[Neurons] 2026 Neurons #9 WHY WON'T THEY STAND?

Sun Mar 1 21:04:04 EET 2026

From: L. Michael Hall

2026 Neurons #9

March 1, 2026

WHY WON'T THEY STAND?

For the past few days I have struggled with a question that I began
considering when I heard the President's State of the Union speech.  Namely,
What kind of thinking would cause someone who holds a different opinion to
not even be able to acknowledge you when you make a good point?

In seeking an answer, I'm starting from several assumptions about people,
knowledge, truth, communication, etc.  Namely, I'm assuming that holding
differences of opinion is a normal thing; that people inevitably view things
from their own perspectives, and that their background, training, education,
and experience creates these differences. 

I'm also assuming three NLP presuppositions.  One, there is a difference
between person and behavior and that a person is more than what one thinks,
says, and does.  Secondly, behind every behavior is some positive intention.
People do not choose to do what they do just to be evil, but because at a
higher level, they think it will produce something of value for them.
Three, you never know what you have communicated until you check out what
the other person has heard.  That the meaning of your communication is the
other's person's response, even if that was not your intention.

Starting from all of these assumptions, then I'm wondering about the kind of
thinking that would lead someone in an oppositional party to refuse to
acknowledge when you say something that most everyone would agree with and
you would agree with it if your colleague said it.  That people differ is to
be expected; it is not a bad thing in itself.  Differences make for
creativity.  It would be unnatural for everyone to think the same way.  For
science and for civilization we actually need a multiplicity of
perspectives. That's why when someone who disagrees with me makes a good
point, I should simply say so and acknowledge that.  Why not?  That doesn't
mean I agree with everything or condone everything. 

In answering my own question, my conclusion is that the opposition party (in
this case, the democrats, well except for John Fetterman) were actually not
thinking.  Instead, they were caught up in the 'thinking' substitutes (which
all of us get caught up in from time to time).  And why?  Because as they
think that a difference of opinion is a threat or danger, their stress level
goes up and they revert to stress thinking (e.g., the cognitive
distortions).  They also begin to engage in reactionary thinking (by
personalizing), polarization thinking, agenda thinking, superficial
either-or thinking, and borrowed thinking (see Thinking for Humans (2024)
and Executive Thinking (2018).

Because of these inadequate thinking patterns, they could not do real
thinking.  They could not consider a different opinion and in good faith
consider it.  They could not ask questions about it in an attempt to
understand it.  They could not honestly doubt its source or validity, detail
specifics in it, or make critical distinctions (the first five of the
critical thinking skills).

What does it take to be a reasonable person and to hear out what someone on
the opposite side thinks?  What does it take to try on or consider that
perspective and ask questions to "seek first to understand" (Covey)?  What
does it take to stand up for someone you disagree with when they actually
make a good point and speak a truth?  Certainly, no one is wrong all the
time.  

What does it take to start from the premise that what people are doing and
saying comes from what they consider a positive value for themselves?  Given
that, what does it take for us to stop demonizing the one who disagrees and
maintain a respect-for-the-humanity of the other person?  Whatever 'crazy'
idea you think the other is proposing, what will it take for us to separate
person from behavior and start from the position of respect and at least
listen to it?

Oh yes, I'm making another assumption.  I'm assuming that in the marketplace
of ideas, if we keep talking and dialoguing, if we keep seeking first to
understand, truth will win out.  It may be the truth that we're operating
from different perspectives and so in the end we agree to disagree.  The
problem is not vigorous debate, it is confusing person with words and ideas
and then demonizing someone for differing.  That's the problem.  That's when
things get ugly.  That's when people become hateful, bitter, disrespectful,
insulting, and when all of that gets exaggerated-things become violent.

What we want is non-violent yet vigorous conversations, and that requires a
basic level of respect, a separation of person and behavior, good faith to
validate persons, and a sweet reasonableness to admit mistakes and wrongs.
Only then will we be able to stand up for each other when we say something
that makes common sense.  And that would be a huge beginning to put an end
of the childish polarizing that's so destructive to democracy.

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

Executive Director, Neuro-Semantics

738 Beaver Lodge

Grand Jct., CO. 81505 USA

 <http://www.neurosemantics.com/> www.neurosemantics.com   

cid:261CED33-4408-4124-862B-B9A4B37A367A

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://neurosemanticsegroups.org/pipermail/neurons_neurosemanticsegroups.org/attachments/20260301/cc820e2b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://neurosemanticsegroups.org/pipermail/neurons_neurosemanticsegroups.org/attachments/20260301/cc820e2b/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.wmz
Type: application/x-ms-wmz
Size: 108889 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://neurosemanticsegroups.org/pipermail/neurons_neurosemanticsegroups.org/attachments/20260301/cc820e2b/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 38984 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://neurosemanticsegroups.org/pipermail/neurons_neurosemanticsegroups.org/attachments/20260301/cc820e2b/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: oledata.mso
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1649083 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://neurosemanticsegroups.org/pipermail/neurons_neurosemanticsegroups.org/attachments/20260301/cc820e2b/attachment-0003.bin>