In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.
–Sun Tzu
We live in an era of unprecedented division. From kitchen tables to congressional halls, conversations have become battlegrounds where people fight not to understand but to win. Abortion, vaccines, immigration, gender—these topics have transformed from nuanced discussions into ideological trenches where we guard our beliefs like fortresses, convinced of our moral superiority.
The irony is striking. Each side believes passionately in its righteousness, yet neither truly listens. We’ve forgotten that behind every opposing view is a human being with lived experiences, fears, hopes, and a genuine belief that they are doing what is right. Our polarization isn’t just a political problem—it’s a fundamental human connection crisis.
Psychological research reveals a profound truth: moral certainty is often the enemy of empathy.
When we become entrenched in our beliefs, we stop seeing the humanity in those who disagree. We reduce complex human beings to caricatures, to abstractions that fit neatly into our predetermined narratives.
This dehumanization is the silent poison corroding the foundations of our social fabric.
The cost of this division is immense. Families are splitting apart, friendships are dissolving, and our collective ability to solve critical societal challenges is dramatically weakened. We’re so busy proving ourselves right that we’ve forgotten how to work together, how to compromise, and how to see the nuanced reality that often exists between absolute positions.
Change begins with a radical act of empathy. It requires us to do something counterintuitive: to listen without judgment, to seek understanding before seeking to be understood.
This doesn’t mean abandoning our principles or accepting harmful ideologies. Instead, it means recognizing the shared humanity that connects us, even when our views diverge dramatically.
Imagine a society where we approach disagreements with curiosity instead of contempt. Where we ask, “Help me understand your perspective” rather than “How can you possibly believe that?” Where we recognize that most people, regardless of their political or social stance, fundamentally want similar things—safety, respect, opportunity, and a better future for their loved ones.
Call to Action: The Empathy Challenge
This week, choose one person with whom you deeply disagree. Commit to a conversation where you:
- Listen without interrupting
- Ask genuine, non-confrontational questions
- Seek to understand their experiences and reasoning
- Find at least one point of common ground
Our divisions are not inevitable. They are a choice—and we can choose differently.
Editor’s Note: Enjoy our evolving Exploring Our Shared Humanity Series HERE
Spinoza said, “Human actions should not be mocked, pitied or detested: they should be understood.”
And it’s true, only by listening with interest and attention can we understand the opinions and motivations of others’ behavior.
I had not sincerely thought that this was also dehumanization, but there is a great need to listen to others. We do it less and less. Listening to others has become rare.
In an increasingly hyper-connected world, paradoxically, the space dedicated to speaking has become superior to listening.
And yet, in interpersonal relationships, listening allows us to develop lasting bonds based on trust, understanding and mutual respect.
Thank you for your always invaluable insights, Aldo. Yes, Spinoza’s assertion is a powerful reminder that understanding, not judgment, should guide our interactions. Your observation about the decline of genuine listening in our hyper-connected world is accurate, and it highlights a crucial point: true connection requires prioritizing attentive listening over mere speaking. This shift towards understanding fosters deeper relationships built on empathy and respect, essential for meaningful human interaction.
When my daughter was two, I started my bachelor in child welfare. We had a guest lecturer, Per Isdal. He was the founder of “Alternativ til Vold” – the violence alternative – who treats violent wo/men and child abusers.
When I was 22, I worked at a governmental institution for children. One of the children I met there… well, let’s say I still tear up thinking of him (trigger warning: https://ue.land/goodbye-darkness/).
So I asked Per in a break, who had shared that he had young children: “If someone had abused your child, what would you do?”
His answer was somewhat comforting. And very spontaneous. “I would kill them”.
This from a man who had spent his life doing therapy…
My intention is not to promote violence. I have lived on the edge of violence for most of my life, but I have hardly had to fight.
It is simply this: no matter how deep your understanding is, acceptance does not have to follow.
I wish I could be certain I would have found a non-violent solution if one of my kids had been a victim.
I really wish…
Thank you for being interested in my post. I agree with your considerations.
Very true. In order to heal the divide, we need dialogues – not monologues. No matter how difficult the issue is, a common ground can always be found – if only in our shared humanity.
The divide has never been wider. So, what can we do to heal the gap?
It starts with each of us. I took a course in non-violent communication with Rosenberg a few years back. That taught me a lot.
I must address one point you raised, though: “non-confrontational questions”. Back in 2005, I was in a communication seminar during my bachelor in child welfare. The lecturer said “You must never ask a child why!”.
I responded “Why?”
“Because it can be re-traumatising and confrontational”.
I had to think a bit about that.
“But if I don’t know their why, their understanding of the situation – how can I help them?”
Never got an answer to that.
Good morning Dennis. This is probably one of the most needed messages at this time in our history. Social media has so badly divided us that I fear at times the divide is unrepairable. Your call to action is what we need (must) do if we are to have any chance of pulling ourselves back from the precipice.
I absolutely agree. The divisive effects of social media on our society have reached concerning levels, potentially pushing us toward a breaking point in our ability to communicate across differences. This critical moment demands meaningful action to repair these fractures before they become permanent. A genuine call to action focused on rebuilding bridges, practicing empathy, and engaging in good-faith dialogue could indeed be essential for pulling us back from the edge and restoring our collective ability to function as a cohesive society despite our differences.
My friend Dennis,
I shared this post on LinkedIn with the following text because I find your post worthy of spreading worldwide.
This post by 🔆 Dennis Pitocco raises a big flag that warrants our immediate attention.
The core problem is, “conversations have become battlegrounds where people fight not to understand but to win”;
This is a crucial issue. Dogmatism is the enemy of understanding.
Assumptions are the weeds that deafen us from listening to differing thoughts.
Conformation bias blinds us from seeing the other side of our beliefs.
We allowed “moral certainty is often the enemy of empathy.”
We need to narrow our differences and increase our understanding of our differences and beliefs.
This can only happen if we listen before we open our mouths. This is the way to open our minds.
Indeed, Ali,those statements ring true. Dogmatism, assumptions, and confirmation bias all create barriers to genuine understanding. Openness to diverse perspectives and a willingness to challenge our own beliefs are essential for true comprehension. Thank you for amplifying this important discussion, my friend!
My pleasure to share important posts and yours my friend Dennis stands high among them.