Polarities such as good/bad, love/hate, fast/slow and happy/sad exist in all of us. Political polarities such as Democrat/Republican, pro-abortion/anti-abortion, liberal/conservative and right wing/left wing have always existed in this country. But recently something has changed.

Many of us are now viewing “the other” not just as having different beliefs, but as being “less than.” Furthermore, we more and more are limiting our personal relationships to people who believe politically as we do, and viewing the other not just as different, but often as beneath us. We may often view them with hatred, or even contempt.

In this age of multiple realities, data and facts have lost their power. Because of the numerous news sources in which political beliefs shape the presentation of science and facts, the belief in science and common truths has radically diminished.

This schism has invaded the intimate lives of many. Friendships have been shattered and families broken apart. These ruptures are, of course, difficult, and sometimes impossible to repair. But I would like to share some thoughts on what to do and what not to do if you wish to mend fences with your frenemies. I would like to start with some assumptions.

It is easier to hate than to love. Love, friendship and compassion are complex emotions, often difficult to create and maintain, whereas anger, rage and, above all, contempt are more easily accessible.

All relationships consist of similarities and differences. For example, much of what we term “romantic love” is a relationship in which similarities are exaggerated and differences minimized. Much of the pain that currently exists in ruptured intimate systems (families and close friendships) features a diminishment of interest in commonalities and an overattention to differences, especially political ones.

If you wish to attempt to repair a damaged relationship, I have some suggestions.

Reach out to your frenemies with warmth and a sincere wish to repair the relationship. Suggest a series of meetings in “neutral territories” — a park, restaurant? If they are not interested, then you have to choose between accepting this diminished relationship or move to end it.

If you agree to meet, have an agreement concerning the rules of engagement. But first you may have to acknowledge that it’s unlikely to be a quick fix, and that the mutual damage is significant. Therefore, it will take time to build trust and reconnection.

Begin by searching for commonalities, such as a wonderful meal or concert you shared together, or a friend or relative that you both care for. You may both love sports, a good joke or reading mysteries. In terms of politics, rather than arguing over whether Donald Trump is a good or bad president, you might agree that you both love and are passionate about this country, both can be outspoken, and both tend to pay more attention to anger than hurt. If you are both agreeable, you might talk about what you appreciate about the other.

Hopefully, by focusing first on positive mutual experiences, you will regenerate a sense of connection to the “other” and thus may be ready to discuss your differences. However, if one or both of you are unable or unwilling to temporarily bracket off your political differences, then it might be time to accept the loss of intimacy.

If you both decide to move forward, I would recommend the following. Support each other’s curiosity by asking questions. Real questions, not leading ones designed to trap or convince the other, are essential. So is the minimizing of “I” statements. Above all, eliminating “you” statements is important. Of all the words that potentially destroy relationships, “you” is at the top of my list.

Of course, if one or both of you decide that the relationship is beyond repair and can’t be mended, sit back for a second and congratulate yourselves for attempting reconciliation. The art of ending well, even if the ending is not what was hoped for, is a goal seldom achieved.

And remember that growth and development come from moving toward differences.