When 2021 came to an end, so did my term on the Fourth Judicial Nominating Commission. In 2016, I arrived at my first interview bald from recent chemotherapy treatments and concerned about whether cancer cells still lurked within my body. Six years later, I think less about cancer and more about the possibility that we are all marching like zombies toward either a civil war or an autocratic regime.

In prior messages, I have shared my rudimentary understanding of neuroscience, and why the realities we construct in our brains do not accurately represent the full picture of the outside world. When we experience an event simultaneously with others, each of us retrieves a unique set of data from that event, then subjectively interprets that data to create what we believe is an "objective" picture of what occurred. Some aspects of the event are never captured in our self-constructed versions of reality, and, problematically, we do not have a lot of conscious control over what is captured and what is ignored. We always construct our versions of reality in the way that aligns best with our individual expectations.

In addition to neuroscience, I have also clumsily written about peremptory strikes and the jury selection process - despite the fact that I do not practice criminal law and rarely find myself in a jury trial. I have ventured into these foreign realms (1) to highlight aspects of our judicial system that are heavily-impacted by the inherent subjectivity of our expectations and conclusions; and (2) to provide a plausible explanation for the increasing polarization of our communities.

My practice is focused on civil litigation, and I regularly disagree with opposing counsel about the proper interpretation of a statute or document. However, while I am typically confident in my interpretation and analysis, I would not argue to a court that opposing counsel is lying or acting dishonestly merely because they are advancing an argument that is entirely different from mine. Opposing interpretations and arguments are not dishonest or disingenuous simply because they do not align with our own understanding. Not in the courtroom, and not in the world.

We all view and understand things differently, and we have different opinions about pretty much everything. The science that explains why is readily available to us. I have noted that magicians understand these scientific truths, and lean on them to perform "magic." Other segments of our population also clearly understand the science - marketers and advertisers, those who control social media and cable TV news, and, of course, politicians. Traditional marketing and advertising seems benign when compared to social media, cable news, and politics. Like cults, the prominent actors controlling social media, cable news and politics play a significant role in shaping the realities being constructed in the brains of their "followers."

While we have always been a country built upon debate and a myriad of viewpoints, our current politicians, with the help of the media, work to stifle honest debate, vilify different viewpoints, and confine us to like-minded communities of thought. It has become a successful tactic to bundle together ideas and viewpoints, then argue that "real ________" agree with all of these bundled "truths." Blatant and intentional lies are regularly included among the "bundled truths," and the proponents of the lies simply tell their followers that if someone says differently, they are lying, and if something different is reported, it is "fake news."

Neuroscience explains why these tactics work, and the politicians, cable news outlets, and social media actors are counting on the rest of us keeping our heads in the sand, and questioning the sanity or integrity of friends, neighbors, or fellow-citizens who view even a single issue through a different lens. If we took the time to learn the science, we would expect different "realities" and we would strive to see a more complete picture. We might not change our opinions, but we would better understand why our fellow citizens view things differently.

I admittedly exist on the liberal side of the political spectrum. I went to school in Boulder and Austin, and I felt very validated in those communities. Moving to Colorado Springs was the best thing that could have happened to me. The same friends and neighbors who brought meals when I had cancer hold views opposite from mine on every political issue ever conceived. If I listened only to media personalities and politicians who demonize those who think or believe differently, I would expect my friends, colleagues and neighbors to be self-serving, dishonest and hateful people. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply incorporate different data and expectations into the realities we construct in our brains every second of every day.

I agree that it is scary and unsettling to accept that we are never creating complete and accurate pictures of the world around us as we intercept data and create realities in our brains. However, it is a thousand times scarier to witness politicians and media personalities creating pre-packaged "realities" and implanting those packaged-realities into the brains of their followers. Politicians and other self-serving individuals are exploiting the science that the rest of us refuse to understand. We are quick to defend our homes, property and businesses from strangers who we believe intend to harm us in some way. Why are we giving polarizing institutions and individuals free access to our brains, allowing them to set up shop there, and assuming they intend to somehow "benefit" us?

I will return to discussing discrete aspects of our legal system which contribute to the inequality which exists in our system of justice. I have some ideas and suggestions I want to share with you this summer. However, it will be impossible to make any long-lasting or meaningful repairs to our legal system, if we are simultaneously destroying the viability of our democracy, our trust in one another, and any possibility of peaceful co-existence. Polarization has intended consequences, and the goal is not to benefit we the people.