The Feeling vs. Thinking Problem
We all have emotional reactions to political news. That's normal and human. But there's a critical difference between having an emotional reaction and using that emotion as proof that something is true.
When we read a headline that triggers outrage, our brain produces a rush of cortisol and adrenaline. That neurochemical response feels like certainty. It feels like truth. But it isn't. It's just a feeling.
How Media Exploits This
Modern media understands this neurological response and uses it deliberately. Headlines are crafted not to inform but to trigger. The more outraged you feel, the more you click, share, and engage. The algorithm rewards emotional intensity, not accuracy.
Consider this: when was the last time you read a headline about Trump, felt a strong emotional reaction, and then paused to read the full article, check the original source, and consider an alternative interpretation? If you're honest, the answer is probably "rarely."
The 24-Hour Rule
One of the most powerful tools for breaking this cycle is the 24-Hour Rule. When you encounter a story that triggers a strong emotional response, wait 24 hours before forming a final opinion or sharing it.
In that 24 hours, the full context often emerges. Corrections are issued. Additional perspectives surface. And your own emotional state returns to baseline, allowing your rational brain to engage.
Practice Exercise
This week, try this: every time you feel a strong negative reaction to a Trump-related story, write down three questions before you react:
- What is the primary source for this claim?
- Have I seen the full context (full quote, full video, full document)?
- Would I apply the same standard of judgment to a politician I support?
These aren't trick questions. They're the same questions any good journalist should be asking. And if the story holds up under that scrutiny, then your reaction is well-founded. If it doesn't, you've learned something valuable about the source.
Found this useful? Help us keep going.