Dualistic Opposites

To simplify the complicated world that we live in, each of our brain's has a tendency to reduce things into as few components as possible. The brain actually puts things into polarized dyads, or dualistic terms. Simply put, we automatically think in the form of opposites. Light and dark, happy and sad, right and wrong, good and evil, white and black, even Republican or Democrat... these are all things that we immediately recognize to be polar opposites of each other.

The brain may categorize things like this, but even before that, God created opposites. In the first few pages of the Bible, one would read that God created heaven and earth. He separates land from water and man from woman. And, with the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, outlines the difference between good and bad. God himself created these precedents.

Ironically, although they are opposites, they, together, represent a single concept. What I mean by that is, one side of an opposite doesn't exist independently of it's counter-part. This is because opposites are subjective, relative, and based on each other. Light is not light without a dark standard to compare it to. one would not ever be happy if he or she was never sad to give happiness any significance. Therefore, opposites depend on each other.

After a dyad is created, an emotional bias is assigned to each opposing force. Our mind is made up ahead of time when it comes to choosing sides between two opposites. Think about this: We root for superheroes, not villains. Some people like summer months more than those of winter, because it is hot while winter is cold. The opposite goes for other people. Everyone that voted in the recent presidential election chose a side to support with their vote.

In the area of Politics, the biological stereotyping done by the brain doesn't always work out for the best. I know that a good percentage of Americans distrust anything their opposing Political Party says. I'm sure that, on far too many occasions, citizens have already made up their mind on an issue based solely on their strict belief that their party will always be correct, and therefore don't even give the opposition's suggestions a chance. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, newly elected president Barack Obama shares his frustration on the topic:

"Maybe the critics are right. Maybe there's no escaping our great political divide, an endless clash of armies, and any attempts to alter the rules of engagement are futile. Or maybe the trivialization of politics has reached a point of no return, so that most people see it as just one more diversion, a sport, with politicians our paunch-bellied gladiators and those who bother to pay attention just fans on the sidelines: We paint our faces red or blue and cheer our side and boo their side, and if it takes a late hit or cheap shot to beat the other team, so be it, for winning is all that matters."

Because of this tendency of standing on the side of one political party on all topics, no matter what that party may stand for, I am in favor of the idea suggest by brother Joe Mignano at the Last Stop Blog, (http://http://laststopblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/21st-century-president.html) in which he suggests that Obama should send out emails to Americans informing them of policies and issues. This more personalized form of communication, which has never been used by a president before, could break down a Republican's belief that Barack Obama will always be wrong.

Unfortunately, the brain doesn't stop assigning emotional biases at superheroes, seasons, and politics. It can be said that this is the basis of racism and other prejudices. People in a group feel strongly that their group is better than another, as found in the research started in the 1970's by Henry Tajfel.

In fact, the day after Martin Luther King Jr. died, a school teacher, Jane Elliot, conducted an experiment with her students to show the poor effects of prejudism. Elliot divided her class, composed of all white children, into two groups: blue-eyed and brown-eyed children. On that first day, she told them that blue-eyed children were smarter, nicer and neater than those with brown eyes. She praised the blue-eyed children and even gave them special privileges. After a few hours, the blue-eyed children were already beginning to torment those with brown eyes, even former friends. On the next day, the teach told the class that she had been mistaken, and that students with brown eyes actually had the advantage. Academic performance declined in the group that was being told it was inferior on both days. After being told that their teacher had been lying the whole time, the students had a discussion of the effects of discrimination and how they felt when they were being suppressed.

The experiment was met with controversy from the townspeople, but students in the class admitted that they were taught a great deal of the pain of discrimination, and the importance of compassion. I only wonder, what if Hitler had been in the classroom at the time? Would the genocide against the Jews have ever happened? To Hitler, Jews were opposite from Aryans, and there came his desire to get rid of them. The point is that involuntary actions in the brain are carried out to simplify the world, and to help us understand one thing from another. However, these actions can cause the basis of prejudism, as well.