucky connection through a family friend, or a specific regulatory change that happened at exactly the right moment. Because those details make the story "messy," they get dropped. They aren't "good enough" for the myth we want to believe.
Why Complexity Gets Cut
We have limited mental bandwidth.
If I tell you a story about a scientific study, and I include every single caveat, every failed control group, and the three times the lab equipment broke, you’ll stop listening. You want the "breakthrough." This is why science communication often fails. The actual data is a series of "maybe" and "under these specific conditions," but the headline needs to be "Coffee Cures Cancer." The nuanced reality is not good enough for truth in the attention economy.
Real-World Examples of Truth vs. Narrative
Look at the history of the Titanic. Everyone knows the story: an "unsinkable" ship, a hubristic captain, and a lack of lifeboats. But historians like Tim Maltin have pointed out that atmospheric conditions—specifically a cold water mirage—likely played a massive role in why the lookouts couldn't see the iceberg until it was too late. This "refraction" theory is backed by weather records from 1912. Yet, it rarely makes it into the movies. Why? Because "the weather was weird" isn't as compelling a moral lesson as "man’s pride led to his fall."
Or consider the 2008 financial crisis.
The popular narrative is one of "greedy bankers" vs. "innocent homeowners." While greed was everywhere, the reality involved a massive, systemic failure of mathematical models—specifically the Gaussian copula function—that almost nobody understood at the time. Trying to explain complex correlations in credit default swaps to the general public is hard. It’s easier to point at a guy in a suit. The math was not good enough for truth because it didn't fit the emotional profile of a villain.
🔗 Read more: The Real Meaning of Peregrine: Why This Word Is Way Cooler Than Just a Bird
The Cost of Seeking "Perfect" Truths
When we demand that reality be "good enough" to be a story, we lose our ability to solve problems. If you misdiagnose the cause of a problem because the real cause is too boring or complex, you’ll never find the solution.
- In Business: Managers often fire a "problem employee" because it’s a simple narrative. The truth might be that the company’s internal software is broken, causing everyone to underperform. But fixing software is expensive and dull; firing a person feels like "taking action."
- In Relationships: We often cast ourselves as the victim in a breakup. We omit the times we were passive-aggressive because those details don't fit the "I was wronged" story.
- In Politics: Complex geopolitical issues are reduced to "us vs. them" because the historical nuances of borders, resources, and local tribes are simply too much for a 30-second news clip.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect in Action
You’ve likely heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It’s often cited as "dumb people think they’re smart." But the actual research by David Dunning and Justin Kruger shows something more subtle: it’s about the inability to recognize one’s own lack of expertise.
When we encounter a topic we don't understand, we look for the simplest explanation. We grab onto the first narrative that makes sense. We decide that anything more complex is "overthinking it." This is the ultimate "not good enough for truth" moment. We reject the expert’s nuanced explanation because it feels "wrong" compared to our simple story.
How to Spot When Truth is Being "Sanded Down"
You have to look for the "too good to be true" markers. If a story has a perfect hero, a perfect villain, and a clear moral at the end, be skeptical.
💡 You might also like: White Pine Funeral Services Obituaries Explained (Simply)
- Look for the outliers. What data points are being ignored?
- Check for "boring" causes. Is there a mundane explanation (like logistics or weather) that is being skipped in favor of a dramatic one?
- Question the timeline. Real life doesn't happen in three acts. If someone’s "overnight success" took ten years of invisible work, the story is lying by omission.
Honestly, it’s exhausting to do this. It’s much easier to just believe the headline. But if you want to actually understand the world, you have to embrace the stuff that isn't not good enough for truth. You have to love the boring parts.
The Role of Information Overload
We are drowning in data. In 2026, the sheer volume of "content" means that for something to get noticed, it has to be punchy. This has accelerated the "not good enough" filter. Algorithms prioritize engagement, and nothing engages like a simplified, high-stakes narrative. The truth is often low-stakes and dry. It doesn't get shared. It doesn't go viral.
Moving Beyond the Narrative
So, what do we do? We can't stop our brains from wanting stories. That’s how we’re wired. But we can change the type of stories we value. We can start valuing the "messy middle."
Instead of looking for who to blame, look for the system that allowed the failure. Instead of looking for the "secret to success," look for the thousands of tiny, boring habits that built the foundation.
Reality is rarely a Hollywood movie. It’s more like a giant, unfinished spreadsheet. It’s not always "good enough" for a thrilling dinner party story, but it’s the only place where real progress happens.
Actionable Steps for Navigating "Not Good Enough" Reality
- Read the Footnotes: When you read a sensational claim, look for the source. Often, the study itself will include "limitations" that completely contradict the sensational headline.
- Seek Out Discomfort: If you find a story that perfectly confirms your existing worldview, search for the most intelligent person who disagrees with it. Listen to their "messy" version.
- Embrace "I Don't Know": This is the hardest one. Sometimes the truth is that we don't have enough data to form a story yet. Saying "I don't know" is the most honest way to avoid the "not good enough" filter.
- Audit Your Own Stories: Think about the last time you told a story about a conflict you had. What did you leave out? What did you simplify to make yourself look better or the other person look worse? Try retelling it with all the inconvenient facts included. It’s a humbling exercise.
Truth isn't a polished diamond. It’s a raw, un-mined rock. It’s heavy, dirty, and hard to carry. But it’s the only thing that’s actually real. Stop waiting for the truth to be "good enough" for your narrative, and start adjusting your narrative to fit the truth.