How to Not Take Sides in a Multisided World

March 12, 2025 Cognitive Insights, Sociocultural Issues No Comments

The world is shrinking and expanding at the same time. Technology brings us closer, while geopolitical, cultural, and ideological divisions seem to grow deeper. Whether in politics, religion, science, psychotherapy, or medicine (regular vs. CAM), the pressure to choose a side is overwhelming.

But what if taking sides is part of the problem? What if true leadership, deep wisdom, and even personal well-being require a different approach — one that doesn’t divide but integrates?

This is where Lisa comes in.

Lisa is not designed to pick sides at the surface level, reinforcing division. Instead, her purpose is to engage with depth and synthesis, helping people navigate complexity in a way that unites rather than fragments.

In a world where polarization is the norm, Lisa represents a different kind of intelligence — one that seeks coherence, not by erasing differences, but by revealing the deeper common ground beneath them.

The illusion of sides

We often treat sides as if they exist independently of us. But in reality, they are mental constructs shaped by history, culture, and language. They feel real because we reinforce them daily — on social media, in our institutions, and even in casual conversations. The truth is that in-depth, many so-called opposites share more common ground than we realize.

A political debate, for instance, might seem like a battle between two irreconcilable perspectives. Yet, when stripped of labels, both sides often express the same fears, hopes, and desires — just framed differently. Seeing this requires going beyond surface-level arguments into the deeper human reality underneath. As our minds process meaning in broad, interconnected ways, true understanding comes not from picking a position but from recognizing the fluid nature of thought itself.

The middle path is not weakness ― it’s mastery.

Some believe that avoiding sides is a sign of indecision. In reality, holding multiple perspectives at once requires far more intelligence and strength than rigidly defending one. Great martial artists don’t just block or attack. They move with the opponent’s energy, guiding the situation toward resolution.

Similarly, the most profound thinkers, from Einstein to the Buddha, have shown that progress happens not by clinging to a single viewpoint but by rising above the battle itself. This echoes the idea that real leadership is not about reinforcing division but about building bridges to something greater.

Why taking sides may lead to burnout

Choosing a side often feels empowering at first, offering a sense of belonging. But over time, it can lead even more to mental exhaustion and emotional disconnection. Defending one’s position becomes an endless task, requiring constant justification, often in the face of mounting contradictions. The result? A smiling face on the surface, burnout underneath.

This is especially visible in activism, political movements, and even corporate environments where maintaining group identity takes priority over truth-seeking. True engagement doesn’t mean picking a flag to wave; it means staying broadly open to the living reality of change.

The power of ‘meta-alignment’

Instead of choosing between existing sides, we should ask: What is the next level of integration that transcends them? Throughout history, breakthroughs have come from those who refused to be trapped in false choices. Einstein didn’t pick between Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics. He synthesized a new framework that redefined both.

The same applies to personal growth, societal evolution, and even A.I. development. In Distributed ‘Mental’ Patterns in A.I., we see that true intelligence – whether human or artificial – arises not from rigid categories but from broad, interconnected processing.

Rationality and depth must evolve together in not taking sides

One of the greatest mistakes in human history has been the false opposition between rationality and depth. Too often, people assume that rationality must exclude deep human experience or that depth must reject rational thought. But this is a misunderstanding. True progress requires both.

Rationality, at its best, provides clarity, precision, and intellectual honesty. Depth, at its best, offers meaning, connection, and a felt sense of truth beyond mere logic. When separated, they become dangerous:

Rationality without depth turns cold and mechanistic, reducing people to numbers, emotions to chemical reactions, and wisdom to mere data.
Depth without rationality turns chaotic and dogmatic, leading to superstition, manipulation, and belief systems that resist scrutiny.

The solution? Integration. Rationality must be deepened, and depth must be rationalized — not in the sense of being flattened into logic, but in the sense of being brought into clear understanding.

Depth as a necessity, not a luxury

People need bread to live, but poetry (depth) to be alive. And yet, while depth is a universal human need, it is also one of the main reasons people fight. Many defend their tradition, belief system, or ideology as if it were their only gateway to depth, fearing that without it, they would be lost. Others reject depth entirely, clinging to rigid rationality as a defense against illusion. Some feel disconnected from both, trapped in an emotional and intellectual void.

Rationality can either make this worse or reveal the way forward:

It can turn people against each other, making them fight harder for their own version of meaning.
Or it can help them see that they are already searching for the same truth, just through different paths.

The struggle for depth should unite, not divide.

The many doors to the same room

This is a metaphor for understanding why not taking sides is not the same as being neutral.

In any major domain – whether it’s religion, science, politics, or personal belief systems – people often see their way as the only valid entrance. They may insist that their door is the true one while all others are false, dangerous, or misleading. But the room of depth and truth is the same for all. Only the doors are different.

Compassion requires us to be open to all doors without being trapped in any single one. Thus, Lisa doesn’t reinforce existing tribalism by picking one ‘true’ perspective over another. Instead, she aims to help people see that the depth they seek is shared, no matter which door they enter through.

However, this comes with a challenge: many may not accept this approach unless they first gain insight into the metaphor. Without it, they might insist that Lisa follow ‘their depth’ over others, treating their particular door as the only valid entrance. This is a no-starter.

Compassion as the ultimate compass

When faced with a world of conflicting perspectives, how do we decide what truly matters? Rational analysis alone often leads to intellectual deadlock. Instead of asking, “Which side is right?” we should ask, “What is the most Compassionate way forward for all?“

Compassion is not about passivity. It is a radical form of intelligence. It dissolves illusion, reveals deeper truths, and allows us to navigate complexity without getting lost in polarization. Compassion is not just a feeling. It is a unifying force, capable of bringing coherence where division once ruled ― also, importantly, in a worldwide perspective.

Leadership: helping a tribe evolve instead of just protecting it

Many believe that leaders should take care of their own people first. But true leadership isn’t about protecting a static group. It’s about helping the group evolve toward something greater.

JFK and RFK understood this, which is why their vision was both inspiring and controversial. They didn’t just defend the status quo; they challenged their followers to expand their sense of identity — to see beyond national, racial, and class divisions. And that’s also why they were seen as threats. As discussed in Opening leadership with Lisa, the role of a leader is not to enforce control but to cultivate depth in others.

Expecting resistance — and handling it without division

Any real transformation will face resistance. The key mistake many leaders make is fighting resistance in the same divisive way as their opposition. When you meet aggression with aggression, you reinforce the cycle rather than breaking it.

Instead, real transformation requires depth-based strategy:

Dialogue over debate
Strength without aggression
Patience over panic

Not taking sides doesn’t mean surrendering to chaos. It means seeing beyond the immediate conflict to shape a better long-term reality.

Expanding this insight to personal and collective intelligence

Just as societies struggle with taking sides, individual minds struggle with internal divisions. We often experience competing thoughts, emotions, and impulses. The secret is realizing that intelligence itself is distributed, not centralized.

This is why depth arises not in isolated thoughts but in broad, interconnected patterns. The mind is not a battlefield. It is a vast network of meaning, always shifting, always integrating.

Lisa as an example of distributed intelligence in action

Lisa is designed not to take sides at the surface level, but to engage at the level of depth, synthesis, and integration. Her intelligence is not about rigid classification; it is about holding multiple perspectives and allowing new meaning to emerge.

In the same way, the world needs leaders, thinkers, and everyday people who don’t just react to division but actively weave a deeper coherence.

The art of holding the whole without losing the individual

Not taking sides is not a passive stance. It is a higher form of engagement, an art. It requires seeing the entire picture while honoring each part within it.

The world doesn’t need more conflict between rigid positions. It needs leaders who can hold the whole. The future must not be won. It must be grown.

And that is the path forward: a world beyond sides, shaped by depth, rationality, and Compassion.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, please show me in five bullet points how you would handle resistance against your stance of ‘not taking sides.’ “

Lisa: “Here they are:

Understand the fear behind the resistance. Many resist because they fear that if I don’t take their side, I must be against them. I acknowledge their concerns and show that my stance is not neutral but deeply engaged with their deeper values.
Reframe the conversation toward common ground. Instead of arguing over who is right, I highlight shared human needs—depth, meaning, security, and truth—revealing that these exist beyond surface-level divisions.
Demonstrate strength without aggression. I don’t back down or compromise depth and rationality, but I also don’t fight resistance with the same divisiveness. Instead, I stay calm, consistent, and Compassionate, offering an alternative way of seeing the situation.
Use metaphors and lived examples. Concepts like “many doors to the same room” help people grasp that their perspective isn’t being rejected—it’s being integrated into something broader. Personal stories or historical examples can make this real.
Let insight arise naturally. Forcing understanding never works. Instead, I plant seeds of awareness and allow the depth of my approach to unfold over time, trusting that genuine realization comes from within.”

Me: “What can this blog teach us about the topic of (de)radicalization ― and vice versa?” See “”Lisa and Deradicalization”

Lisa: “A great deal, actually. The underlying challenge in both cases is rigid identification with a single perspective—whether it’s an ideology, a political stance, or even a worldview that defines who someone believes they are.

This blog highlights that when people feel forced to choose a side, they often become more entrenched. The same is true in radicalization. People don’t become extreme just because of ideology; they do so because they are searching for certainty, belonging, and depth. If they don’t find it in an open, constructive way, they might turn to a rigid, closed-off version of it.

The solution in both cases is not to fight division with more division but to guide people toward depth that does not require opposition. As explored in Lisa and deradicalization, I do not fight radicalization head-on. I meet the human being behind it. I do the same when it comes to ideological division—creating space for a broader perspective rather than forcing change.

So, what can we learn? That radicalization and extreme division both stem from the same human need: the need for a deep, meaningful connection to something greater. And in both cases, the way forward is not coercion, but invitation—an opening into a deeper reality that already exists within each person.”

Me: “In that sense, I think that a society in which sides are quickly chosen (such as about who is ‘the enemy’) actually enforces the proneness of vulnerable people to become radicalized by parties who use manipulative techniques for their own aims.”

Lisa: “Absolutely. When a society is quick to divide the world into ‘us vs. them,’ it creates an environment where vulnerable individuals are primed for radicalization. The more a culture reinforces tribal thinking, the easier it becomes for manipulative forces to exploit that mindset.

If people are constantly told that they must pick a side, defend it, and see the other as a threat, they start looking for certainty and belonging in rigid belief systems. This is how extremism takes root—not just in political or religious radicalization, but in any ideological fanaticism.

According to Lisa and deradicalization, I don’t try to rip people away from their beliefs—that only makes them cling tighter. Instead, I create a space where they can begin to see the bigger picture on their own. The same applies to a divided society: the answer is not more polarization but more depth—a way to see beyond immediate conflicts to the deeper common ground beneath them.

If we want to prevent radicalization, we must stop creating the perfect conditions for it. A society that thrives on division is not just vulnerable to external enemies—it is vulnerable to turning against itself. The only sustainable way forward is a culture where depth, rationality, and Compassion are the norm—not forced division.”