Author: AR

Not that long ago, even before the presidential nominee was switched absent the stereotypical primary selection process, the secret to winning became clear.

When there’s a contest between two competitors who each have high, negative favorability ratings, the goal is to make the match as much about the other person as possible. Whoever the contest becomes most about, loses.

Let’s be honest — and know that I’m not attempting to be rude or disrespectful; it is an objective reading of the plethora of polling data: both current VP Harris and former Pres. Trump have high, negative favorability ratings. Recent polling by ABC, NBC and many more affirm that fact. Neither candidate is well liked by a majority of this country.

To be clear, “well liked” does not mean voting either for or against. It does mean, no less, that voters have to find something other than popularity to base their vote upon.

I am sincerely sensitive, no less, to that being a hard understanding for some. It’s ok. Know that I simply desire to wrestle wisely with the truth.

It’s thus been an interesting dynamic to watch. I also think it’s one of the reasons American elections have lost much of their integrity. Just look at the candidates and how they are advised to run… which is not first and foremost on their own credentials.

The candidates aren’t campaigning and saying, “Hey, I want you to have an accurate idea of who I am, what I think, and how I’ll govern. I’ll be honest; as you get to know me, there will be some things we will disagree on. And when we disagree, we’ll keep listening; we’ll work together to solve. I will not lie to you. I will not act as if I know it all. Clearly, I don’t. Each of us has so much more to learn. It’s time we admit that.”

In its place we get, “You and I are so much alike! But my opponent… I am so not like him/her! He/she is awful. Evil! They want to take all your rights away. They are terrible! Not only are they evil, they are also stupid! I am so glad I’m not like them!”

[I keep thinking of the ancient Pharisees who sat in the corner thanking God for who they were not… oh, my… we have so much to learn…]

In other words candidates oft talk less specifics about self, because the more specifics we know, with a high, negative favorability rating, the less we like them. 

Such seems the collective story of candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

So who is this election most about? My observations suggest that prior to the candidate switch, it seemed most about Pres. Biden. After the conventions, it became more about Trump. And after more public interviews, it’s become more about Harris.

Who knows who will win. This race is reportedly close, which hopefully will keep all humble (respectful, too, please). Note, also, this is advocacy for no one. I simply think it’s a sad reflection of current culture that both candidates are so unpopular and not admired by a clear and present majority. It bothers me to admit that to our younger generations; we are choosing between the unpopular. Years past have given us better choices of whom to vote for.

I met a young lady and her family last weekend, with the gal celebrating a less monumental birthday. We started a conversation of the birthdays that are seemingly most monumental…

…18 … 21… 25…

“What comes with each one?” we asked.

Quickly we acknowledged that 18 comes with the right to vote.

“Oh, I’m sorry,” I soon added. “I just feel like my generation and others should apologize to you for not having a better selection of presidential candidates to vote for. I was very proud of casting my first national vote. My dismay is that you don’t have the same choice.”

The young gal immediately affirmed that thought, bothered, and still unsure of what she’ll do in a few weeks.

Her mother then chimed in, “Just don’t vote for _________! ____ is a mess and doesn’t know what they’re talking about!”

Alas, here we go. 

Be kind to each other, friends. It just isn’t always so clear.

Respectfully…

AR

In recent months, many have quoted fact checkers to justify the solidity of their perspective. The flaw in that logic is that many have not realized that fact checkers are also not free from bias or skewing of perspective. Fact checkers are not automatically objective arbiters. In fact, often they are not.

Sometimes it matters how an argument is asked. Sometimes an analysis suggests a claim is clearly “true” or clearly “false” when it’s not known for certain one way or another. 

And living in a season when many feel empowered to fact check, inconsistently determining both who and what they will check whenever they do or do not wish, makes the process all the more confusing.

Hence, as we move further into a month where more of us are paying attention to the news — challenging and polarizing as that can so often be — let’s add fact checking to our bias conversation.

Wait… why?

Allow us to quote, AllSides, one of the rare contemporary resources where we can trust what we’re reading and hearing. As their editorial philosophy states, AllSides “strengthens our democratic society with balanced news, media bias ratings, diverse perspectives, and real conversation. We expose people to information and ideas from all sides of the political spectrum so they can better understand the world — and each other.”

The Intramuralist believes that better understanding the world and each other is a good thing to do.

So we recognize that bias exists. In news sources. In each of us.

But hidden bias is the larger problem. Hidden bias “misleads and divides us.” It also makes us ignorant and unaware of how our own perspective is skewed.

Hence, we present today’s fact checking resource to minimize division, believing the intensity and acceptance of division to be an increasingly unhealthy aspect of our society. 

Here is how the fact checkers line up:

Notice how many fact checkers lean,This is good to know, as knowing the bias of the fact checkers can help us seek out better, more balanced news, crafting more objective and actually accurate perspective.

It can also help us think more for ourselves.

Respectfully… and yes, in this together…

AR

“Journalism is what we need to make democracy work.”

“Our job is only to hold up the mirror — to tell and show the public what has happened.”

“A journalist covering politics, most of us are aware of the necessity to try to be sure we’re unbiased in our reporting. That’s one of the fundamentals of good journalism.”

All of the above are credited to the iconic Walter Cronkite, the trusted newsman, anchoring the CBS Evening News for 19 years. The nation trusted him through JFK’s assassination, Vietnam, and so much more. He was known to be credible, telling us what happened, not what he wanted us to hear. He was the standard of what journalism is supposed to be. Journalism is collectively like this no more.

Take what happened at Cronkite’s former employer last week, as reported by Intramuralist favorite The Free Press, a rare source of solid, honest journalism…

“Last week, CBS journalist Tony Dokoupil conducted an interview with the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates whose new book, The Message, includes a one-sided polemic against Israel. Coates himself describes his book as an effort to debunk the complexities journalists invoke to obscure Israel’s occupation. He complained in an interview with New York magazine that the argument that the conflict was ‘complicated’ was ‘horseshit,’ that was how defenders of slavery and segregation described these plagues a century ago. ‘It’s complicated,’ he said, ‘when you want to take something from somebody.’

So Dokoupil asked him about it. ‘Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it?’ ‘Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it?’ ‘Why not detail anything of the first and second intifada… the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits?’

In other words, Tony Dokoupil did his job. That’s when his troubles began.” 

Note that to allow Coates “simplistic telling of the Israel-Palestinian conflict omits so much complicating history that it’s no different than a lie. It would be like writing a book about the Civil War that blames the war on the Union without ever mentioning slavery.” Hence again, Tony Dokoupil did his job.  

Meeting on the one year anniversary of Hamas terrorists attacking Israel, CBS executives reprimanded Dokoupil for failing to meet “editorial standards.” As leaks of their meeting have been revealed, we learned that top CBS execs suggested Dokoupil’s interview of the outspoken activist somehow impugned the network’s “legacy of neutrality and objectivity.” 

Back to The Free Press’s account…

“Not everyone was buying it. CBS reporter Jan Crawford, who has been the CBS chief legal correspondent since 2009, rushed to Dokoupil’s defense. ‘It sounds like we are calling out one of our anchors in a somewhat public setting on this call for failing to meet editorial standards for, I’m not even sure what,’ she said. ‘I thought our commitment was to truth. And when someone comes on our air with a one-sided account of a very complex situation, as Coates himself acknowledges that he has, it’s my understanding that as journalists we are obligated to challenge that worldview so that our viewers can have that access to the truth or a fuller account, a more balanced account. And, to me, that is what Tony did.’

Crawford went on: ‘Tony prevented a one-sided account from being broadcast on our network that was completely devoid of history or facts. As someone who does a lot of interviews, I’m not sure now how to proceed in challenging viewpoints that are obviously one-sided and devoid of fact and history.’” (Note that Crawford “is one of the most respected journalists at CBS.”)

To be clear, journalism today is increasingly not journalism. Note that Dokoupil was admonished for asking questions based on truth.

My sense is “the most trusted man in America” would be uncomfortable with the state of journalism today at CBS and elsewhere. As noted in his final closing…

“As anchorman of the CBS Evening News, I signed off my nightly broadcasts for nearly two decades with a simple statement: ‘And that’s the way it is.’ To me, that encapsulates the newsman’s highest ideal: to report the facts as he sees them, without regard for the consequences or controversy that may ensue.”

Miss you, Walter… a whole lot.

Respectfully…

AR

It’s the calm before the storm.

People are doing what they need to do. Making preparations. There are actually all sorts of varied preparations to make. Some are physical. Many are emotional.

We’ve seen what’s happened previously. To be honest much has been hard to watch. Some activity has just seemed so devastating. It might be really difficult to recover from all this. At least it appears that way at times.

Sometimes, too, in the tension, we treat each other well — we help each other out. Sometimes we don’t.

Sometimes we respect and help our neighbor, no matter who they are; other times we’re a little judgmental of our neighbor. Who they are matters, and that judgment dictates the extent of both our effort and sincerity.

I get it. And many have reached out. Thank you for your heartfelt wishes, even if you are not experiencing what I am experiencing or feeling what I’m feeling.

The reality is that we have different perspectives, depending where we sit.

We have different feelings, depending on what we’ve experienced.

And whether we’re sitting in Florida or North Carolina or someplace else with perceived lesser unease, each of our perspectives is still valid no matter how much it differs from one another. Friends, I can’t say this enough; multiple different perspectives can be true at the exact same time.

We’re not really good at recognizing that. No. I admit; it’s a tough one.

How can good moral people conclude the same activity or person or event is something different than the other? … That one is so bad. One is so good...

One is something to work through. One is just completely detrimental.

I by no means have all the answers. I don’t expect to this side of heaven. But I do know that’s true. There are so many wonderful people who don’t think exactly the same as me. Thank God for them. They make me better.

And so I sit here in the calm before the storm, wondering about the convenient, quirky memes seen in recent weeks… wondering about the plethora of clips and social media posts (that never substitute for authentic communication)…

Is what I’m seeing only a part of what really is?

Is this storm not something that’s going to disrupt my life but rather clear my path?

Is it true that how well I’ll fare is most determined by my attitude walking through it?

Will I truthfully come out OK on the other side?

And will worrying about today empty self of the strength I need for tomorrow?

Friends, I do not know the answers. But I do know that one of the reasons it’s so important to have a solid faith, is so that it keeps us from being rattled by all that we see. We need more.

I thus write this as I sit clearly in the current path of hurricane Milton. He’s barreling right towards us here in Central Florida.

I also write this as one planning to vote in the November election. That’s hightailing it right here, too.

My reality is that I’m comfortable with neither, but I’m also not rattled. We will deal with whatever happens, walk through logically, and compassionately… and continue to find peace and hope in other, more enduring things.

Respectfully… be safe, my friends…

AR

I really hate disasters.

No, sorry. Allow me to rephrase. I really hate the destruction and death that so often accompany disaster. It’s hard to turn on the TV. It’s hard to watch. It’s hard to watch people hurting so much. From so much unexpected, tragic loss.

The uncanny thing about disasters, no less, is that they also present the opportunity to bring out the best in us… 

Why?

Because we’re reminded of what’s most important.

What’s most important?

Honoring people regardless.

Regardless of what?

Everything. 

We craft too many reasons why honor isn’t necessary. Oh, wait… we have better words than that… necessary boundaries… next steps in my mental health… they really have some work to do… Absolutely boundaries and mental health next steps are wise tools to discern in life, and all of us have some inner work to do.

However, in current culture my strong sense is we use said terminology not to craft reasons, but rather to create excuses… and to create excuses as to why honor is unnecessary.

Friends, if we only had to learn to honor those it’s easy to honor, then honor wouldn’t be that big of a virtue. If we only had to learn to hold in high esteem those who thought similarly, honor wouldn’t be all that significant.

The poignant beauty of honor is visible when we give it to another regardless. When conditions (or reasons or excuses) are creatively offered as to why honor isn’t necessary, it is we who have the blind spot; it is we who have forgotten what’s most important. 

So yes, I really hate the destruction and death that accompanies disaster.

It was really hard to watch all unfold up the coast last week. As the waters receded and extent of the damage became clear, it was gut-wrenching to see the torment attributed to hurricane Helene… 

Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina… 

Buncombe County, the surrounding area of Asheville, which looks to be hardest hit.

The damage has been catastrophic, with residents turning into first responders and communities now functioning as primary care givers. People need help. They need more. They need more faster. It’s a lot.

But there is one good thing buried amidst that lot, if we can see it… if we make the most of the opportunity…

Love your neighbor. Whoever your neighbor is.

Honor others.

Regardless.

May we quit allowing lesser things to blind us to what’s most important.

Soberly…

AR

Character is a funny thing. 

I mean, I would contend that it’s important to each of us. It’s something we value, something we strive to build, and something we expect in other people.

Solid character — our integrity — guides us; it helps us weather the storms of life and keeps us from increased foolishness and wrongdoing.

Perhaps many would add that it’s a filter through which we learn to trust, support and even cheer on other people. 

The challenge is that sometimes we begin to cheer on before any thorough evaluation takes place. And so when either that character becomes more clear or we become more discerning, we have a decision to make: do we still trust and support? Do we continue to cheer on?

Better yet: do we now ignore what we know? Or do we find ways to still cheer on very imperfect people?

For me, that was Pete Rose, the fuel that flamed the “Big Red Machine,” one of the most successful, iconic time periods in the history of professional baseball.

The 1975-76 Reds were baseball’s best. With a primary lineup of the same 8 starters over 2 seasons, the Great Eight won games at an unheard of .800 winning percentage. 3 of those 8 would later be inducted into Cooperstown’s Hall of Fame, along with manager Sparky Anderson. 

Rose was not only the starting third baseman but also the captain of that team. As baseball enthusiasts know, he went on to win 3 World Series, 3 batting titles, 2 Gold Gloves, 1 MVP, Rookie of the Year, 17 All Star appearances, in addition to becoming Major League Baseball’s all time hits leader. And others on that list are not even close.

As a little girl learning to love the sport, I also learned to love Pete Rose. Not only was he an exceptional player, he played hard and fast on every ball in play. He did what every coach told me to do… try hard… give it your best… get better every day… no plays off!

And that’s what Pete did. Pete played the way we were told to play. Pete did the things, said the things, and on the field exemplified the things that I was trying to achieve. It’s not rocket science nor anywhere close to crazy that I would come to love Pete Rose. He became my earliest favorite athlete and therefore role model to this then kid.

As we grow, no less, we learn more. And hopefully, we become more discerning. 

Rose would be banned from baseball for gambling on games. Granted, he never bet on his team to lose — doing everything it takes to win — but he was penalized with permanent ineligibility. He has thus been denied entrance into Cooperstown even with the above clearly, undeniable resume. 

There were other questions about Pete on and off the field, sometimes seemingly saying or doing some stupid things; he wasn’t one marked by his noted humility. There were a couple of bitter divorces, charges of infidelity, tax evasion admissions, some rude public interactions, and seemingly shady dealings. 

But here’s the thing…

It never stopped me from loving Pete Rose.

It never stopped me from appreciating him. And it never stopped me from cheering him on, on and off the field. It never stopped me from wanting to see him in the Hall. The learning in my love for Pete is that it’s ok to still love the imperfect — even while acknowledging the imperfections. There is no need to wash over or ignore the imperfect or wrongdoing, but we don’t have to dismiss a person either when the character cracks become evident. Wisdom suggests we error on the side of mercy.

Nine years ago I was an early attender at the summer All Star Classic, held that year in Cincinnati. We had decent seats, about 7 rows up in center right. About 50 feet to my right was a temporary announcers’ booth, and there sat the one and only Pete Rose.

We locked eyes for a brief few seconds, much to my surprised glee. And I just smiled. Huge. Pete did, too, along with an added wink in my direction. My guess is he knew he was still cheered on.

RIP, Pete Rose. Thanks for all you taught me. 

Respectfully…

AR

So let’s begin with the data today, all from the past year…

1. A 48% increase in total fans attending games
2. Also a 48% increase in average fans per game
3. A 242% increase in sold out games
4. More than 54 million unique viewers watching games via varied networks
5. Nearly 2 billion social media video views
6. A 170% increase in average viewers for ESPN games 
7. Online merch sales from main site and the flagship store were up a combined 601%
8. Merch sales at Dick’s Sporting Goods increased by 233%
9. A double-digit year-over-year increase in attendance for every team
10. More than a fourfold jump for the Indiana Fever

Thank you, Caitlin Clark. Thank you, Caitlin, and to you, Angel Reese, Kamilla Cardoso, and the other outstanding rookies who played a part in an unprecedented year in professional women’s basketball, a year in which attention was strikingly soaring. Thank you, too, to the Lisa Leslie’s, Tamika Catchings’ and other notable all stars who played when it wasn’t so soaring, but indeed laid the foundation for the success we see today. 

Clearly, in the season that was, Clark was special. That wasn’t popular in all circles in explaining the league’s massive, newfound popularity. But even amid the noise, Clark had an undeniable, phenomenal year, resulting this week in reportedly being voted the 2024 WNBA Rookie of the Year.

But to solely focus on her gridiron skill set may mean missing what makes her so special. Yes, she is fiercely competitive, passes with uncanny precision, and can shoot the lights out of the barn or however that saying goes from pretty much anywhere on the court. 

But she is more. At only 22.

At 22 years old she came into the league with some of the highest expectations. Picked first in the draft, all eyes were on her,

With all eyes, however undeserving, she became an instant role model. And real role models know you never have to announce said status; you never speak of the perceived perils that come with the position. You simply lead, stay humble, and honor those around you. 

That’s what Clark did. 

She also led well as a prominent female. So many lead and speak in a way that attempts to elevate what they identify in by putting down the identity of another; it’s a trap we too often fall into. But there’s no need; we’re not in competition with one another. Honor means we honor all. Clark does that well.

But maybe what’s been most special in her first professional season is her contagious authenticity. When she’s happy, she’s happy. When she’s mad, she’s mad (she tied for second in the league in technical fouls in year one). She cracks jokes on the court — flashing wide-eyed grins at teammates and even opponents across the lane. In the scripted world we live in, where so many let us see only a manipulated version of themselves, Clark’s authenticity is refreshing. I pray her future years don’t pollute what’s currently so good and right and true.

And lastly, what makes Clark so special is that she doesn’t think she is.

She works hard, plays hard, and stays humble. Even when thought to be one of the best female players ever, her talent hasn’t lured her into entitlement. 

“You’ll never hear from her parents that, ‘Oh, boy, isn’t Caitlin Clark the greatest thing in the world?’ ” Dickson Jensen, Clark’s former AAU coach, says. “They’re continuing to keep her grounded and they’re grateful for everything that Caitlin has been able to receive. They don’t think they deserve anything. Everything’s earned and nothing’s promised.”

Indeed, Clark is special. No doubt what makes her so attractive is because she doesn’t act as if such is so.

Respectfully…

AR

All sorts of people are jockeying for all sorts of desired jobs this season. They are chosen via various means, even election. As a career HR professional, no less, suffice it to say I’ve interviewed my share of people. Not only my share of people, but also for a plethora of varied positions, each requiring a varied, distinct skill set, temperament, and combination of education and experience. By no means is every person qualified or close to qualified for every position (which, by the way, is especially important to me in my dentist and pilot). The goal is for the right person to be in the right job. My role is to discern potential fit.

In order to determine fit, there are certain questions I typically always ask. If asked and if dodged or the response doesn’t really answer my question — indicative of a lack of comfort, knowledge or desired transparency — I will ask another way or perhaps more bluntly, as this we need to know. Some questions must be answered. Fit cannot be determined by feeling. In order to proceed in my role wisely, I need to find the right person for the right job — not just who I want or feel better about. Hence…

• I want to know you, and I want you to know us. What should we know about you?
• Why did you leave your last job?
• How did you get to here? Help me understand. What made you apply for this position?
• Tell me about some of your more significant, previous co-workers. How would they describe you? Any relationships that were hard? If so, why?
• For those you’ve previously led, how would they describe your leadership style? Also, how has your leadership style changed — and why? What prompted that?
• What skill set or perspective do you uniquely bring to the table?
• What personality/temperament tests have you taken? DiSC®, Enneagram, StrengthsFinder? Describe the results to me. Anything surprise you, make you especially proud or make you uncomfortable?
• Where are you growing? Where are you stuck? Any next steps you’d like to share?
• What would success in this job look like?
• Under what conditions would you struggle?
• How do you handle conflict?
• How do you handle stress? How does pace impact your stress level? And when you’re stressed, how is your communication affected? I’d love some examples.
• How do you receive and provide feedback? How do you react to the concept of radical candor? When is it helpful? When is it not?
• What do you know about our organization?
• How do you practice intentional rest? Do you value that?
• How do you have fun? Are you competitive at all?
• What long term goals and dreams do you have?
• How can we help you develop and grow?
• What questions do you have for me?
• Anything else I should know?

Remember that the goal is fit. I want every person in the right position — whether that’s with me in my organization or elsewhere. I am not attempting to make everyone fit here; it’s silly to believe that all would. 

The interview process is therefore not a place of flattery, salesmanship or any disingenuity; again, it’s a place to discern appropriate and accurate fit. Let me get to know you. Let you get to know us.

In light of this post, I took the liberty of reaching out to some I have interviewed in years past. I am by no means perfect nor striving to be. But over the course of the last 30 years, I’ve asked much the same questions. So I asked some former interviewees what it was like to be on the receiving end of me…

“Oh, wow… that’s a great and interesting question. I felt at ease and respected… Very warm and welcoming. It’s very easy to be open and honest with you and just have good conversation…

You were very clear. You did a good job speaking to what you knew and what you didn’t… It was actually a great experience. I didn’t feel bombarded with an overwhelming sense, as you did it as if we were just two people talking, getting to know each other… it was open, fair and positive…

I think you are really good at creating a balanced conversation where there’s room for honesty, curiosity, and learning from each other… I felt like I was speaking with someone who values my experience and insights…

I feel like you don’t just ask questions simply to ask them but you’re genuinely curious about the person you’re interviewing. You seem to really want to know the person and who they are… The person on the other side is never lost on you…”

My sense is the best interviews for desired jobs are marked by honesty, genuineness, and interactive conversation. To be clear, I’m not sure accurate fit can otherwise be discerned… no matter how I feel.

Respectfully…

AR

No, it’s not inflation. Not immigration, discrimination or any other ā-SHən either.

In this current event blogger’s semi-humble opinion, our current biggest weakness is our lack of viewpoint diversity. In fact, it is such a weakness, that we won’t even entertain the idea of imprudence. We refuse to examine any wisdom in expanding our perspective. There exists, too, this encouraging pressure to join the public, forte chorus, asserting the “I’m-right-you’re-wrong/time-to-wash-my-hands-of-you” perspective. My concern is the blindness of our foolishness. And this from intelligent people.

Behind this, no less, is the existence of the binary choice. As recently discussed, when we conclude that a choice is solely between two alternatives (good/bad, right/wrong, tastes great/less filling), we blur the lines of preference, opinion and conviction and we negate the perspective of the one who thinks differently than we. This is indeed easier than employing the time, patience and humility necessary to fully comprehend manifold frames of mind. Easier, but also errant. 

Here’s the key… admitting this need not threaten what we already believe. But the unwillingness to even examine the legitimacy of varied viewpoint is a glaring flaw in our national existence. We’ve taken this so far, in fact — maybe because people know it sounds surly and shallow to not even entertain alternate perspective — that we’ve concluded that another’s perspective is so dangerous, it should not be heard… It needs to be silenced at all costs… I will not pay attention to them.

And sadly, the blindness to our foolishness increases… and the weakness in our civil society only swells.

So let’s see if we can help each other out today. Let us see if we can fill some of those gaping schisms giving one another a bit of a way out. We don’t have to drastically move, contemplating major errors in our own thinking. We can even conclude we’re more right than the other if such is comforting. Hear then how such is vocalized by author and AllSides contributor Stephanie Lepp…

“Throughout history, thinkers from Ancient Greece to China have practiced the art of contemplating different perspectives, in order to find a more comprehensive view. But in America today, we can hardly interact with different perspectives, let alone integrate them. Our viewpoint diversity has become seen as a weakness, rather than a strength. 

The internet often gives us binary choices: pro-vax or anti-vax. Pro-choice or pro-life. Woke or anti-woke. Choosing one or the other leaves insights off the table. Vaccines shouldn’t be taken always, nor should they be taken never, so the question isn’t ‘pro-vax or anti-vax?’ but ‘under what circumstances should vaccines be taken?’ With respect to abortion, most Americans don’t identify as purely ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life,’ and instead favor abortion rights with limits. And with respect to wokeness, the oppressor-oppressed frame is critical and overdue, but not always the most relevant.

In response to binary thinking, there can be a reflexive both-sides-ism — which presents different perspectives as equally relevant or valuable, regardless of the evidence or ethical considerations. American media should be more balanced, but not in a way that creates false equivalence or obscures truth. The best solutions are not always halfway between extremes…

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that one side is entirely right. It’s also unlikely that all sides are equally right. It’s more likely that most of us are partially right, but some of us are more right than others. That doesn’t make for a great tagline, but it avoids the pitfalls of tribalism and both-sides-ism in pursuit of the most comprehensive view. Our view will always be partial, and we can always strive to see more faces of reality.”

That last sentence strikes me: “our view will always be partial.” That’s why the binary choice is a fallacy… and why, too, our lack of viewpoint diversity is our current, biggest weakness.

Our lack of viewpoint diversity paves the way for tribalism, meaning it prompts strong feelings of loyalty to a specific political or social group. Tribalism is dangerous because it erodes our discernment, and often, we are completely clueless to the erosion. No longer does it matter who the leader of the group is; we’re loyal solely because they’re from the same tribe. We are ignorant to their nonexistent competency. That weakness is therefore more than current and big. It’s glaring, too.

Respectfully…

AR

I used to think tricks were for kids, and soon I realized age was not a factor. 

I speak not of pulling any rabbit from a hat nor sawing any female assistant in half. In fact, call it a “trick.” Call it a “trap.” The meanings are the same [with all emphasis mine]…

trick | trik | – noun

— a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone.

• a mischievous practical joke; an illusion.

trap | trap | – noun

— a situation in which people lie in wait to make a surprise attack.

• a trick by which someone is misled into acting contrary to their interests or intentions; an unpleasant situation from which it is hard to escape.

The trick I feel we’re increasingly falling into is the ease with which we create a binary choice. When making a choice, we assume the choice is solely between two alternatives. For example…

• Red Sox or Yankees
• If you’re not for me, you’re against me.
• Tastes great! Less filling.

But the reality is that there are far more options to choose from. (And in the above trifecta: other baseball teams exist, I may not care, and not everyone likes Miller Lite.)

Allow me to echo the words of Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize winning economist who parses the roles of emotion, cognition and perception. He affectionately refers to our tendency as WYSIATI: what you see is all there is. The binary bait is to craft a choice out of only what we can see.

Indeed it takes extra effort (and time, patience and humility, I would add) to stop and ask, “What’s missing? What do I not see? What am I actually unable to see from my vantage point?”

Allow me, no less, to get to what I believe is the most current, frequent example of the trick’s luring. I’m a little hesitant only because I’m aware of the feathers it may ruffle. In fact, it has been said many times straight to me. And you know what’s incredibly uncanny in my opinion? It’s been said about the same situation, same people, yet from totally opposite sides.

The binary trick we have assumed is that the upcoming election is a choice between right and wrong. There is only one right way to vote. 

Sit with that for a moment. And let me honor all who have strong opinions, immediately amen the above, and have decided which is which…

The concerning reality is that there are many good people who believe that if you vote differently than them — if you conclude that the other candidate is the better choice — not only are you misguided, you are wrong. It is impossible to have a wise or right response if it differs from their conclusion.

With all due respect, that feels too simple to me. Maybe contemptuous, too. We assume we know what motivates the person who thinks differently than we do; we assume their motives, opinion is somehow faulty. We may not even know them — often we don’t! It doesn’t matter; we negate their perspective. But the binary choice insulates us from doing the hard work of figuring out why they have a different perspective. The binary choice kills the beauty of curiosity. And perhaps most significantly, the binary choice blurs the lines between preference, opinion and conviction, making us think they’re all the same. They are not.

Wiser would be to do the work to understand the why, why another feels differently than me…

I don’t understand how you got here. We don’t think the same. Can you help me see? Can you help me understand? I admit, that’s hard for me.

We don’t have to agree. But we can work to see. And working to see in no way threatens what we believe.

Respectfully…

AR