How frames of reference could heal our divides
We live in a world split into sharp edges. Everyone has opinions – probably more than we’d care to admit. And much of that, let’s be honest, is the work of social media doing what it does best: packaging a message that’s quick, loud, and persuasive.
Facts? Experience? Context? Those often take a back seat. What we get instead are tiny bursts of crafted logic, sharpened emotion, and catchy rhetoric. They land in our feeds on TikTok, Reels, Shorts – repeated, echoed, amplified. Before long, we’re not really choosing what we believe. We’re being nudged.
And then come the silos. One click, one follow, and suddenly you’re in a bubble where only one version of reality is served. Day after day, spoon‑fed. If you don’t have the time – or haven’t been taught – to question, to test the other side’s argument, to gather facts beyond your “team’s” talking points, you become part of the split that’s tearing the seams of our society.
It plays out everywhere: radicals versus traditionalists, truth seekers versus “liars,” Democrats versus Republicans, left versus right. Each side convinced the other is wrong, if not dangerous. The mechanism itself is the problem. It’s powerful, and those in power know it. That’s another story.
But here’s a thought I stumbled upon in The Let Them Theory by Mel Robbins (with Sawyer Robbins): the author talks about a simple but surprisingly practical tool—the “frame of reference.” Instead of launching straight into “facts” or “truths,” you start by explaining where you’re coming from. What shaped your view? What experiences led you here?
Imagine it this way: if I start a conversation about parenting by telling you about challenges I faced as a father – or even about struggles from my own childhood – you’ll hear my opinions on children differently. Or if I share that I was mistreated by a priest as a kid, my sharp views on the church suddenly carry a different weight. The opinion hasn’t changed. The frame of reference has.
Maybe that’s the beginning of better conversations. Not “What do you think?” as the first question, but “Who are you? Where are you coming from?” Then, only then, “What do you think?” It won’t erase the divides overnight. But it might soften the walls just enough for us to see each other as people first, partisans second. And that feels like a start.