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.
What are these good points of common sense? Like reducing drug costs where a prescribed drug may cost $4,000 to $500. No taxes on tips or overtime, securing the border, deporting murderers and child abusers, allowing parents to be in charge of their own children, etc.
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.