In boxing, the first gloves were strips of rawhide tied across the knuckles of Greek fighters circa 1500 BC. As the sport progressed, so did the intricacy and purpose of the gloves. In the mid 1800s, boxing gloves became a requirement for the sport. While early gloves evolved in padding and fit, most had laces that tightened around the wrist once the glove was in place. With the development of Velcro, however, came choices for the ring.

The biggest reason people choose Velcro is ease. Velcro allows the boxer to put gloves on unassisted, with no need for another person to be present. However, the fit is looser and less precise than laces. Laces allow for a unique fit versus the universality of Velcro, but must be tightened by another for them to be effective. It shows how the gloves, the symbol of the fight, are literally hinged on the help of others.

Much like boxers, reasonables lean on the hands of others to truly gear up for entering the political arena. Although boxers enter the ring alone, they do not enter without others who can back them up, hold them up, and encourage them to continue the fight. Just like boxers, reasonables need to break in their gloves, test their theories, and put practice into action. This isn’t easy work, nor is it something to be perfected. Perhaps refined, perhaps honed, but no fighter will ever face the same fight more than once, as no reasonable will enter the same argument more than once.

We are complex beings with droves of experiences, bookcases of stories, and myriad emotions. We are too big to be condensed and too small to be enlarged. We are the ultimate paradox. We are rarely fully predictable or fully erratic. We are, well, human. Fighting for what we believe to be right and good according to our own constructs, beliefs, or foundations. We are both David and Goliath, the fighter and the giant, swinging with confidence and trepidation. We are very rarely just one, and almost always both and everything in between. Because of that, it is hard to predict what will be in the ring, so instead of trying, it is best to learn a framework that is adaptable and agile, like a well trained boxer.

LACE UP is what reasonables do before entering the ring. They must LEARN, ASSESS, CONSIDER, and ENTER with the understanding that it is UP to us to engage. If we don’t, the echo chambers only continue to expand. Giving in or over to cynicism or the believe that our voice won’t be heard over the noise is complacency at its worst. If a boxer enters with indifference, she will be knocked out. If a boxer enters without a sense of curiosity, he can and will be blind-sighted by a well-placed punch. Reasonables don’t have to take on every fight, every criticism, every woe or wrong. Instead, they have to commit to the ones they care about.

Spotting a Reasonable

Don’t look for superhero cloaks or powers. Don’t look for godliness or holiness. Don’t look for abnormal or different. Reasonables are normal people walking in the masses like you and me. They laugh, they are irreverent, they are judgmental, they are kind, they are emotional, they are human. And in all those moments, they are also seeking understanding and connection. Reasonables rest in the shadows of grey and become uncomfortable in binary arguments that lack imagination. They have come to accept there is no arrival, only death, and that means the constant of change is an opportunity to practice adaptability that makes room for vulnerability, empathy, and a sense of willingness.

Often, vulnerable conjures up pictures of fear, loneliness, or weakness. We see the submissive dog rolling onto its back, showing its vulnerable belly indicating it isn’t a threat. Reasonables aren’t submissive or victims. They are people willing to be seen, will show their whole self, flaws and all, and seek to connect with others. The extensive work of Sociologist Dr. Brene Brown around shame and whole-hearted living has highlighted the importance of vulnerability. In her book, Daring Greatly, she states that vulnerability is the birthplace of courage, love, and joy. Vulnerability has often been cast as a weakness or a shortcoming, but in truth, those who are vulnerable have the ability to become empowering, humble leaders.

Self is not perfect, it has not arrived, and it cannot be bought.

This sense of openness that comes from being vulnerable creates a safety for others. Fragility or perfection are not associated with vulnerable reasonables. They are constantly in the process of shedding societal messages that promote a false sense of self. Self is not perfect, it has not arrived, and it cannot be bought. Therefore, reasonables take a stance of curiosity, compassion, and an honest desire to understand. Vulnerability invites us to be enough, to shed a sense of superiority or righteousness, and listen intently to what others offer the world.

It is not easy and it is a daily practice of reminding ourselves that we are confidently enough and what we offer should be shared. The most vulnerable are also who history deems the most brave or transformative. In art, Pablo Picasso was remarkably open about his contribution to art, “I could draw like Raphael when I was young, but it has taken me my whole life to learn to draw like a child.” Picasso, born a gifted artist, recognized that his chosen art, Cubism, took hours of practice and did not come easy to him. He also collaborated with other artists to create Cubism and make it a place in art history. Brene Brown says, “vulnerability sounds like truth and feels like courage.” Reasonables ask what their truth is and know where it comes from. They are experts in their own ideas, are courageous to share their ideas and be open to hearing others.

Empathy isn’t about fully relating to someone’s unique circumstances. Empathy is about understanding. To understand is to relate to an element of the situation and consider what those circumstances would feel like. Atticus Finch says it best in To Kill a Mockingbird, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” reasonables don’t think that they could possibly understand every element to a person’s situation, but they do pause to relate and consider how this situation could make one feel.

Unfortunately we have response patterns that diminish the ability to understand. When in a heated discussion, as a de-escalation tactic, people may respond with, “I understand your frustration, but…” there are two glaring problems with this phrase within the context of crucial conversations.

This phrase is taught as a tactic. It will be delivered without thought much like our response to the question, “How are you?” The automation of “fine” as an answer underscores how detrimental using any line, especially one with supposed empathetic language in it, can be. Using taglines as a tactic sets a person up to be automated, more concerned about their next line rather than responding appropriately to what was expressed. In fact, the more the phrase, “I understand,” is repeated, the more it negates actual understanding and builds frustration with others.  The conversation becomes misaligned between meaning and action. Donna Flagg writes in her article, When Words and Behaviors Don’t Match, “If our external self has not developed a relationship with our internal self, they will operate independently until we actively begin to familiarize them with one another and integrate.” If the internal self is not activated to self assess, listen, consider, and reign in the external self, then we will continue to give formulaic answers where thoughtful responses belong.”

The second problem is with the conjunction “but.” Communications studies have proven that anything said after the word “but” in a sentence negates that which precedes it. “I understand your frustration, but if you would just calm down and listen…” or, “You are clearly upset, but there isn’t anything I can do about it,” or “I see your point but I am wondering about this other perspective.” The result of the words, is not actual understanding or connection, rather a twisting and dismissing the claim or concern. Often “but” represents a dismissal, a discrediting, or a defensive attitude that is counter to the encouragement of reasonable discourse meant to further understanding and empathy.

Empathy and understanding are not synonymous. Understanding does not always encapsulate empathy. To have empathy for another is to recognize all aspects of a person’s situation without projection of one’s own experiences. To empathize is to see the circumstances, recognize the differences of this particular experience, and holistically comprehend how that exact moment must feel for the other person. Understanding is following the logical reasoning and validating that, indeed, you understand the situation, the purpose of the comments, the instructions given.

One of the rawest units I taught was on white privilege. As people started having vulnerable conversations about experiences with bias and racism, a division naturally formed. People of color talked about conversations in which they were asked where they were from, no really where are you from and their answer of Minnesota was disappointing. Another talked about how it feels to explain over and over why he is in a wheelchair. And another talked about being trailed in stores because she is black. Then a caucasian male student said, “But I don’t understand,” and his peer, an Iranian-American Muslim woman said, “It’s okay. How could you possibly understand?”

After class he came to me and said, “I’m white.” as if it was a discovery. He felt guilty, he felt unsettled. I reassured him that he had nothing to feel guilty about and instead to think about what his privilege afforded him. I asked if he ever felt guilty for being tall. He shook his head no. Privilege is like that, it isn’t something you claimed or took from someone, it is something you have. So what will you do with it?  

He nodded and walked away. The class continued to talk for the next three weeks and he would bring questions and grapple with his feelings about his privilege and the lack of access for others. He wasn’t trying to be anything he wasn’t. Instead, he was trying to understand how others must feel when denied what he could easily, and had, taken for granted. At seventeen, this student was diving into humanity and wanting to understand his place and his peers’ places within the sea. He continued to ask questions, he continued to read and learn. He considered what he offered the conversation as a white male.

He is one of my favorite reasonables. His want for empathy and his dedication to understanding are admirable and brave. He made himself vulnerable. He observed, and he listened.

Goalies are a special breed. It doesn’t matter what sport, they are the last person between the other team and the goal. Their actions determine whether it results in a win or loss. Both my boys play lacrosse. The youngest has wanted to play goalie since he started. At first, he asked once at the beginning of the season and then let it go. He continued to play wherever the coaches put him and gained confidence and skills on the field, but he still wanted to be in goal. His third year of play, he asked coach to put him in goal every day at practice and at every game. It didn’t often happen, but when he finally got in the goal, he let his instincts take over. Because he is willing to take shot after shot, and doesn’t let a score affect the next shot, he is a really good goalie. He gets into the zone where he acts on trained instinct.

When we talk after a game, he talks about the speed, form of the shooter, or bounce of the ball change the way he responses. He is willing to put in the time to study the sport, willing to practice hours on his ball handling skills, and is curious about how field dynamics change the energy of the game. Reasonables, as they enter contentious conversations need to have the willingness of a goalie. The trained ability to activate LACE UP and respond to what they see on “field” or in the “ring.”

Learning starts with an openness to possibility. The possibility that we always have room and capacity to learn something new. That openness leads to curiosity for the sake of understanding without an agenda. Within the context of reasonables, staying open and learning objectively helps build empathy.

Kelly Lyndgaard explained to a group of women in Minnesota how she sat in church and did not expect to have her entire life’s purpose shift when she learned about the Walter Hoving Home, a women’s center for recovering addicts, but she knew it had. A piece of her heart, filled with judgement for those who suffer from addiction or find themselves in prison, quickly emptied and made way for a passionate response to a simple question, “How will I raise the money necessary to support these women as they recover?”

Her answer came in the form of a purse.

Kelly took apart a jacket she inherited from her grandfather to make into a bag and honor him by using it, instead of having it hang in the back of the closet. She breathed life into the lifeless and that spark became Unshattered.

Unshattered, a 501c3, helps women in the Hoving Home learn valuable job skills as they continue their personal journeys on the road of recovery. Established in 2013, Kelly started by teaching women to sew. By 2016, the staff of Unshattered took custom orders for family heirlooms, were commissioned to create bags out of old fatigues for West Point, and were creating art inception with Broadway backdrops.

Kelly took what she learned and didn’t look away. She pushed into the pain of these women’s stories and became determined to show them their worth one stitch, one purse, one dollar at a time. This is what willing can result in: changed lives for all, not some. She was willing to be open to learning about the struggle and journey of addiction and get curious about how she could help. The same sort of curiosity we expect to see in a research lab.

The best part of Research and Development (R&D) is that the expectation is to get it wrong before getting it right. Labs are beautiful places where any question or hypothesis is welcome. Consider the scientists on the big screen. When something goes wrong, they don’t throw in the towel and walk away, instead they say, “Curious,” and then try to figure out why it happened the way it did. Reasonables recognize that every idea cemented as belief and called truth is actually grounded in perception. If given new, trusted information, beliefs can shift. It doesn’t mean that we are hypocrites or flaky, it just means that new evidence, new information, a new experiment, gave new results to consider with a sense of curiosity.

Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, original hosts of the Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters, demonstrate the level of curiosity needed by reasonables. In an interview with common sense media, Hyneman describes the premise of the show in saying, “Science, if that is what it is, is not reserved for people in lab coats. It’s something that involves questions and being methodical about getting answers. So anybody of any age that is simply curious can do that.” Although the show deals with questions mostly about the physical and tangible, the philosophy fits for reasonables. “The best we can hope for is to be thought provoking, and in many cases we are. Are we definitive about the answers we put out there about myths? No. But we pose some interesting questions and deal with those questions in creative ways, and hopefully that gets people thinking and we’ll be happy if it does.”

Reasonable are everyday people who are willing to take a breath and consider, is this a helpful response? They are the people willing to see anger as secondary to something deeper and more raw than the visceral reaction. They are the ones who pause, perhaps quietly disagree, and then back up arguments with sound examples and facts. reasonables can LACE UP quickly and discern when and how to enter the fray.

Sources Say Something

I watched Barack Obama's full speech at University of Illinois and was inspired. He is speaking reasonable language and talks about how progression is not perfection and finding common ground isn't mythical. Obama promotes a pursuit of better. If we pursue a politics that ensures better for all and not some, then we are facing progression. I knew I was going to post his speech, but then I read the youtube titles.

Barack Obama was accepting an award. An "ethics in government" award. Ethics. The conviction to morals. Morals. Standards of belief. In short, doing what one thinks is right. We hold different morals. We hold different ideals about right and wrong. We hold to a flowing code of ethics that will ebb and flow with the influx of experience. We are at a crossroads of ethical decisions. As a former journalism teacher, I hold the freedom of press and speech dearly and want it protected. So I was saddened when I went to grab a version of this speech, this speech in which Obama was receiving an award for ethical governing, when former President Obama was talking about the ethical decisions he took while in office was entitled with words like slams, rips, and bashes. Did he criticize what is happening in the White House? Yes. Did he acknowledge his bias as a Democrat? Yes. Did he slam no. Because he was receiving the Paul H. Douglas award honoring his ethics, his adherence to a moral code in which he believes when we all do better, we all do better.

Also, in his hour long speech, Obama encouraged people to learn from history, he shows how what we are facing is not unique, but it is extraordinary. He focuses on the necessity of every vote, regardless of beliefs, because each and every vote is what counts in the experiment of self governance and free democracy. But that was lost in headlines that included words like scathing, rebukes, and diatribe. 

We are asked to cut through a lot of noise. Where we grab our videos from, the sources we promote say something to someone everywhere. I did the best I could. I looked for a youtube title that indicated exactly what was happening, and I found it from Time. 

It is an hour that is worth your time, no matter what side of politics you resonate with. It is about voting, progress, and finding/standing on common ground.


The Polarizing Problem

The ability to select out of balanced news into an echo chamber is a concern for reasonable communicators, or reasonables. It doesn’t lead to a respectful conversation. The echo chamber effect has made it harder for reasonables to enter the ring for fear of a disrespectful, dirty fight, which is a result of people opting out of balanced inputs.



We are used to this bell curve in the blue, one that shows a moderate majority, but in October, 2017 we inverted.


With the inversion came the increase of polarization. The echo chamber effect, only hearing the arguments that agree with one’s own values, encourages insulated ideals. Those ideals develop a false sense of comfort that bolsters biases and allows us to cut out what does not align with our values. Dr. Amit Sood, Professor of Medicine at Mayo Clinic and author says, “our [brain] system is biased to focus on the negative, threats, imperfections, [and] regrets.” When we meet someone for the first time, in seven seconds, we create a perception of them using our negative bias. Our negative bias kept us safe from potential threats and harm, which was important when saber tooth tigers walked the earth. As we evolved, we have less tigers—literal and perceived—to consider, but our brains still default to this outdated mode. What if we re-trained our brains to add an eighth second? What if in that eighth second we decided to question our negative bias to see if it was making a tiger where there wasn’t one?

Questioning our own beliefs or constructs, and considering what information we hinge them on, is vital to understanding others. Challenging known constructs is not a betrayal, it is a reflection that considers if a belief is still valid in our current circumstances. In his book, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck, Mark Manson states, “We shouldn’t seek to find the ultimate ‘right’ answer for ourselves, but rather, we should seek to chip away at the ways that we’re wrong today so that we can be a little less wrong tomorrow.” Certainty solidifies the polarized individual, and if left unchallenged, will make the person obsolete. History reveals new ways of thinking through research, technology, and archeology. If we open our minds and not immediately label a change in thought as hypocrisy, then we start to repeal the polarized oppositions and move toward an appreciation for different instead of a fear of other.

The problem indicates a stalling in progress. If we aren’t willing to hear and consider another’s perspective, we miss an opportunity to grow and learn. If we stand by and allow people to stay in their comfortable echo chambers, then we will miss opportunities to make gains as a society. When we LACE UP, we actively engage in the full conversation, we start to build up the bridges between the two extremes, and we bump the middle of the bell curve up. The middle is indicative of the reasonables, which is where they will rise: in the middle of the ring, seen.

Intro continued

I taught high school English for sixteen years. We discussed big issues, debatable issues, value-based issues. We did so with reason and civility. I taught through the rise of social media, cyber-bullying and snapchat. We talked about those issues too. There wasn’t one year that was better at it than another. There wasn’t one class in which the art of discourse was their birthright. They studied communications. They studied value propositions. They became artists of the spoken word and skilled orators.

And it didn’t come easy. There were heated moments when they wanted to fall back on logical fallacies like name calling (ad hominem) or diversionary tactics (non-sequitur) so they could release the boiling emotion that comes from feeling challenged, not heard, or the tiny rip in their viewpoint that allows for another’s perspective to be equally valued and “right.”

We had moments when students would excuse themselves to walk it off. We had moments in which I would table the conversation for the day so they could take time to reflect on why it was getting heated. When we returned the next day, they had rich, deep thoughts about the nuance of definitions and compromises to the either/or fallacy that had created a divide in the class.

When I walked down the hall from the classroom and entered conversation with others, it became clear that societally we were less intentional about communication and, perhaps, were taking all the avenues of inputs and outputs for granted. When the internet opened up the global library, it was like a firehose of information, and nearly impossible at that speed to figure out what was worthy and creditable. It hurt when we stood in front of the stream and it knocked us over. We built throttles through filters so we could narrow the stream, decrease the intensity, and get closer to the information we were seeking. It was a brilliant and detrimental tool we created. We could decrease the pressure of information to a trickle from only the sources that resonated with our current values and eliminate any counter arguments.

Photo by  Davide Cantelli  on  Unsplash

We created an insular chamber in which only our current viewpoints bounced off the walls echoing and validating our stance over and over. These echo chambers are pulling people apart and perpetuating the either/or arguments and fueling anger, resentment, and fear. Unfortunately, we have a tendency to destroy what we do not understand so we preserve what is known, even if it isn’t good for us. Afraid of spiders? Kill them, even if it is a daddy long legs, that actually isn’t a spider at all and doesn’t bite. Afraid of snakes? Kill them. Even if it is a garter snake, that isn’t dangerous to humans and eats small vermin and insects in the garden. But when we don’t understand something, and we react without thought or on assumptions (all spiders and snakes are bad), we destroy and create divides.

As I listened to those around me, I heard the echo chamber sayings bouncing around, but no true dialogue happening. When I looked, I saw people closed off, hiding behind their chamber walls, hurling anger bombs haphazardly with no concern where they landed. They created craters and uneven ground. They created fear and distrust with people never truly seen or heard. They created divides.

The art of communicating has been studies and written about for centuries, it isn’t a new concept, but like unused muscles, our ability to artfully communicate can and will atrophy without practice, without concentrated effort. If isolated to the walls of a classroom, we will not make gains or solve important problems that are complicated and require many perspectives. Effective communication does not mean everyone is in agreement or that people will leave hand in hand. It is about reasonable reactions, knowing when to walk it off, when to counter, or when to stand strong. Reasonable, effective communication respects people like boxers do in the ring.

When boxers enter the ring, they size each other up. They test their own strategy to see what will land and what will be deflected. They are learning their opponent’s style to understand how to counter, how to attack, and how to ultimately win. Professional boxers do not jump off the ropes swinging and hoping something lands. Great matches are equal, fair, and respectful. Wins for boxers are not just knock outs. Wins are a result of hours of practice, strategy, and focus. A win is not about humiliation or below the belt hits. A win is built on a foundation of respect for the sport and for the opponent. When boxers lace up to enter the ring, they do so with a plan and a goal, but remain open to learn from their opponent, to understand their stance and their strategy. It is a nuanced dance, much like the art of communicating.

In echo chambers, it is easy to lob anger bombs and think one is in the ring. But throwing slurs and digs are coward moves well outside the ropes of the ring. To enter the ring indicates a boxer has the skills and confidence to face an opponent. At that moment, they are fully seen. We, as communicators must be fully seen and not hide behind our chamber walls.

It isn’t good for our society to perpetuate echo chambers and polarized behavior by standing complacently by. However, if I wasn’t equipped to enter the ring, I would avoid it as well. What was it we did in the classroom, and was there a way to make it accessible to others? That is where this series of posts came from, a desire to give people, reasonables, the tools needed to enter the ring and be seen.

In the following posts you will find a quick acronym to practice so when the boxing rings of arguments arise, you feel confident to enter the conversation, assess your opponent, make room for their skills, and dance the nuanced dance of discourse and communication. I see our goal or win in these rings as consistent assessment. Did I learn something about my opponent? Did I learn something about myself? When we LACE UP, we enter the ring respectfully and reasonably prepared. We Learn, Assess, Consider, and Enter the ring recognizing that it is UP to us to bridge the polarized oppositions, to create a place for honest and considerate discussions, with the hope of mutual understanding.

Rise of the Reasonables: Intro

On November 8, 2016, millions of people went to bed  confused. What did we miss? How did Donald Trump take the lead when all of the polls and commentary showed he would not win? People went to bed confused, and woke up stunned. No matter which side of the aisle you sat on, there were questions. What signs did the media, pollsters, and statisticians miss? How did the pattern of politics take such an abrupt turn? I became curious and started examining my experience and that of others. What changed in this election? What elements were so different that they threw off the usual predictors? How did we collectively miss what now seems so obvious?

In the short story, “The Destructors,” Graham Greene shows the devastation caused by holding on to the past. Statements like, “It was better when…” or, “If we could only return to a simpler time…”, are indicators of a false sense of security—a desire to escape the present day because of some sense of disillusionment or discomfort. The Destructors, a group of surly pre-teens led by Trevor, tore down Old Man Thomas’s house that had survived the WWII bombings in London when nothing else did. The house stood among the rubble and ruin as a symbol of what was and not what could be. As long as it stood, the rest of society, broken and devastated by the war, could not fully move forward.

“And destruction after all is a form of creation.” There is no going back, making “great again”, or returning to “like it used to be.” Those are status quo statements littered with fallacies and contradictions. The morning after the election I felt like Old Man Thomas at the end of the short story, staring at his house, now a pile of broken wood and buried memories. My ideas were built on a faulty foundation and I didn’t know it until they were a pile in front of me.

I started to read. I started to research. I had to know why I had been so confident in a Clinton victory when Trump took the win in the end. How did it happen, and how did I not see it? I was in my own echo chamber, filled with ideas that indicated that Clinton would win. I prided myself on being a moderate and a consumer of neutral news sources, but somehow, I missed something. Perhaps, I was caught up in the projections and I wasn’t paying attention to what was happening in the moment. There was an uprise to the perceived destruction caused by the Obama administration. Fear and cynicism had taken root in an America that I wasn’t in touch with and was blinded to by my own privilege. I was not present in the perspectives surrounding me, I was present only in my Old Man Thomas house, in my own echo chamber.

This process of being present outside of the echo chamber ensures that we won’t be trapped by polarized thought processes. We can’t just be Old Man Thomas, holding onto the house and the nostalgia that goes with it, and we can’t just be Trevor, pulling down an outdated past. Instead, we must be interested in understanding the need to hold onto and the need to destroy. If we search for the ability to relate versus trying to win or convince, then we build understanding. I knew people who did this, and we have people who are like this all over history as well. They are people who are vulnerable, empathetic, and willing. They embody the qualities of a reasonable communicator, or reasonable, and I wanted to be one.