There is an old saying that goes, “birds of a feather, flock together.” It’s natural to seek familiarity and find like-minded people who share your point of view. And it’s not harmful, in an of itself.

Until it is.

And when it is, the topics are usually politics and religion. Seeking familiarity can lead to a narrowing perspective.

A narrowing perspective can lead to outside challenges of words and actions.

Challenges then lead back to the like-minded for validation. We seek affirmation, and more times than not, receive it. We look to information sources that we know validate our point-of-view because these same information sources are where we gain our perspective in the first place.

We post our views to social media. We receive “Likes” and “Hearts” and shares. We gain further validation of our point-of-view because so many others agree. The proof is on the screen right in front of our faces.

What we don’t realize is that the motive behind those who “Like”, “Heart” and share is probably the same as yours. They also are seeking validations.

We are addicted to being right and finding a “dealer” for our addiction is literally at our fingertips. After all, the platforms need repeat customers. Addiction is the fastest way.

An article in the Harvard Business Review from way back on February 28, 2013, titled, “Your Brain is Hooked on Being Right” makes a strong case.

It states: “In situations of high stress, fear or distrust, the hormone and neurotransmitter cortisol floods the brain. Executive functions that help us with advanced thought processes like strategy, trust building, and compassion shut down. And the amygdala, our instinctive brain, takes over. The body makes a chemical choice about how best to protect itself — in this case from the shame and loss of power associated with being wrong — and as a result is unable to regulate its emotions or handle the gaps between expectations and reality. So we default to one of four responses: fight (keep arguing the point), flight (revert to, and hide behind, group consensus), freeze (disengage from the argument by shutting up) or appease (make nice with your adversary by simply agreeing with him)…All are harmful because they prevent the honest and productive sharing of information and opinion.”

We see these scenarios playing out in greater frequency as rifts in political thinking grow more from ideology than from actual policy differences. The former focuses on the individual, the thoughts and belief they hold. The latter focuses on ideas to address a larger issue beyond labels and the people attached to them.

Sometimes the two merge and we see this happening now, but not with a positive outcome. When reaching consensus in politics fails, ideology is the likely club most often wielded to force compliance. When all else fails, morality and religion stand ready on deck. But what matters most is the coach in the game and how the team is managed.

How can we break our way out of this Echo Chamber? It’s difficult to tear down a structure of our own construction. It’s uncomfortable. It makes us vulnerable and it has been our habit to engage the cycle of seeking affirmation from our like-minded.

It isn’t easy, but it is possible.

Listen with empathy when we hear opposing views. Truly listen with an open mind. I know, it’s much easier said than done. I have the scars to prove it.

Take a moment or two and take an objective look at what we post online. Are we seeking affirmation? Do we count the number of “Likes”, “Hearts” and shares? Do we recognize the rush of cortisol and dopamine when it hits our systems as we check the numbers? Do we then post similar messages later in order to gain that rush?

Most importantly, have we changed our perspective about the people who respond to our posts? Do we think, “I thought he/she was smarter than that.”, or “I thought I knew them.”, or “He/she sure drank the Kool-Aid.”

There’s another old saying that goes, “If it is to be, it’s up to me.” It’s always the best place to start.