You May Be Getting Falsely Sorted in Conflicts

It might be the reason why you are dealing with problems now

Yael Schonbrun is a clinical psychologist and faculty at Brown University

Black-and-white thinking can be an accurate, positive and helpful way of mental processing and decision making. Just not always. Definitely, not always.

We can make errors, small and significant, with either-or conclusions. So can other people and when that happens, there are times, for example in conflict, that it can be highly damaging to trust, our reputation and well being, professionally and personally.

Yael Schonbrun, a clinical psychologist and faculty at Brown University, recently wrote an article in her Substack newsletter that highlights this common thinking trap. She titled her work, Your Brain on Moral Tinder.

“In moments where a little nuance could help us repair and reconnect, our brains often default instead to oversimplification,” Schonbrun wrote.

Yes, sometimes disagreements and conflict are simple. Sometimes, they are much more complex, as are the people involved. People forget, dismiss or reject that truth.

This article is not about addressing the objectively worst behavior and people. It’s about much more common stress, challenges and problems.

The Swiping that We Do

Kurt Gray is social psychologist and researcher who studies our deepest held beliefs and how to bridge the moral divides that drive conflict, intolerance and outrage

Schonbrun helpfully introduces us to social psychologist Kurt Gray’s research and findings on moral typecasting. Here’s what it is and why it’s important:

“It’s basically a description of how our brains automatically sort people in conflicts,” she wrote. “Two simple profiles are most easily available to us: innocent victim (swipe right, usually starring us) and merciless villain (swipe left, whoever made us feel bad).”

That seems convenient for us, doesn’t it, if we’re doing the typecasting and cast ourselves as the innocent victim (which can be true or maybe not). What though, when other people’s brains, maybe very subjectively and falsely, irrationally and illogically conclude that we’re the merciless villain? What then?

“I don’t care,” or something more vividly colorful, you may say.

Maybe you won’t be affected and thus, negatively impacted.

Maybe you will, however, because that happens too.

Consider Emotional, Psychological Reactions

“To see this in action, just reflect on your last heated discussion,” Schonbrun wrote.

“Were your initial thoughts something like, ‘You know what? This person is making some really valid points here?’ Or was it more like, ‘This person is the worst and I am obviously the only reasonable one in this relationship?’”

If we’re sound thinkers, we’ve likely given credit where credit is due when it comes to other people when they are communicating facts and context well, if not immediately, then soon thereafter. If we’re much more emotional thinkers, we might be more fiercely biased and reactionary. This goes for other people too, of course.

Know and Remember

“When we’re hurt or morally outraged, our brains don’t do nuance very skillfully or naturally,” Schonbrun informed readers. “What they do with stunning efficiency is (either-or, black-and-white, good-or-evil) binary swiping.”

You may have experienced this with people, where in an exchange, you see an immediate negative reaction to you from a seemingly polite or innocuous moment.

“Gray’s research reveals something even more concerning about what happens during our mental swiping sessions,” Schonbrun detailed:

• Swipe-left profiles (them): We see (people) as emotionless robots with complete control over their actions but zero capacity for genuine suffering — basically, psychological catfish who deliberately chose to be terrible.

• Swipe right profiles (us): Vulnerable souls with authentic feelings who hurt deeply but had no real choice in how we got here.

We can be the ones being perceived and judged as the uncaring or cruel robots who are “choosing to be terrible” when that isn’t factually and objectively true. When this is how we are being experienced and labeled in people’s minds, they might decide we need to suffer as much as they can legally, socially get away with doing.

That’s a very dangerous place to exist. For some, it can a violent, deadly place.

Treacherous Territory

“Each side sees its own complex, nuanced profile while reducing opponents to obvious left-swipe rejects,” Schonbrun argued.

You can see how, in any interaction or relationship, this can become highly problematic for us (and others) as individuals, as well as for group dynamics.

“The pattern shows up everywhere,” Schonbrun stated:

• “They’re hypocrites!” (while our contradictions represent growth and learning)

• “They can’t hear reality!” (while our defensiveness is justified)

• “They started this whole mess!” (while our escalation is a necessary response)

While she focuses on our errors, which is something we would benefit from pausing to deeply think about, this article is about when other people are acting in this way.

You’re in, figuratively speaking, alligator-infested waters with people who could very well be instinctively bent on doing you harm.

The Analogy

“It’s like trying to understand a novel by only reading the first and last sentences and assuming that the middle is just fluff,” Schonbrun wrote. “Word to the wise: the middle is where the complexity that allows us to make sense of the beginning and end lives.”

Ever had to explain yourself to a third party with authority and power? Ever been judged on incomplete narratives, similar to “first and last sentences” or people’s communication that begins and ends where it is advantageous solely to them?

What happened?

You possibly, ignorantly and more likely, illogically, got “swiped left.”

Valuable Questions as a Potential Remedy

Schonbrun presented some questions to help on our end, which is all that we can control. Hopefully, they will also become known and utilized by those who may be “sorting” us in a way that doesn’t accurately reflect our actions and character.

• What complexity might I be missing here?

• What would it look like if the person I’ve swiped left on actually had understandable reasons for their position?

• How might I change my actions or words if I knew the other side felt vulnerable and scared?

• What if my own “side” had some blind spots or unintended consequences I hadn’t considered? How would I want to act in that situation?

Reputation cuts can be minor or severe. Or an accumulation of many “lesser” injuries may have resulted in big issues for other people and consequently, us.

With the knowledge that Schonbrun and Gray communicated, maybe we can falsely judge people less frequently and intensely.

If we can recognize or come to learn how others are falsely, harshly judging us, with what we’ve learned now, we can respond in ways to stimulate deeper thought in their minds with 1) actions that contradict their conclusions and judgment and 2) respectfully propose the questions that we read about in this last section.

I help people with the nuances of trust and reputation.

Professional Opinion, opportunity and risk analysis; reputation, decision and communication consulting and advisory. Various types of reputation communications.

Proactive and responsive strategy and decision making.

Message me here: