Rules or needs? How one responds politically, economically, how one makes decisions or deals with intimate relationships depends on one’s view of the world. Some people tend to see life in terms of rules and justice, others are more comfortable responding to the needs of individuals. Some prefer concepts such as “objectivity, law, policy, categories, standards, rights and regulations,” others seem more at ease with concepts such as ” subjectivity, harmony, caring, empathy, appreciation, persuasion, special circumstances.” People who use the more personal mode as the basis for decisions call the others heartless, remote, cold, unfeeling, lacking the milk of human kindness. People who use the more impersonal mode for decision-making call the others softhearted, over-emotional, illogical, fuzzy thinkers and accuse them of wearing their hearts on their sleeves. I don’t want to polarize genders into opposing camps, but research points to the tendency of men to be more comfortable in the impersonal mode and of women to be more comfortable in the personal mode. We can say similar things about political parties. Democrats accuse Republicans of not having a social conscience, while Republicans call Democrats bleeding-heart liberals. Actually, the people who act in impersonal ways are capable of the same emotional intensity as the others, but they have been taught not to show their emotions and not to act on them. In other words, they don’t take their emotions into account when reacting or making decisions. On the other hand, those who act in more personal ways can be just as logical but choose to use their feelings as valuable criteria for decision-making. Let us take the workplace as an example. Should single parents with young children be given special consideration when there is a family emergency, or would they then be seen as not pulling their own weight at work and is that fair to others who don’t ask for time off? The question there is for those who function in the more impersonal mode, if working hours are 8 to 5, then everyone, regardless of circumstances, should be able to adhere to that schedule. For people functioning in the personal mode, the question then revolves around the needs of the individuals affected, under what circumstances should there be flexibility with what consequences both for the person and the rest of the workforce? We see here very clearly the “rules” versus “needs” controversy and how preferred modes of functioning affect decision-making. In other words, we either believe in adhering to the rules of a workforce or the “needs” of the parent. It is important for people to identify their own comfort or discomfort with both ways of functioning. The word “fairness” is often invoked. But what is fair to one may not seem fair to others. What is seen as “preferential treatment” in any organization may result in a number of disgruntled people. The question here is how to best achieve the desired results. It is important to think of the overall goal to be reached and then think of the various ways this can be done, taking into consideration the intended as well as unintended consequences. People are often unconscious of their preferred way of responding to situations and making them aware of these tendencies may help in reaching a consensus. Both rules and needs have their place in human affairs; the people who are not locked into only one way of seeing and understanding the world are the ones who can bridge the differences.