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
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Then, I remind myself of past times when I've been misled by those on my own side who've cherry-picked the facts, used out-of-date information, etc.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.




















A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.