A public moment that revealed a familiar pattern

A recent conversation between Soundos El Ahmadi and Bart Schols on Belgian TV made something visible that many of us recognize. The discussion shifted from women’s safety to a deeper question: what counts in a debate, lived experience or statistics?

In moments like this, people often end up talking past each other. One side experiences a reality so intensely that it feels undeniable. The other side responds by pointing to proof, numbers, definitions, and precision. And because both sides think they are protecting the truth, the conversation hardens and stagnates.

What stayed with me:

Feelings aren’t proof. They’re signals to explore, then ground in data.

Soundos made that crystal-clear. A small moment that shows what our debates often miss: signal first, then proof.

A polarized society running on “my truth”

I hear it more and more: “This is my truth.”

I understand why the phrase is attractive. It protects something fragile: your experience, your perspective, your feelings. But there is a trap in it, too.

In many debates today, feelings have become the endpoint when they should be the starting point. We mistake emotion for evidence. And that is exactly where conversations derail.

When we treat feelings as absolute truth, we do not become more human. We become harder to talk to. Discussions turn into a standoff:

• My experience versus yours

• My outrage versus yours

• My certainty versus yours

And when this becomes the default, “fake news” becomes a convenient shutdown button that everyone can use.

The result is not clarity. It is a deadlock.

And the reason this pattern is so common is deeply human.

Why our brains make this mistake so easily

Emotions are fast. They are designed to mobilize us, protect us, and help us act in the face of uncertainty.

Facts are slower. Evidence requires time, distance, and often discomfort.

When fear or uncertainty rises, we naturally reach for simple stories and immediate certainty. We scan for danger. We anchor to the present. We look for control.

This is not a moral failure. It is a feature of being human.

But if we want to move forward together, we need a way to honor feelings without treating them as truth.

In future-thinking work, we see the same mechanism at scale.

From emotional reality to anticipatory clarity

In our Minds of Tomorrow work, we name a related trap: presentism.

The instinct, especially in anxious times, is to anchor thinking and planning in “the reality of today”, either as a continuation of what we are seeing or a worsened version of it. It is very human. It is also, historically, often the wrong move.

The mechanism is simple: when we get trapped in today’s emotional reality, we become reactive. We respond to the loudest emotion, not the underlying reality. We design statements, policies, and opinions for today’s heat, while tomorrow is already forming underneath.

This insight is relevant for society, too.

That is why our stance at Innate Motion is:

Feelings are signals, evidence helps interpretation, and action should be built on both.

Yes, it makes sense to respond when people feel nervous and uncertain. But the moment you assume that today’s mindset will still be true in five years, you are in trouble.

The same goes for conversations. If we treat today’s emotional temperature as the full truth, we will keep repeating the same arguments, only louder.

In other words:

Treat emotion as a signal, not as a verdict.

From stalemate to signal function

If, like us, your goal is to Humanize Business, this is one of the most practical mindshifts you can make:

Stop debating feelings as if they are final answers, and start using them as information about where to look.

A simple practice helps.

Start by naming the signal without absolutizing it. Language like “This feels unsafe” or “This creates anger” preserves the human truth of experience without turning it into a universal conclusion.

Next, ask what the feeling is pointing at. Feelings are rarely random. They often point to a pattern people are experiencing, a risk they are anticipating, a mismatch between values and reality, or a loss of trust in systems, institutions, or leadership.

Then ground it in evidence before you conclude. Bring in data (quantitative and qualitative), contextual detail (who is impacted, where, how often), and mechanisms (what is driving the pattern).

Only then does it make sense to form an opinion and decide on the next course of action.

This is how empathy and clarity can coexist.

Human does not mean reactive

We do not become more human by treating emotions as the absolute truth. We become more human when we respect emotions as signals, then do the work of understanding what they point to, together.

Empathy first. Evidence next. Action with responsibility.

A quick self-check for the next heated conversation:

Are we reacting to a peak moment, or responding to a pattern?

And what would an anticipatory response look like beyond today’s emotional reality?

We need more voices willing to name the pattern, and more people willing to meet that with evidence instead of defensiveness. Only then will we jump over our differences and feel the need to grow together.