You needn’t look further than how conflicts are worsened when a problem-solving-oriented person offers unsolicited and unwanted advice to someone who is looking to emotionally connect rather than be lectured. As a psychiatrist, I’ve found it’s better when those with analytical tendencies have some ability to be emotionally empathic, and when those with emotional tendencies have some ability to think logically and rationally.
What anatomically enables us to be both analytical and emotional creatures — even if we favor one over the other — is a structure called the corpus callosum, which connects the right and left cerebral hemispheres and enables interaction between them. (Interestingly, there is a rare condition called agenesis of the corpus callosum (ACC) where that connection is diminished or even absent, resulting in intellectual impairment and seizures.)
When the analytic part of someone’s personality eclipses their emotional side, they can focus on tasks and accomplish a great deal, because there is little interference from their emotional side. On the other hand, when the emotional part of someone’s personality eclipses their analytical side, they can connect emotionally with others but often can’t accomplish much because their minds are easily distracted by focusing on the emotional needs of others.
Both analytical and emotional predominant mindsets have advantages when used appropriately in different contexts. For instance, an analytic mindset is great at assembling a baby’s crib, and an emotional mindset is incredibly useful when discerning whether the cry from the baby — who is two rooms away — is communicating a need to be changed or fed. In best-case scenarios, both sides value and respect the other’s differences, and make use of those differences. And in worst-case scenarios? Well, just take a look at the state of American politics.
A recent guest essay in the New York Times by Thomas B. Edsall — the catalyst for this essay — cites eight articles that indicate right-leaning and alt-right politics may have passed the point of no return, and the left-leaning and far-left politics appear to be moving in the same direction.
The point of the NYT piece is that such a movement past the “point of no return” may be paralleled if not caused literally by a collective move into an extreme position regarding either analytical or emotional mindsets. With that in mind, when people operating from an emotional mindset begin to act out, in not just occasional, but frequent and massively violent ways, that may be their point of no return.
What Edsall’s article seems to imply is that rather than the moderate politicians being able to draw the more extreme politicians back toward the center, where vitriolic debates can return to constructive discussions and dialogues, it appears that the extremes on either side are instead pulling more moderates toward the edges.
If any of the above analysis and analogy holds true, the question is: What can be done to bring both the right and left sides of America back from the point of no return? Using this neuropsychological metaphor, what would it take to, metaphorically speaking, thicken the corpus callosum and bring back more connection and dialogue between the right and left political spectrums? There is a single word that is overused but sparsely practiced: empathy.
To build that, we would do well to follow the sage counsel from the late educator and author Stephen Covey, “To seek first to understand and then to be understood,” because there are few things more calming than when we feel misunderstood, laying the groundwork for a productive conversation.
You may be thinking, “I get this and agree, but how do I put this into action?” I’m glad you asked.
First decide that you want to connect with and bridge the divide between you and a person coming from the other pole.
Reach out to them and say, “I’d like your help with something,” which will hopefully disarm them.
Then ask, “Going forward if we are to work together, what are three positive, observable behaviors I must always do, and three negative behaviors I must never do so that you look forward to working together with me instead of regretting it?”
Then say, “This is too important for me to get wrong. What you said was (repeating what you understood them to say), is that correct?”
Finally say, “And this is too important for me to not follow through on. Going forward, can I check in with you every two weeks to see how I am following your suggestions and how I can improve even further?”
The above might not work in every instance, but at least you’ll be able to feel that you gave it your best effort.
