Reeling from the results of the election, millions of Americans are feeling the empty space between one another. This must change. Discourse about our differences, about what makes us American, and how to compromise and empathise with one another must be a priority in the years to come. How can we possibly come together to face the challenges of the modern world when we can’t see across the canyon between us? Below I discuss what neuroscience data adds to this discussion. However, it is only one side of one part of a multi-faced and complex relationship dividing the country. Make no mistake, the onus is on each one of us to look up from our reinforced beliefs we wrap ourselves in and into the eyes of someone we feel distanced from. The Wall Street Journal just published a feed-by-feed stream of Facebook posts highlighting what liberals and conservatives would see, this is a step in the right direction.

In the final weeks leading to the election several people were caught committing voter fraud. “I wasn’t planning on doing it twice. It was a spur of the moment” one woman told Iowa public radio. “The Polls are rigged.” She cited a fear of her first vote being automatically counted for Hillary Clinton. While the number of voters committing fraud is so small it had no effect on the outcome, it provides a tangible example of how disenfranchised Trump supporters respond to their candidates repeated talking points. Just like his claims about a broken American economy and illegal immigration, voter fraud is empirically a non-issue. The Trump campaign highlights a growing trend of post-truth politics (see Brexit, UK). His supporters are scared and feel farther than ever from democrats. Mainstream media clearly underestimated this anger towards the establishment. Voters felt their jobs had been pushed away by a growing corruption in Washington that had little empathy for them. Mr. Trump thrives on the perceived differences. In fact, the doom and gloom he depicts of current day America and Hillary Clinton depends on a fundamental disconnect between voters. While the rate at which he insults and fibs has been repeatedly covered, the effect it has on us physiologically has not been discussed but may help explain his rise and bridge the gap that seems too far between many Americans.

In this context it is not the falsehoods themselves that carry influence but the feeling being projected. Speeches demonizing immigration, global market collusions, even Hillary Clinton co-founding ISIS carry the same divisive tone. This picture of an uncertain and desperate future for America resonates deeply with many of his supporters, and falls in line with his slogan ‘Make America Great Again’. Whether or not these broad claims or true or not is not important, because they are part of an emotionally-bound narrative that is as effective as it is reactionary. This is the greater utility of deceit, to cultivate fear and a sense of being threat beyond realistic concern.

When we perceive a threat or fear the response is visceral. From brain signal to toe muscle our bodies respond automatically, quickly, and strongly. Signalling the release of hormones such as adrenaline, we prepare ourselves for action whether we are sitting alone on a couch watching a screen or in a rally surrounded by thousands of others in the same mind-set. In a disturbing and obvious way we are seeing this play out amidst the firebombing of a political office, burning down of a church, and continuous talk of a violent, post-election revolution if Trump had lost. Like voter fraud, these are not election changing events, but manifestations of a fed up populous – from both sides of the political spectrum - acting in fear.

A relatively new field called political neuroscience has taken interest in understanding how our brains respond to political-laden ideas and information. Related research examines what physiological differences may underlie our political affiliations. In general, probing the brain on politics reveals a strong emotional component. When asked about political affiliations, fMRI brain imaging (changes in blood flow in brain regions) reveals that large emotional hubs of brain are activated alongside more rational, logic based networks. This indicates that we do not process political information in the same way we would a maths problem or crossword puzzle. Instead we also rely on emotionally charged parts of brain called the amygdala, hippocampus, and insula. While this is no longer surprising to many of us, it provides a foundation for exploring neurological differences in political ideology.

When researchers look at the brains of self-identified liberal and conservatives as they respond to threatening and fearful situations, clear differences appear. Across studies, evidence shows that conservatives have a higher sensitivity to negative information, disgust and respond more emotionally in these situations than liberals do. This effect persists whether the fearful/threatening situation is political in nature or neutral, non-political information. In fact, differences in brain activity are consistent enough that responses to non-political fearful stimuli can be used to categorize political affiliation.

But the physiological differences do not end there. One research group looked at gray matter – the information highway of brain –of liberals and conservatives. They found conservatives had larger gray matter density in an area of the amygdala heavily involved in emotional response and evaluation of potentially threatening situations. While such findings need to be replicated before conclusive claims can be made, it would help explain the data showing heightened fear and uncertainty response in conservatives. These differences in brain activity also trickle down and influence the rest of the body. The sympathetic nervous system, also known as the fight-or-flight system readies the body to respond when a threat is perceived. Recording sympathetic activity has shown that the same negatively orientated information induces a greater response in conservatives compared to liberals.

Listening to Mr. Trump speak during his campaign may be the best way to get a sense of the discourse being highlighted here. I tuned in randomly during a rally in Greenely, Colorado on a Sunday night. Immediately Trump started in on speculation focusing on uncertainty and fear. He asked, “do you think those (mail-in) ballots are properly counted?”, to an excited chorus of boos. Surprisingly, Mr. Trump appeared to pivot away from negativity, staying ‘I’m starting to think I’ll go positive”. However, he couldn’t help himself from discussing a fight with Vice-President Biden, commenting “I dream about it” and sarcastically commending on his ‘great job defeating ISIS’. He discussed the great poverty in America, specifically for minority groups, giving an example of how dangerous inner cities are he said “ you can’t walk to the store, you’ll get shot”. He also brought up unsupported claims about the Clinton’s involvement NAFTA trade deal, exaggerated claims regarding Chinese currency manipulation, and import-free trade destroying American companies, among others. All of which were cast in a negative, frustrated light and received with constraint uproar and chants of ‘USA’ and ‘lock her up!’. He even discussed the theft of American steel jobs, despite his company clearly doing the exact thing he is criticising.

The New York Times has published online and in a full two-page spread the 282 people places and things Trump has insulted during his campaign, many containing untrue and fear-inducing ideas. The importance of political neuroscience research is not to causally explain why someone votes for a party. Instead, we can see the clear differences in the management of uncertainty and sensitivity to threats and fear. Using this may help contextualise the circus of an election that we have all been a part of. Both in the US and beyond, political campaigns emphasising fear and uncertainty in the face of facts continue to grow. This field of research may also help explain why Mr. Trump changes his views so often, following the path that brings the strongest response from his supporters at that moment. Knowledge about our differences could help alleviate some of the disbelief in our attempts to understand the other side’s perspective during this election.

It’s important to note that the discussed findings do not say anything fundamental about whether liberals or conservatives are better or worse than one another. Nor does it imply that susceptibility to responding to fearful information makes someone more gullible or biased. Indeed, it should be a sharp slap in the face to liberals who ignored a rising demographic who did exactly what they said they would do. We are all biased. That is the point of changing the discussion from inner circles to our own vulnerabilities. To many, this week feels upside down and pointing fingers isn’t the response. Instead, we must take in data to feed the understanding of our differences. To feed the empathy that is so needed at this moment to bridge the gaps between party lines.

Just two election cycles ago the wining platform was based on hope and positivity. Now as president Obama leaves office, Americans are left with a sense of complete despair or timely revenge. Trump says he is going to try being positive, and his acceptance speech provides hope for that. But he is a natural post-truth politician, and the stage has been set for him. Understanding how brain functioning differs between conservatives and liberals is not conclusive. Nor does it solve the problems dividing many voters this year. However, it may help understand some of our inherent differences. It may be one of the guides to navigate the post-truth world of politics.