When following the news I see the following: endless and repetitive reports of how each side of a certain topic is trying to convince the other of their position with self serving logic and who seems to win the argument.

When looking more carefully I see something else: marginal differences on the desired long term outcome (as our deeper needs as human beings are quite universal) but a great divide around the short term measures necessary to get there. This divide is triggered by our fear for the potential consequences of these choices at a personal level and our urge to avoid those.

Feels not only like a waste of time but also as an ineffective way get our needs met: we all loose in the end.

Would our chance of getting there not significantly increase if we would skip this unfruitful dance and start the discussion with the realization that we aim for a similar outcome and that certain short term ‘pain’ is unavoidable? We then could focus our discussions on the best way to divide the pain and how to mitigate the effects by helping each other as compassionate human beings. Instead of building and defending fake arguments to protect our own side and create a costly divide in the process.

The short term consequences are still there but the path to getting all our needs met will be shorter, with more space creative solutions, feel less lonely and much more wholesome. By putting more emphasis on this perspective when reporting, the media could also become part of the solution.

Jan Foudraine in ‘Wie is van hout…’ 1971 and Jim van Os in his later life views on psychiatry seem to have similar views around these human patterns, our mental derailments and the best way to approach them.