Is "Assuming Good Intent" The Answer?
In a previous post I mentioned that, along with my sister, I’ve been participating in Mel Robbins Mindset Reset project. That project has ended, but I’ve been thinking a lot about one of the videos Robbins posted on how we should “assume good intent.” She described it as training our brain to go into a positive default mode. Instead of defaulting to “gloom and doom” when we encounter small injustices, such as someone cutting us off in traffic, instead think, “I hope everything is ok with that person.” She provided an example in the video where she had sent a text message to a friend, but had not received a response back. Robbins said she could choose to create several negative scenarios in her mind, starting with assuming the person is upset with her. Robbins noted that she had no facts to support that the other person was upset or mad at her; that everything about that scenario she had created in her mind. So, if we are going to make up something in our mind sans any facts, why not assume good intent? Robbins said that our thoughts do not actually impact what is happening in the physical world, but fundamentally impact what we feel physically and mentally in our body.
Robbins said when we think something positive about the other person’s behavior that has nothing to do with us, it shifts our mindset from angry to positive.
I like the concept. Two and a half years ago, that would not have been a problem for me. I’ve written about my sister referring to my “Pollyana” viewpoint in the past. For most of my life, I thought that everyone had the best intentions. So, assume good intent – not a problem for me. Then, I woke up on November 9, 2016 to a world I didn’t recognize, and I begin to question everything I thought I knew. So, assuming good intent is not easy for me anymore.
When I began to emerge from the haze of depression and disillusionment, I reverted to an activity that has been my standard in the past – I read as much as I could to try and understand what had happened. One of the articles I read was an Op-Ed that appeared in the New York Times on January 5, 2017 by Robert Leonard, a news director for the radio station KNIA/KRLS in Knoxville, Iowa. In the article, Mr. Leonard talks about how political analysts surmised that ignorance, racism, sexism, nationalism, Islamophobia, economic disenfranchisement and the decline of the middle class contributed to the popularity of Donald Trump in rural America. However, he said that missed the deeper cultural factors that shape the thinking of conservatives who live in rural America.
He said that a turning point in understanding rural America came at a 2015 pre-caucus stop in Pella, Iowa by J. C. Watts, a Baptist minister who was raised in the small town of Eufaula, Oklahoma. Watts was a Republican Oklahoma congressman from 1995 to 2003. That sentence caught my attention because as a University of Oklahoma graduate and fan, I cheered for J.C. Watts when he quarterbacked the Sooners in the 1980s. Mr. Leonard quoted Watts, who was in the area to campaign for Senator Rand Paul, as saying, “the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good.” Watts went on to say, “We are born bad,” and added that children did not need to be taught to behave badly — they are born knowing how to do that. “We teach them how to be good,” he said. “We become good by being reborn — born again.” He continued: “Democrats believe that we are born good, that we create God, not that he created us. If we are our own God, as the Democrats say, then we need to look at something else to blame when things go wrong — not us.”
Let me just say that as a Democrat who was raised in a Christian church, I was NEVER taught that we “create God.” In fact, it was quite the opposite.
Leonard said that Watts talked about the 2015 movie theater shooting in Lafayette, La., in which two people were killed. He said that Republicans knew that the gunman was a bad man, doing a bad thing. Democrats, he added, “would look for other causes — that the man was basically good, but that it was the guns, society or some other place where the blame lies and then they will want to control the guns, or something else — not the man.” Republicans, he said, don’t need to look anywhere else for the blame.
Leonard also wrote about a campaign stop in a neighboring town in 2015 by Ted Cruz when he spoke to grade-school children. Leonard said a couple of dozen children sat at Cruz’s feet, and listened wide-eyed as Cruz told them the world is a scary place, and it’s godly men like him who are going to save them from the evils of President Obama, Hillary Clinton and their fellow Democrats.
Leonard said those interactions gave him a glimpse of the ideas of many of his conservative friends and neighbors. He thought, there’s no wonder Republicans and Democrats can’t agree on things like gun control, regulations or the value of social programs because they live in different philosophical worlds, with different foundational principles.
Ugh. If I was looking for a reason to assume good intent, I wasn’t finding it.
There were a few things that did help me in the months following the 2016 election even as I felt the situation was spiraling out of control every day. My best friend sent me a link to an article written by Robin Chancer, a behavioral specialist, that was published on April 26, 2016, entitled, “How To Stay Sane If Trump Is Driving You Insane: Advice From A Therapist.” Chancer wrote that many people “feel insane because our world is not sane.” Current events are very much at odds with our natural optimism, and our belief in human goodness and progress. Chancer said that even though our nation was founded on idealistic, positive principles such as human worth and dignity, the inevitability of progress, and the goodness of the human collective, there are times when optimism is not healthy, appropriate or possible, and this is one of those times. Chancer suggested ways to cope with the new reality.
Fighting our agony won’t change it. We need to accept what happened, allow it to change us, and work with what is left. This does not mean condoning what happened. It simply means coming to terms with what is, and with what we cannot control. We cannot change that Donald Trump was elected. We cannot change that many Americans are loyal to him in spite of his hatred, or even because of it. We see more clearly the greed rampant in our society. We do well to accept these truths so that we can move forward, rather than paralyzing ourselves with shock and outrage.
If we find ourselves in a place of deep sadness, allow time to feel and honor it. It’s alright to accept that things are as bad as we think. We shouldn’t waste our energy getting mad and upset. Once we fully accept that there are evil things being perpetuated, we can anticipate them, and have a clear mind to plan our next move. Acknowledge that greed and racism are part of our nation’s fabric. We cannot wish them away. Anticipating it will help us stay calm and focused. Once we accept that, we sharpen our focus to guard against their insidious infections. We focus on the work of fighting for human rights and accountability.
In order to promote well-being, we can learn to practice mindful attention both to the present moment and to the good, as we understand it. Faced with a frequently depressing, maddening world, this can mean focusing intently on the inspiring work going on around us in a multitude of spheres. Each time we feel hopelessness creep in, we can focus our attention on the kindness, generosity, and good will around us. We must focus on what we can do, right here and right now.
This was important for me to read. As a natural optimist, I struggled to understand how people I have known and claim to be “good Christians” condone what I perceive to be hateful and divisive rhetoric or racist and misogynistic comments.
I’ve also been reading Margaret Heffernan’s book, Willful Blindness, thanks to another recommendation from my best friend. In the book, Heffernan talks about cognitive dissonance – the mental turmoil that is evoked when the mind tries to hold two entirely incompatible views. It can’t be true that a person can be a Christian and believe in evolution. It can’t be true that a person can value life and support women’s reproductive rights. It can’t be true that a person can support the 2nd amendment to the Constitution and believe that we need policies to regulate firearms. It can’t be true that a person can be a proud American whose eyes well up with tears when the Star Spangled Banner is played and support Colin Kaepernick’s right to kneel during the national anthem. It can’t be true that people who voted for Donald Trump are also good people that care about our country. Or can it? Has society taught us to only think in binary terms – that there are only two options and those are options are mutually exclusive?
In an article posted in Psychology Today on January 27, 2i017 entitled “When Binary Thinking Is Involved, Polarization Follows,” the author Mark Baer said that anxiety from a lack of tolerance for ambiguity leads to binary thinking. He said when the brain reacts in a binary way it leads to quick, irrational decisions and action. Events are construed as dilemmas to be resolved in favor of one alternative or the other. However, Baer said the inherent tension leading to polarization conceals an important developmental opportunity, if we ‘hold’ the tension long enough to permit exploration, differentiation, and resolution by a third, ‘mediating’ element. Healthy groups are not those that avoid conflict and never fall prey to binary thinking and polarization. Rather, healthy groups are those that allow a third element to emerge. With the arrival of a third element, the dynamic shifts from a binary one to—at least potentially —a more balanced and inclusive one.
This is hard, because in addition to reading articles that articulate different viewpoints, I’ve tried talking with people who have different views. Those conversations have not always gone well. The conversations have often been one-sided – I’ve actually been told that there’s no reason to discuss our differences because I’m wrong, or the other person has pointed out all the reasons why I’m wrong and tried to get me to agree. The conversations left me feeling shamed, hurt, dismissed and frustrated. Perhaps, I picked the wrong people to engage in discussion. Regardless, I have chosen to disengage from substantive conversations with these individuals.
I’ve been following the Pantsuit Politics podcast and recently finished the book I Think You’re Wrong, but I’m Listening: A Guide to Grace-filled Political Conversations by the hosts, Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth Silvers. The book has resonated with people so much that many people are purchasing copies of the book and sending it to their Congressional members! I highly recommend both the book and the podcast. Holland and Stewart are teaching me how to re-engage and have “grace-filled” conversations with people whom I have strong philosophical disagreements. Because past conversations have been hurtful, I have to admit that I’m timid about engaging in future conversations. But, I’m committed to trying. I’m trying to be more thoughtful about how I choose to frame my opinions. I’m grateful to the people who have disagreed with my blog posts, but have responded with “grace.” Those people are giving me the courage to try to create safe spaces for uncomfortable conversations.
This week, I got a text message from my sister-in-law that said she was trying to follow my lead and practice positivity. She said there were about two million things that had pissed her off during the past week, but she was focusing on the fact that it was only two million things as opposed to three million! Most days, I feel the exact same way. This is hard work.
Prior to the 2016 election, I would have given myself a big pat on the back for not being a binary thinker. When considering the statements I mentioned previously, it was always “and” not “or.” I believe a person can be a Christian and believe in evolution. I believe a person can value life and support women’s reproductive rights. I believe a person can support the 2nd amendment to the Constitution and believe that we need policies to regulate firearms. I believe that a person can be a proud American whose eyes well up with tears when the Star Spangled Banner is played and support Colin Kaepernick’s right to kneel during the national anthem. But following the election, my thinking was very binary – I found myself believing that anyone who voted for Donald Trump was not a good person who cared about our country. And, I didn’t like those feelings.
After much soul-searching, learning, and therapy, I now believe there is truth in both Mel Robbins’ and Robin Chancer’s words. We can assume good intent and accept the reality that not everyone has good intent. And, I also agree with Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth Silvers that it is important to engage in “grace-filled” conversations with people with whom we disagree. I’m trying to do that.
While I try to adhere to these principles, I will continue to focus on the inspiring work my friends and colleagues are trying to do and what is in our sphere of influence. And, I’ll give myself a pass when I don’t.
#stillaworkinprogress