Who is right today in the political debate? Nobody. Or rather: it depends on those who suffer. Because when someone “of ours” is attacked, we cry out to the scandal. When it happens to the “enemy”, we limit ourselves to a raising of the shoulders. Or worse: we please it. A reaction that has a name: one -way empathy. And yes, it also happens to those who have a tender heart and cries with the puppies on Instagram.
A recent study showed that even very empathic people – yes, precisely those who are moved by looking at a sunset – tend to ignore or minimize suffering if it comes from the opposite field. That is, if he thinks differently from them. On the contrary, those who have less empathy than default tend to be more balanced in the judgment. Oh yes: empathy, alone, is not enough.
The bias that deceives the brain
This mechanism has a name: asymmetry of the attribution of reasons (Motive attributions asymmetry). In simple words, it is the tendency to believe that our actions are driven by good intentions – love, justice, defense of values - while those of others are motivated by hatred and contempt.
This distortion is not just annoying, it is also dangerous. When we think that those who are “on the other side” act for hatred, we feel justified to respond hard, even aggressive. And so, in a continuous spiral, the tension grows.
An interesting study showed how completely this perception is completely busted. Participants were asked: “In your opinion, how many people from the opposite field would justify a political murder?” The average answer? About 40%. The real data? Between 1 and 2%. A huge difference. And worrying.
Wrong perceptions, wrong reactions
When we convince ourselves that “others” are violent and dangerous, everything we do to defend ourselves automatically justifiable. Even if it is equally toxic. And that’s how the vicious circle of anger feeds, day after day, post after post, comment after comment. And to pay it is civil coexistence. And our mental health, I would add.
Just observe public reactions
A concrete example comes from the United States: when Charlie Kirk (right) and Melissa Hortman (left) were victims of violence in two different episodes, at the beginning there was a bipartisan sentence. Then the usual race of the “Eh but when did you happen to you where you were?”. And away with the classic talk show complaint: the indignation is in alternate plates.
This type of reaction shows a widespread attitude: compassion is selective. It only works if the victim belongs to our group. If, on the other hand, it is “others”, its suffering is minimized, ignored or even justified.
Three things (very practical) that we can do to lower the tones
- Moderated your media diet
It is not healthy to wake up and fall asleep by reading screamed titles and comments to make the grandmother pale. If you often find yourself saying “I can’t take it anymore”, maybe it’s appropriate to do detox. - Question your perceptions
Most people are not violent, despite what you read in the comments under the news posts. Simply, the noisiest make the worst looks like the majority. - Trained to experience empathy even towards those who do not think like you
It’s not easy. But it is not a question of “justifying” those who are on the other side, as much as they recognize that they too are human beings. Even when they tell things that make you urticaria.
It is not true that “others” justify violence more than us. It is a prejudice. And yes, even those who have a big heart can stumble in these traps. If we want to get out, we have to start seeing people, not labels.
Don’t you want to lose our news?
You may also be interested in:
