HEALING THE DIVIDE
13 OCTOBER 2022 (18 MIN READ)
If you were to ask me the single biggest issue we are facing right now, then my answer would be our inability to sit down and have a conversation. He’s right, nuclear war and climate change seem pretty chill. This belief is due to the fact that our failure to come together and cast our issues aside almost always ends up in war, if left unattended to. And make no mistake, without immediate intervention, we are currently headed into a civil war in America, as well as other politically divided countries. I don’t mean to scare you, as that is never my intention, but what I mean to do is wake you up to the severity of the issue at hand, so we can tackle it head-on, instead of letting it get progressively worse.
A majority of this country cannot sit across the dinner table from each other to discuss their beliefs, either out of a fear of being labeled as something they are not, or because they cannot handle their intense emotions when somebody presents a different opinion. This is not normal. I am never going to a vegan dinner party again. When I told them I wanted a steak, they called me transphobic! If you think the person being scared of getting called racist or sexist is a Republican and the special snowflake who can’t handle their triggers is a Democrat, then you are not entirely correct. Both sides of the aisle deal with these issues. I know plenty of Democrats who are too scared of agreeing with a moderate stance on an issue because they do not want to be canceled by their friends. And I know many Republicans who start having an aneurysm when the word abortion is mentioned. No side is safe in this discussion. Both are equally contributing to the chaotic atmosphere we find ourselves in.
So, how do we move beyond this fear of being judged for our opinion and this need to act emotionally when we are triggered? The answers to this question will create a blueprint on how to heal the divide we currently face at this moment in time.
SPEAK TO THEIR HEART, NOT THEIR WORDS
Moral Psychologist Jonathan Haidt makes the analogy of our brains as a rider on an elephant. The elephant is our intuitive gut feeling and the rider is our thinking mind. Backing up this analogy, through using extensive empirical data, he argues that our intuition runs the show and our thinking mind is merely trying to justify it. In action, this would look like seeing someone on the street, and your instinct tells you they’re dangerous, so you create thoughts to justify that feeling, such as “run away from that scary person.” Or, as many southerners would call it: seeing anyone who isn't white. As you can see, your thoughts and actions are trying to match up with your instinctive feeling. All the rider does is try and follow the huge elephant as much as possible. But why the fuck does this matter when it comes to healing the divide? When people don’t feel like their gut feeling is being seen and validated, then they will feel like they are being attacked and lash out. Similarly, an ignored, disrespected elephant would lash out and take the rider with them. To paint a clear picture consider two different conversations stemming from this scenario: Jack and Jill begin talking about gun control. Jack owns a handgun to protect his family and Jill is fervently against all sorts of guns. Jack has no personal history with guns, while Jill lost her cousin to gun violence.
Conversation one: Jill sternly expresses that she can’t stand guns and that they should all be illegal. In response, Jack calls her naive and a snowflake. And says the United States cannot exist without guns as it is both embedded into the constitution and over 400 million guns are already circulated around the US. If the government would take back guns, then only the bad guys would be left with them, leaving the good ones defenseless. Jill couldn’t hear any of this as her blood was boiling and called him an ignorant white supremacist. She demanded that he leave her house immediately. Ah, sounds like a good old American dinner.
Conversation two: Jill sternly expresses that she can’t stand guns and that they should all be illegal. In response, Jack asks her why she feels that way, to which she explains that her cousin was killed by gun violence. Jack immediately has a tear escape his eye and tells her how much he feels for her. And that he completely understands why she would have that stance. He then asks if it is ok for him to present his side of the argument. (He says the same argument as the last time). Jill says she can understand how it would not be ideal to let criminals run wild with machine guns, but she cannot change her stance because of what happened to her cousin. Jack understands and they happily move on to talk about something else. BORING! Am I right?
What is the key difference between these two conversations? Go on, take a guess. Um, Jack became a giant pussy? The main difference is that in the second conversation, Jack saw her emotional pain, acknowledged it, and made sure she felt empathized with, instead of attacked. Going back to the analogy, he made the elephant feel safe before he addressed the rider itself. In the first conversation, he ignored the elephant and went straight for the kill, leaving the elephant running wild and taking the rider with them. In more literal terms, Jack ignored the pain behind Jill’s opinion, which made her feel not seen and disrespected, causing her thoughts and actions to be aligned with that feeling. The truth is that whenever someone has a strong opinion, a highly emotional story exists behind that belief that needs to be seen and understood. That pain point wants to be seen so the thinker can feel safe to express their mind and listen to someone else properly. This quality is the main thing we are missing in disagreement these days. We listen to someone’s “problematic” opinion and stereotype them based on how we feel about them. If a Democrat said they were going to interrupt a sports game to protest climate change, then Republicans would immediately dismiss them as a dumb, mentally ill snowflake. And if a Republican said they didn’t get vaccinated, then Democrats would quickly label them as a dangerous QAnon follower. I cherish the day I meet an unvaxxed tree-hugger. Wait, nevermind, they’re all over Austin, Texas. The matrix broke!!!
As you can see, we put people we don’t agree with into a stereotypical box of identity that justifies our internal disgust towards them. And when we treat people with that dehumanizing energy, of course they’re going to lash out and burn the room down. The key in breaking out of this is truly understanding why the person in front of us has a certain belief. Maybe the tree hugger has terrible asthma that is triggered by pollution. And maybe the vaccine skeptic had friends die of opioid overdoses, so they have a hard time trusting the pharmaceutical industry. Whatever the belief may be, we need to try to understand the story behind why they believe it and empathize with it. Once someone feels like the person in front of them is doing this, the chances of them communicating more effectively increases tenfold. And with better communication comes a higher chance of reaching a common ground, which has the power of slightly changing the opinion of both sides. I told my friend I empathize with why he thinks the world is flat. When I told him how hard it must be to be missing half his brain, he didn’t take it too well…
Don’t always focus on the words coming out of people’s mouths. Instead, pay attention to the pain behind the words and try your best to express empathy. And you can only do this by taking ownership of how the disgust you feel may not match up to what’s really going on in front of you.
TAKE OWNERSHIP
The first thing to take ownership over when you are in disagreement with someone is your emotional triggers. Nobody has the power to go inside your body and produce the hormones that create a trigger. That’s all on you. Your reaction to a string of words created an extreme response that you must own. Except when someone keeps saying the word, “like.” That is the one anomaly. Because the only way you can have a productive, kind conversation is if you decide to look past that emotional trigger and create a separation from it. If you are purely reactive to your trigger, then you will end up flipping the table over and start yelling when someone presents a contrarian opinion. As this is the worst possible outcome, you must do whatever you can to avoid that at all costs. The reason why separating yourself from the intense emotion is so important is that your brain will try and justify the emotion at all costs if left unchecked, which looks like matching the feeling of disgust with thoughts that validate that feeling. To give you an example, if you love Biden and someone says they like Trump, then you will immediately feel repulsed by them and have thoughts that match that feeling, such as, “That person is a racist piece of shit.” Or, “why are they always so fat?” These thoughts then get projected outwards and you treat the person in front of you like they are a racist piece of shit. And then, boom, you start yelling slurs at each other. When you notice your strong reaction with awareness, observe the thoughts that match that feeling as mere thoughts, and then choose a reaction that more so matches a healthy response, you end up breaking away from the reactive behavior. And like anything, the more you react this way, the more it will become an automatic habit for you.
The reason why we react with this feeling of disgust so strongly is that during our primitive days, disease was the single biggest risk we could possibly face in terms of our survival.¹ So, we evolved to run away and declare war whenever we were confronted by someone sick. And the evolutionary emotion that guided that necessary behavior was disgust. Thus, disgust was essential for our survival in warding off disease. Transferred to today’s modern era, where disease is not nearly as much of an issue as it used to be, we believe that people that think differently to us have some sort of intellectual sickness. Whether it be racism or wokeism, when we feel somebody possesses a completely different life philosophy to us, we get disgusted and react as if this person’s ideas will kill us if we listen to them for too long. What about people who swear by yoga and constantly talk about it? Can they please be an exception? However, this reaction is not validated in any sort of truth. A Pizzagate fanatic will not kill you with their ideas and a Marxist will not kill you with theirs either. They may kill you with their stupidity, though. We need to move past this evolutionary trait, because all it is doing now is keeping us divided and destroying our collective well-being. We can only do this by observing the reactive thoughts stemming from the sensation of disgust, and telling ourselves, “NO. That is a lie, brain.”
You can tolerate your reactive emotions and thoughts, while choosing a consequent action that is more aligned with kindness and respect. But what if these emotional responses are being hijacked and manipulated by something outside of us? And what if that thing isn’t even human?
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Put succinctly, artificial intelligence algorithms on social media apps, such as Instagram and TikTok, are not only making us addicted to outrage, but also gradually increasing the dosage of it we require to keep scrolling. What about Uber Eats? Am I supposed to be shown so many misleading yummy photos so I spend an hour picking what I want to eat? So much wasted time!! In sequence, this looks like using our data to make the accurate assertion that we are either a Democrat or a Republican, or lean one way more than the other. We then are exposed to triggering footage of the other side to release a feeling of outrage and superiority, which both release addictive neurochemicals. Since we keep stopping to watch these videos and increase our time on the app, the algorithm will keep showing us similar, divisive videos. However, and this is where things get interesting, the algorithm will show us slightly more outrageous videos the more we spend time on it, because what once released a feeling of outrage won’t create the same addictive hit. So, what started as laughing at videos of Biden sounding like he has dementia led to videos making arguments that the Democrats are intentionally trying to collapse the economy. Or, what began as interesting videos about sexism resulted in being shown frequent videos about how all men are pieces of shit, especially Republicans. As you can see, we are being trained to be constantly outraged, but also at things that would have never gotten the same reaction before we got on social media.
Since artificial intelligence algorithms are polarizing us, what can we do about it? First, you need to start educating yourself on the issues you are reacting to beyond just looking at fifteen-second videos. You cannot develop discernment or a real opinion if your whole information sources come down to quick videos. Buy books and properly educate yourself before forming an opinion. This way, when videos pop up on your feed that you feel are attempting to cause outrage, you can immediately notice the lies they are telling you since you are educated on the topic. Second, stop watching videos that you can see are trying to make you outraged and polarized. But they’re so fun :( The more you watch a category of video on Instagram Reels or TikTok, the more the algorithm will keep showing similar ones to you. So, stop rewarding the algorithm! My girlfriend only watches dog videos and guess what, the algorithm keeps showing her cuter dogs. Don’t only watch cat videos. How else do you think cat ladies are created? My friend only watches videos of Democrats saying dumb things, so the algorithm keeps showing him more videos of dumber ideas, making him pissed off and mislabeling all Democrats as idiots based off of the videos he watches. As you can probably tell, my girlfriend is a lot happier than my friend.
It may seem like I was going to make the argument that all the blame should be based on artificial intelligence, but the truth is, it will only show you what you want it to show you. Don’t get it twisted, it would still feel awesome to slap the shit out of Mark Zuckerberg. His face is just so beautifully punchable. And it can only realize what you want by the time spent watching a sort of video and how many times you like or share it. So, follow my girlfriend’s lead and skip all videos that aren’t cute puppy videos. Although taking ownership is important here, I do believe that some restrictions should be placed on social media companies due to their potential for political polarization, but I don’t think that day will come, especially since those in power want you polarized to a specific side of the political aisle for their benefit. Conspiracy theory! Get this guy off Instagram! Because not much can be done on their end, put the power into your hands and stop rewarding the system that is breaking us.
Even if we stop letting AI algorithms manipulate our potential for outrage, we still are left with the effects of groupthink, which manifests as automatically believing a set of beliefs that your political tribe believes, making those on the other side seem wrong and crazy. To escape this groupthink, you must break free from the herd you once found yourself comfortable in.
ESCAPING THE HERD
Let’s first begin by explaining what the herd mentality really is. For either political side, it entails aligning all of your beliefs with what a political party expects of you, refusing to agree or see truth in anything the other side says. For instance, this could look like saying you do not agree with a single thing Biden does if you are a Republican or anything Trump does if you are a Democrat, which if you look at everything they have both done in their presidencies, is pretty impossible. Whether it be Biden decriminalizing all marijuana felonies or Trump brokering a peace deal between Israel and The UAE, you can find something you agree with on either side. Or, Trump calling Hurricane Florence “the wettest we’ve ever seen, from the standpoint of water.” Another way this mentality manifests itself is through the treatment of in-group members who find some appeal in a belief of the out-group. For instance, this could look like someone in a group of hard-core Democrat friends stating that they don’t understand why there has to be vaccine mandates, or someone in a Republican group of friends saying that making abortion illegal is nonsensical. Once this person speaks up about an issue this way, they are immediately ridiculed and ousted from the group. This is a reflection of herd mentality at its finest. But why are people who strictly identify themselves with either side like this? And what’s the key in breaking away?
The herd mentality exists due to the difficulty in breaking away from part of one’s identity, feeling the need to be accepted, and becoming addicted to the rush of being a part of a whole. If you have gone down the path of self-development, then you know how hard it is to let go of part of your identity that doesn’t serve you anymore. For me, this was getting rid of the side of me that needed people’s attention. Or, the side that kept saying “you too” when waiters told me to enjoy my food. To do so, I had to completely change the way I interacted with people, which took years of failure and lost friendships. In other words, losing this part of my identity cost me a shit ton of pain and discomfort along the way. Being part of the herd of a political side is not as simple as breaking a bad habit, as it’s part of your identity; therefore, as you can notice with my personal experience, it will be painful and challenging to move on from it, which is why very few people actually do. You will lose many friends and you will feel like you are not the same person you once were. Since it will be such a costly journey, why do it? Put differently, what will make all the pain worth it? The only way we can heal the divide is to not firmly stand on one side. We need to be able to dip our toes in the water of the other side so we can gain perspective and not become part of the angry mob. If you see that light at the end of the tunnel—a united country—then you can willfully tolerate the discomfort that comes with separating from the herd.
In terms of needing to be accepted, if you lose friends because you changed some of your beliefs, then they were never your friends in the first place. One of the main reasons we stay comfortable in the herd is because we love the badge of membership it comes with. If we are a proud Democrat or a Republican, then we feel like we will be emotionally accepted by other people who wear the same badge. Conversely, we also feel like if we stop wearing the badge, then we will be shoved away by those we once felt so comfortable and safe with. If those people only liked you because you shared political beliefs, then you want to be nowhere near that person. Once my friend took off his MAGA hat, they stopped letting him into his golf club. They finally realized he was black. Once you break away from the herd, you tend to find your real flock, where you are accepted for who you really are, not what you say you believe in. If you think the Democrat or Republican badge is awesome, then wait till you start wearing the I don’t give a fuck badge. That badge will open more doors for you than you could ever imagine. You will make friends who also wear that badge and you can start having honest conversations for once, where nobody is afraid to express what they actually believe in.
Lastly, for feeling the electricity that comes with the sensation of escaping yourself to experience something much larger, you are desperately confused if you think that feeling is restricted to politics. He’s right! Try a vibrator, ladies! We’ve all been there, standing at a sports stadium and cheering for our favorite team. We feel as if we are having an out-of-body experience, where we can put our personal issues aside and transcend into something beyond ourselves. The reason this sensation exists is because we evolved to survive in packs of humans.² The minute we found ourselves isolated or ousted from the tribe was the minute we died from either starvation or lack of defense against wild animals. Therefore, our minds evolved to feel incredibly safe and euphoric when we were a part of a group of people united under a specific mission. However, we are no longer getting together to ward off beasts and gather food, instead we are talking shit about people with opposing beliefs and yelling at the news. Nothing like a good night of Ben and Jerry’s and yelling at CNN. Even though this evolutionary trait is misplaced nowadays, we can still use it for good. The truth is that if you are satisfying the need to fit in with a group with a political party, then you are destined for misery. This is why you see some of the loneliest, most depressed people so dramatically aligned with a political party. Once you satisfy your need to fit in with a group with something like a loving friend group or playing for a recreational sports team, you will no longer feel the need to be so entrenched into a political herd. Make sure the whole you are giving your part to is adding meaning to your life, which a political party most definitely is not doing.
Now that we have pinpointed why we are so entrenched into divisive political herds, how do we actually break free? Next time you’re hanging out with the pack, if they are Republicans, tell them your cat identifies as she/they. Works every time. Going back to the same sequence as before, willfully take on the discomfort that comes with losing the identity of being part of the herd, get rid of the need to be accepted by those who were part of the herd, and find ways to get the same thrill of being a part of a united whole outside of politics. Once you have done this, you will find yourself living a new life. One where you are not so hateful of half the country, where you have real friends that love you outside of your opinion, and where you can actually say what you want when you want. How much better does that sound?
