Hey Wynand here.
Watched a short video from Simon Sinek the other day where he mentioned that everyone believes they are on the right side of good.
It’s true, right? Whether you’re on the left, right, or clinging to the fence like it’s electrified — you believe you’re right. You believe you’re good. The other side? Not just wrong, but morally compromised. Dangerous, even.
And that’s where the conversation ends.
It’s not that we can’t talk to people we disagree with — it’s that we don’t even see the point anymore. Because if we’re right (and good), then they must be wrong (and bad). Game over. No more dialogue. No more curiosity. Just a comfortable little echo chamber confirming our righteousness.
And the algorithms love it. Feed us more of the same. More outrage. More tribal points scored.
Our newsfeed becomes our god. Our biases, the scripture.
So when we come across something that contradicts “our side,” our brains short-circuit. We don’t explore. We attack. Or worse — we roll our eyes and scroll on. Disagreement becomes a threat, not an opportunity.
We don’t know how to sit with cognitive dissonance anymore. We’ve outsourced our thinking to systems built to manipulate, not enlighten. (And let’s be honest — they’re pretty damn good at it.)
So what do we do?
I don’t have a clean answer. Just a hunch.
Maybe it starts with stepping off the moral high ground long enough to admit:
I could be wrong.
Not just in theory. In practice. About things I believe deeply.
Maybe that one sentence is the crack that lets some light in.
Because if you could be wrong, you might start listening again. Not to agree. But to understand.
And from there — maybe we find a little common ground that’s not algorithm-approved.
Or not.
But at least we’re human again.