CarlZunker.com

We’re Still in the Age of Oral Tradition

We like to think of ourselves as advanced. We are digitally connected and swimming in a sea of permanent records. Far superior to any generation that lived before, living in a time of enlightenment. But the truth is we are not as far from ancient times as we like to believe.

In biblical times, truth and tradition were passed down orally. Stories were told face-to-face, around fires, in synagogues, and through generations. The responsibility to preserve and pass on truth fell to the listener who became the next storyteller. If something was inaccurate, it had to be corrected not by editing a manuscript, but by speaking up.

Now think about how we live today. Sure, we have books, websites, search engines, and digital archives, but how do most people actually form their understanding of the world?

They don’t read primary sources.
They don’t research footnotes.
They hear something. Maybe on a podcast, from a friend, in a conversation, maybe even in a meme, and then they repeat it. Not just repeat it but believe it (often without a chance of correction with the original source of the info, no chance to evaluate or get clarification).

In fact, we suffer from what has been dubbed the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or skill in a subject tend to overestimate their competence, while those with greater expertise are more likely to doubt themselves. This paradox occurs because the same lack of knowledge that leads to poor performance also makes people unaware of their own ignorance. It has gotten worse, unfortunately. Instead of getting an impression from reading a book, we get an impression from reading a headline. This is a reminder that confidence isn’t always a sign of competence and that true understanding often comes with humility.

But we are still just telling stories. Only without the protection of checks and balances from the crowd. Followers of Christ would have corrected ANYBODY that deviated from the oral tradition. The problem is, we don’t correct ANYBODY in truly meaningful ways today.

We might read something online, but as soon as we repeat it out loud, paraphrase it, or summarize it in a conversation, we’ve entered the same cycle of oral transmission. And just like ancient times, what’s passed on can easily be distorted. Not always maliciously, but through memory, bias, or tone.

Psychologist and writer David McRaney, in his book You Are Not So Smart, explains that the first version of a story we hear tends to become our mental anchor, even if it’s wrong. This is called the anchoring effect, and it means that whatever we’re exposed to first feels the most true, simply because it got there first. Later corrections or clarifications don’t fully override that first impression, they just get filtered through it. That’s why misinformation spreads faster than truth, and why discernment matters so much in a culture of instant headlines and echo chambers.

Its so bad, that there is something called Cunningham’s law, which says: “The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question, but to post the wrong answer.” Named after Ward Cunningham, the developer of the first wiki, the law reflects an uncomfortable truth about online behavior. People are often more motivated to correct others than to contribute helpfully. In a culture driven by reaction and correction, falsehoods get amplified simply because they provoke quicker responses. This dynamic feeds the cycle of half-truths and confident misinformation, making discernment not just a virtue, but a survival skill. The other obvious problem is that people who may try to “correct” others are not correct themselves. But they feel correct because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the anchor effect, and other mental biases we ignore.

Here’s a personal example that’s funny, but not.

Recently, Kendrick Lamar dropped a song about Drake called Not Like Us. And in that song, he makes all kinds of accusations. I remember hearing it and thinking, “Wow… did he just accuse Drake of being a pedophile?” That’s a huge claim. But I just assumed it had to be true, because who would make something like that up? I didn’t check it. I didn’t verify anything. I just heard the song, absorbed the information presented, and moved on with an opinion.

Then I stopped and thought: “Wait… if that’s real, wouldn’t that be front-page news?”

So I did something radical. I looked into it.

Turns out, Drake filed a lawsuit against Kendrick because the claims were completely fabricated. And suddenly, I realized—I had accepted an oral tradition. Not from ancient Israel, but from a rap song. I had formed a full opinion based on a story I heard and felt, not on truth I actually tested.

That’s the world we live in.
Same pattern. New beats.

We’re still in the verbal-passing-of-legends stage of humanity. We’ve just given it Wi-Fi.

This isn’t just a communication problem, it’s a discernment problem. We’re forming opinions, building worldviews, and staking moral positions on fragments of stories told by people who heard them from someone else. And unless we slow down and test what we hear against Scripture, against truth, and against conscience, we cannot be rooted.

Truth has always depended on faithful stewards. People willing to guard it, carry it, and correct it when needed.

The internet didn’t change our oral traditions.
It just made it easier to feel advanced and forget we are still deeply flawed humans.

God bless you. May peace be with you.