By Seth Meyers, Psy.D.

There are two reasons why I follow politics. First, as a citizen of the United States, I believe we must stay engaged in the ins and outs of the political process so we understand the dynamics of the world we live in. Second, as a psychologist, I find so many of the current events fascinating on a psychological level. In a nutshell, how we react to much of what's going on in the news is a reflection of deeply held values we have.

When Caroline Kennedy was recently pronounced as a possible replacement for the New York Senate seat that Hillary Clinton will likely vacate, men and women across America had profound reactions to the news. Many of those reactions were emotional in nature. For some, they've idealize the Kennedy image of American royalty or have loved her because they loved her father - aka, the positive emotional reaction. For others, they saw the possible appointment as another example of a lack of talent being handed a prize on the basis of money and power alone - aka, the negative emotional reaction.

Conceptualizing current events as a sort of mirror for our own values and beliefs is important. Accordingly, political events allow for the opportunity to do daily exercises in which you check yourself and ask yourself why you feel the way you do about an issue. It's important, in particular, to take special notice when your views border on the extreme or black-and-white thinking (e.g., "she has no experience" as opposed to the more moderate "she doesn't have experience as a politician.")

One of the things that therapists try to do in therapy is to help rid the client from overly emotional reactions based on all-or-nothing, extreme views. While some views should be extreme (beliefs about protecting children, fidelity to your partners, etc.), an awful lot of people's opinions are extreme based on insufficient information.

Let's take Caroline Kennedy's possible Senate seat as an example. Yes, it appears that her appointment would reflect some favoritism that stems from the money and fame she brings with her. However, we cannot infer that she has no talent or insufficient talent simply because she has not previously expressed interest in politics or held other elected office. In fact, she could possibly be a good senator if given the chance.

Remember the multiple choice tests you took in school as a kid? Remember the choice that was often "D?" - "Not enough information given?" I am reminded of this choice when I think of the Caroline Kennedy appointment because this seems to be the answer that is the least judgmental or extreme. I believe the ultimate goal is to learn to see life's events in balance - and taking regular temperature of your reactions to current events is a terrific way to check yourself and the views you hold onto so tightly.