I’d like to especially thank Jocie DeVries, a wise woman, who has hung in there and tried several ways to explain her thinking. She is a woman whose judgment in the past has been good, but she is happily a Trump supporter. (Keep reading. We’ll get there.) I know Jocie as a very intuitive person who has learned to navigate this world just fine relying on her intuitive skills. She explained to me that when she listens to Trump she feels very loving vibes. Huh? Trusting Jocie, I’ve tried to listen more with my intuition. Jocie is right. Believe it or not, Trump does give off a vibe that feels very kind and compassionate. There is something boyish and gentle in the feelings he gives off. This is a real thing. If one bases their decisions on finding those who give off kind, loving, compassionate vibes, they may focus on Trump’s ability to give off this sweet, innocent energy and see him as a benevolent father type. Finding kind loving people and putting them in charge is a valid method for preserving our resources and our future.
Unlike Jocie, most of the time, I need to calm myself and deliberately shut down some processes in order to feel what is happening around me. Now, sometimes the emotional drama around me is so high, I have trouble shutting it out, but for something like choosing a political candidate, I take in information through reading, only occasionally attending a speech or watching TV. While I can access my intuitive side enough to recognize and understand the same things Jocie feels, I also rely heavily on my analytical reasoning skills to analyze the pros and cons of a candidate.
My analytical side looks at the meaning of the words and disregards how they are spoken. My analytical side remembers the rule, “In an ambiguous situation what one person says another is doing, is what they themselves are doing.” I want data, facts, procedure, who, what, why, where, when and how. My analytical side is rabidly adamant about social justice. This side analyses long chains of cause and effect. I dredge up history. I read philosophy and religious teachings. I love science and pull from all I’ve learned, especially about social sciences. My analytical side requires that trust and respect be earned through actions. While I can sense the theme of compassion others hear coming from Trump, my analytical side tells me to reserve judgment until I see what this guy is going to do.
Working with Jocie and the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Family Resource Institute, I learned the value of her intuitive thinking. She led us through a massive jungle of agencies and programs as she looked for the right people to give those with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome the services they needed. She found the most powerful people she could to help us spread the word. She did an amazing job of sorting through those who could move us forward and those who would stifle the message.
Also, working with Jocie, I learned the value of having a balanced team of individuals with analytical skills. There were times I wondered if I’d have to post bail for the rest of the team. They managed to stay out of jail somehow. Maybe Jocie’s intuitive skills sounded the retreat before the cops arrived. Maybe Ann said, “Jocie, I don’t think we should be here. See those guards watching us?” Working together, we made some good progress in spreading the word about the dangers of drinking when pregnant. We realized that our balance of skill sets was essential to our educational efforts.
My concern for our nation is that we are not operating with a balanced skill set. We are divided between those who want data and those who pick up on a certain vibe and go with it. When we need to be working together, one side calls the other condescending or stupid. It doesn’t matter which side of the aisle you are on, you are going to get called condescending and stupid or worse. When the analytic people ask for data and procedure, the intuitive people are insulted that we don’t just trust and they take our lack of trust as a personal insult. When the intuitive people smile and say, “Just wait, this is going to work,” the analytical people have a melt down because they cannot see anything but disaster. In this climate it is no wonder the name-calling gets started.
I recognize we have experience and history that also divide us. We have other skill sets that divide us, but for me, the most baffling and understandable division is between two basically different innate approaches to facing our world. Differences in skill set are no more right or wrong than differences in eye or hair color. Recognizing people are different and seeking to validate different approaches to our environment, is the key to resolving all our conflicts.
The task of bringing both sides of the aisle together seems impossible. The drive to reject those who are different and think differently is reinforced on both sides of the aisle. Yet, really we are one people with different skills. How can we take that first step toward accepting those who are somewhat different? Can the intuitive people listen to the analytical people and find that vibe of compassion we carry? Can the analytical people look at the intuitive people and find the good works that they do?
As long as we remain divided, we will fail to reach the level of social justice and economic security both sides of the aisle are searching for. If we cannot get past these divisions then like in a failed marriage, we may need to go our separate ways. I wonder how many people are willing to accept the skill sets of others as valid in order to preserve our nation?