Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Your Take: Polarized thinking

Your Take: Polarized thinking

Recently, we published an op-ed about the connection between polarized thinking, depression and anxiety. Recognizing our thinking has become polarized is the first step to break the cycle – embracing that nuance and complexity are simply part of life instead of catastrophic and uncontrollable variables.

In conjunction with that essay, we asked our readers two questions:


1. How do you minimize your own polarized thinking?

2. What media do you consume and how does that increase or decrease your black and white thinking?

In dozens of responses, we heard from you on your own techniques for guarding against polarized thinking and your media consumption habits. Responses have been edited for length and clarity. Here’s a recap.

By debating others! I'm a founding member of my high-school's debate team, where I learned to listen to ideas, trying to find flaws in my opposition’s line of thinking while they do the same to me. My own opinions have been changed on multiple occasions due to debates, and advocating for resolutions that you oppose is a great way to broaden your way of thinking. ~Robert Hamblin

Most importantly, I try not to hang out among people or media sources that promote black and white thinking. In the last three months, I averaged less than four hours a month watching or listening to any news shows or viewing sports or other forms of electronic entertainment. I never let the radio or TV play in the background. ~Will Carter

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

When I catch myself getting worked up with self-righteousness or making sweeping, negative statements about "them," I know I'm in dangerous territory. Then, I remind myself of past times when I've been misled by those on my own side who've cherry-picked the facts, used out-of-date information, etc. I aim to replace self-righteous anger with a vaguely uncomfortable feeling that I may not have the whole picture. ~Riley Hart

I read a variety of magazines. I find that The New Republic offers critiques of a wide spectrum of political stances, including an insightfulness that wish Democrats would read and heed for the party's (and nation's) own good. ~James Rodell

My biggest struggle is trying to hear what people who may disagree with me are thinking. It is so hard to be still and listen for the whole thought. And, truthfully, often I find the thought wrong or illogical or missing something. But it pays to listen. ~Kathleen Finderson

I have a sincere commitment to understand the other side, and more importantly, the other person with the opposite side. It’s described as focusing on the third thought. First thought is our emotional reaction to whatever the person said. The second thought is to explain, rationally, why I am right and you are wrong. The third thought is to really understand that other person's point and, even better, that other person (aka who they are, what they care about, how we are similar). I look for solutions, I look for common ground, I try to make the best argument for the side I disagree with, and I read articles to help me do that. I often do some multisided research specifically on whatever issue catches my attention. Doing a balanced search on AllSides helps me do that – it pulls left, center and right articles from across the web on whatever I search.

~John Gable (founder of AllSides)

I think the best method for managing polarized thinking is the 5/5/2 test. Passing the test requires some self-awareness and introspection, as you noted, and puts some tangible targets in place. To pass, a person must have:

  • Five or more close friends who are on the opposite side of the aisle from them.
  • Five or more personal political beliefs that are on the opposite side of their typical political preference.
  • Two or more regular news sources that are on the opposite side of their typical political preference.

~Travis Monteleone

I recently realized my family and friends who have embraced the former president suddenly put me in an all-or-nothing bucket – if I didn't travel their road, I embraced the status quo. I was gobsmacked. I have been standing up to the status quo for over 50 years. I just think we form a more perfect union in a different way than they. So now, when I see myself feeling that all-or-nothing upset with others, I check myself. I listen differently. I speak to them, not a narrative. ~Jeanene Louden

I do not try to minimize my polarized thinking. I have consciously taken the side of keeping what democracy we still have in the United States and trying to make it work better for all the people of this country. I oppose reactionary conservatism, Christian conservatism, white nationalism and most of all the cult of Trumpism. I think human beings have the capacity for self-governance without a top-down authority to make them do what is right. ~Jack Noldon

I try to be open to looking at information from different ends of the spectrum. It does not eliminate polarized thinking but it decreases it. I have digital subscriptions to The New York Times, The Economist, The Epoch Times, The Telegraph. I read articles on the Deutsche Welle app and a news app called MxM for headlines, etc. I have a subscription to Die Weltwoche (Swiss) and listen to a 30-minute summary of the chief editor Roger Klöppel most mornings. I watch or listen to maybe 50 percent of War Room’s daily show, watch Tucker Carlson maybe four out of five days; record and watch two or three episodes of Greta van Susteren on Newsmax. I have a subscription to Victor Davis Hanson articles and podcasts (one of my favorites and I feel I learn a lot from him on real history). The newsletter from MoveOn.org because I want to know what goes on with the “other side.” So now you know why I get nothing done around here and why I’m never bored. ~Inge Schlegel

Media sources identified by our readers, alphabetically listed:

  • AllSides.com (who also hosts a publicly sourced media bias chart here.)
  • The Associated Press
  • Axios
  • BBC
  • Bridge Alliance Daily Resource
  • Broadcast news
  • The Christian Science Monitor
  • CNN
  • C-SPAN
  • The Dispatch
  • The Economist
  • The Epoch Times
  • The Federalist
  • Fox News Channel
  • The Fulcrum
  • Le Monde
  • Local news via papers and TV
  • The Marginalian
  • The Motley Fool
  • MSNBC
  • NPR
  • National Review
  • The New Republic
  • The New York Post
  • The New York Times
  • Newsmax
  • Newsweek
  • PBS
  • Reason Magazine
  • Sheryl Atkisson
  • The Sun (monthly magazine)
  • The Telegraph
  • Wall Street Journal
  • War Room
  • The Washington Post

We sincerely thank everyone for sharing “your take” on polarized thinking, for reading and including The Fulcrum in your media diet.

Read More

Joe Biden being interviewed by Lester Holt

The day after calling on people to “lower the temperature in our politics,” President Biden resort to traditionally divisive language in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt.

YouTube screenshot

One day and 28 minutes

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

One day.

One single day. That’s how long it took for President Joe Biden to abandon his call to “lower the temperature in our politics” following the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. “I believe politics ought to be an arena for peaceful debate,” he implored. Not messages tinged with violent language and caustic oratory. Peaceful, dignified, respectful language.

Keep ReadingShow less

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump on stage at the Republican National Convention

Former President Donald Trump speaks at the 2024 Republican National Convention on July 18.

J. Conrad Williams Jr.

Why Trump assassination attempt theories show lies never end

By: Michele Weldon: Weldon is an author, journalist, emerita faculty in journalism at Northwestern University and senior leader with The OpEd Project. Her latest book is “The Time We Have: Essays on Pandemic Living.”

Diamonds are forever, or at least that was the title of the 1971 James Bond movie and an even earlier 1947 advertising campaign for DeBeers jewelry. Tattoos, belief systems, truth and relationships are also supposed to last forever — that is, until they are removed, disproven, ended or disintegrate.

Lately we have questioned whether Covid really will last forever and, with it, the parallel pandemic of misinformation it spawned. The new rash of conspiracy theories and unproven proclamations about the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump signals that the plague of lies may last forever, too.

Keep ReadingShow less
Painting of people voting

"The County Election" by George Caleb Bingham

Sister democracies share an inherited flaw

Myers is executive director of the ProRep Coalition. Nickerson is executive director of Fair Vote Canada, a campaign for proportional representations (not affiliated with the U.S. reform organization FairVote.)

Among all advanced democracies, perhaps no two countries have a closer relationship — or more in common — than the United States and Canada. Our strong connection is partly due to geography: we share the longest border between any two countries and have a free trade agreement that’s made our economies reliant on one another. But our ties run much deeper than just that of friendly neighbors. As former British colonies, we’re siblings sharing a parent. And like actual siblings, whether we like it or not, we’ve inherited some of our parent’s flaws.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitutional Convention

It's up to us to improve on what the framers gave us at the Constitutional Convention.

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

It’s our turn to form a more perfect union

Sturner is the author of “Fairness Matters,” and managing partner of Entourage Effect Capital.

This is the third entry in the “Fairness Matters” series, examining structural problems with the current political systems, critical policies issues that are going unaddressed and the state of the 2024 election.

The Preamble to the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What troubles me deeply about the politics industry today is that it feels like we have lost our grasp on those immortal words.

Keep ReadingShow less