The Psychology of Outrage w/ Dr. Kurt Gray

Published Nov 7, 2024, 8:01 AM

This week Scott is joined by author and professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina, Dr. Kurt Gray. Scott and Dr. Gray discuss why Americans seem so divided at this point in time, the psychology of self-righteous indignation, how we all share harm-based moral minds, and what we can do to find common ground.

One person is labeled the perpetrator. In one person or side is the victim. Everyone wants to be the victim instead of the perpetrator.

Today. It's great to have doctor Kurt Gray on the podcast. Doctor Gray is a psychology professor of the University of North Carolina an author of the new book called Outraged, Why we Fight about morality and politics and How to Find Common Ground. Wow. What a timely book and timely episode. In this discussion, we discuss why people seem so divided today and why everyone seems to be filled with outrage for the other side. We also discuss the psychology of righteous indignation and doctor Gray's views on moral psychology and his argument that deep down we all have the same harm based moral mind. We also discuss how we can bridge moral divides. I'm a longtime admirer of Kurt's seminal research on morality and his theory of moral typecasting, where we treat victims as angels and perpetrators as pure evil. I learned a lot from this discussion, and I'm sure you will too, So without further ado, I bring you Doctor Kurt Gray. Professor Kurt Gray, Welcome to the Psychology Podcast.

Thanks so much for having me.

Yeah, I've been really looking forward this chat for a long time, and it couldn't be more relevant.

It's a contentious time, it is.

Your book is called Outraged.

That's right. Why we fight about morality and politics and how to find common ground.

Yeah, I really want to know the answer to all those questions. Yeah, all the questions you're asking your book. Now you're you got a PhD in social psychology from Harvard, right, was it relating to morality?

That's right. It was with Dan Wegner, and so he studied all sorts of weird and wonderful philosophical things like free will and thought suppression. He didn't study morality, but he studied how we perceived the minds of others, and it turns out that's really closely related to our moral judgments.

Yeah, definitely. He's famous for the don't think of a white bear phenomenon, where all you do is think of a white bear if you try not to. Yeah, okay, So what was your dissertation on My dissertation was on how the feeling of pain and a little bit pleasure but mostly pain changes on the intention of the person who's giving it to you.

So if you think someone's hurting you maliciously, giving you an electric shock, I did a lot of shocking of Harvard undergraduates. If you think you're getting shocked intentionally and maliciously, it physically hurts more than if you think you're getting shocked accidentally or benevolently. Hard to imagine getting shocked benevolently, but we figured out how to make that happen.

So you direct the Deepest Belief Lab and the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding at the University of North Carolina. How and you you have a child, right, the two kids?

Yeah?

Now, how do you manage two laboratories. I've never heard of anyone having two laboratories at a universe. I've never heard of this and have a family, and I mean, how you do it all? Yeah?

I ignore the cat. So that's that's how you got to cut corner somewhere. And I spend less attention with the cat. But well, you know, one's the lab that's about running studies, and then the Center is a little broader. It's kind of more you know, international collaborations, funding scholars things like that, so they're kind of connect with each other. But you know, it's busy for sure.

Yeah, you say. Quote my job is to make sense of moral disagreement and find ways to help people in conflict understand each other. Is that still roughly what you do?

Yes, you bet. Increasingly my research focuses on how to understand moral divides and how to bridge those divides.

Yeah, it's just so poor. I mean, what as a social psychologist watching this political collection, do you are you in bewilderment? Uh? Or you kind of get it? Maybe you just you get it, you like understand what's going on. You're like, I get this.

Yeah, I mean, you know, all humans, the human condition is bewilderment, I feel. But as far as the chaos of elections, I think folks like me who study intergroup conflict and our perceptions, it kind of makes sense.

Okay, well we're gonna well not to me, so let's make something.

Let's dig into it.

That's why we're doing this podcast exactly who or you know? Righteous indignation is just something so interesting. It's not something so it's it's it's it's it's a powerful, deep seated human something. I don't know what it is. Righteous indignation what we call it? Is it a need of humans. I mean, it feels like a great Yeah, it's a great question. Right, No one keep I'm thinking like, no one wakes up in the morning left right. You know, whether you're a politician or a pundit on either side, no one wakes up in the morning thinking I'm a monster, I'm evil.

Right. Everyone thinks they've got the best intentions and they're doing the right things, or you know, maybe the ends justify the means. Maybe doing some bad things, but ultimately for good. And so I think each one of us feels righteous and that we're doing good. And so when someone argues against us, or does something different or believes something different, then that's where the indignation and outrage come in, right, Because if I'm moral and you're different, well then you must be a moral Yeah.

That's so true. I mean, people really are. It feels like more divided right now than pre twenty sixteen. Is there? Do you have any data that that's true? It just feels that way.

There, Yeah, great question, there is data on this. So increasingly, not only have policy positions moved apart as much as really any kind of average person you know is really focused on policy. It's usually kind of focused on our group identity, but policy positions have moved apart. It's also the case that your dislike of the other party has gone up and up every year. So even if you don't like your party, then you really dislike the other party. Right, You're like, I just don't want them to get into the White House. So it's less about us and more about not them.

Is this Trump's fault?

Well, it's probably complicated, but I think, you know, some policy didn't help more than others, right, kind of capitalize on concerns and fears and catalyze as kind of like feelings of us versus them. So certainly, you know there's a market increase in kind of like animosity that around twenty sixteen.

You know, I'm trying to just take a step back here and think if if that's what it is. It feels like, you know, I'm a personality psychologist, so I come at it with like, you know, individual differences are gravitated to different messages, and you know, it feels like there are a lot of people who find standard politics as usual boring, and I feel like Trump is like, for the first time in the history of politics brought entertainment like WWF style entertainment to politics, and a lot of people it's suddenly like I feel like it took us. I think if I feel like in twenty sixteen, we like we left the political domain and went into some other universe and the traditional politicians and way of talking and everything suddenly became like, oh, that's old news, that's boring.

Yeah, it's a good point, right. I think over the decades, it's been increasingly about entertainment, right, So the first televised debate where Kennedy looks so much better than Nixon, for instance, and then we get to now right where I mean Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor. Yeah, right, even Reagan you know, was president in the eighties. And so I think it's increasingly become about you know, who you trust, what kind of personality you know, talk about personality, what kind of personality do you trust to kind of protect you and your interests? And I think the rise of populism recently has been really about, like, let's put our faith in strong personalities. Who you know, people don't necessarily think that Trump is you know, moral and the kind of classic ways we might think about it. But I think those who are voting for and things will stand up right for their rights and protect them. And I think that's ultimately what our votes and our moral judgments are about. Right concerns about protecting ourselves and our family.

Yes, you say, deep in our minds, every fight about morality comes down to one thing, competing perceptions of harm. We get outraged at people when they deny our asumptions about what causes suffering, and when they reject our views of victimhood. Well, this is just this is right up my alley. It almost feels like people don't leave space for there to be multiple victims at the same time. It's like people can't wrap their head around that, Like everyone's so self absorbed. Am I wrong?

No, you're right, You're right for sure. You know. I talk a little bit about this about how our perceptions of victimhood and who's a perpetrator like one hundred to zero right, And it's totally fair to think that your side, your preferred side, is maybe a little bit more the victim right. So like, take immigration right, if you're kind of promegration, maybe you think the victim are families fleeing violence at the border. And if you're more anti immigration, you think the victims are citizens harmed by you know, undocumented or legal immigrants, and so you know, our moral judgments are tied to those perceptions. But in addition to like the fact that like, well, if I'm pro immigran, I like only think of people who are fleeing violence at the border and not citizens who might get harmed. I think that there's like zero percent victims right of American citizens, and and those like zero versus one hundred perceptions make it really hard to have conversation. It's like black and white.

It's so black and white, and and so much of it relates to your brilliant, brilliant research, which I have really uh adopted and uh and has has really brought me a lot of quarity from my own book and my own work. So thank you and your work specific on moral typecasting is what I'm talking about. It is It's genius, Kurt, It really is genius. And it's and I don't even know if you fully realize how relevant it is to the moment when it's so I feel like we're living in the age of competitive victimhood. Absolutely is the way I put it in my book, and and and and I think moral typecasting perfectly explains it, because everyone it's a very coveted spot to be if you're viewed as the victim. Yeah, it's a coveted it's coveted. It's a coveted, coveted special status where.

Then you can do no wrong, right, And no one wants to be victimized, right right?

Right? But that's great, right yeah, great distinction, great distinction.

Right. So no one wants to like suffer. But if there's a conflict and one person is a labeled the perpetrator and one person or side is the victim, everyone wants to be the victim instead of the perpetrator.

Yeah, who wants to be the perpetrator?

Yeah right, no, right again, because we all think of ourselves as good people. No one's like, you know what, I'm the one who's like victimizing people here.

I remember, I just I'll never forget. Like O. J. Simpson on like in his second trial, you know, and he was trying to defend himself. He's like he's like, oh, everyone's against me, you know, Like it's just it's funny to see like kind of people with a victim mindset.

Absolutely, I mean everyone, I mean even in you know, make this point too, Like, you know who who like type casts themselves as a as a victim or a perpetrator. I mean everyone type casts themselves as a victim, and it's especially when people are about to blame you, right, Like I feel like that's the crux of type casting, Like when when someone's trying to show you as a victim or sorry, when someone's trying to show that you're a perpetrator, like Harvey Weinstein, right, he comes into court like shuffling with a cane. He's like, I'm like old and infirm, like no, you're you're a serial rapist, you know, sir? Yes, And so we you know, sometimes these disagreements are genuine, and sometimes people are using them to shape our moral judgments in a kind of sneaky way. And so I think we need to maybe distinguish when people, you know, people feel aggrieved versus people are like I'm going to try to trick others with my victimhood.

Yeah for sure. I mean I there's some really interesting research showing a correlation between virtuous victimhood signaling and the dark triad personality traits.

Oh interesting, And so.

There's definitely, you know, a correlation there between those who at every turn they feel the need to signal that they're the virtuous victim.

Yeah you're you know, you're the expert on personality. I feel like we cite a little bit of stuff in one chapter on people who who have like a victimhood mindset, and it's connected to two things like narcissism, but also to bad attachment. You know that you like, you use victimhood as a way to get attention and to and to feel like you might connect with others. But of course ultimately this backfires.

It does. I have a section in my book recognize your own capacity to be the perpetrator. I just think that's huge. Yeah, you know, and there's something in psychology. I promise I'll interview you, but I'm excited. I'm trying to have a back and forth here. So there's this really interest sting hypothesis called the Copone hypothesis that has has come out and you know, named after al Scarface Copone. Despite many of his victims regarding him as quote pure evil, he views himself as follows quote I've spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse the existence of a hunted man.

Yeah.

Wow, psychologists have called that the copone hypothesis.

That's amazing. I mean, Harvey Weinstein as well has this quote about how he was the front runner of helping women in the movie business. He's like, I was, I had women in my film before anyone, and no one talks about the good that I've done. And so just the fact that you know someone who's done so much evil, maybe because they've done so much evil, right, they're compelled to see themselves as especially a victim to escape Blaine.

Yes, that's exactly right. So okay, let's let's let's talk more about the excellent arguments in your book. You know, it's inter because you do make the case that we have a harm based moral mind. Is that always the case? Are there instances of moral thinking that don't involve harm.

That's a great question, and it's something that the field has been debating for some time. My research, you know, and it's controversial in the field, but a lot of my research suggests that it's always about perceptions of harm, and the fact that one side might not see the harms that you see really sets the stage for moral disagreement, right, Like we all agree that child abuse being against child abuse is about harm, but something like your stance on voter fraud, your stance on immigration or drugs. Right, that one side's like I'm trying to protect kids from harm and you're just trying to let everyone use drugs. Right, But both sides are legitimately grounding their moral judgments in harm, right, Like maybe someone uses marijuana to help with their glaucoma or there are right, So it's always about it's always about harm.

That's so like my gut tells me like, oh, there's got to be an example I can think of that that that dispels that, but I can't. Oh, you're right, Like I'm trying, because you know, I'm trying to be a good psychologist, right, I'm trying to be a good critical thinker. But you're right. I think of things like a lot of us feel like some things are moral. I'm thinking like Jonathan Height's research, you know, like some of the examples he gives, like there isn't actually harm being done, but people still say it's a moral. But because you're right, because they perceive harm, So you're still right. But I was trying to think, do you know what I'm saying. I'm trying to think of examples he gives of just disgust response, which is not actually causing anyone harm in some of his classic vignettes. But your point is, well, the whole reason why they find it immral is because they're perceiving.

Harm exactly, and and harm is not like a binary, right, you could see less harm in some of the examples he uses. And I guess to zoom out right. So you know, I'm one of John's biggest critics when it comes to his theory of like, you know, there's morality beyond harm, and he's he's one of my biggest critics. And this is why I try to be so careful and comprehensive with the studies that I run. And so what I do in my studies is I take the examples that he's come up with, Okay that you know, if you're not a moral psychologist, they're pretty they're pretty out there, right, like consensual incest or having sex with the frozen chicken and then eating it right, like it's disgusting. People are like, well, maybe it's wrong, but you know, but but it doesn't seem harmful, but it does seem disgusting. But so we run careful studies where we, you know, really look at people's intuitive reactions to these these scenarios, and what we find is that people's moral judgments are driven by their intuitive, automatic kind of like visceral feelings of harm. And it can't be just discussed because there's so many disgusting things out there that are not seen as wrong, And so what distinguish it, Like, you know, if you're a parent, you get covered in poop when you change a diept Like that's gross, but no one's like you monster, you know, And so what distinguishes the kind of immoral or immoral discussing things from non immral discussing things is like really the presence of harm according to you, yeah, I mean you could you know, you can even just think about it, right, I'm trying to, Like a height has an example of like rolling around and urine for performance are or using some of these examples. You know, again I didn't come up with them, like letting a kit and rub itself on your genitals to be aroused, Like these seem so wrong, I think because you're like, well, think of the harm to these poor animals or to people or you know, and I think it was just disgusting, like someone stepped on some gross poop. Well, then that's disgusting, but it's not immoral because it's not harmful.

Just talking about politics for a second, like or I should say, returning to politics, because it's just on everyone's mind right now. You made a really cool point, you said. But while someone on the left might emphasize the threats of growing inequality between rich and poor, systemic racism, and the destruction of the environment, someone on the right might emphasize the threats of banning firearms, restricting religious freedoms, and destroying sacred national symbols. Okay, So whenever I try to make such an argument to some of my extremely like left committed psychology colleagues, they go berserk and say, you can't both sidism this. The Republicans are the true evil. Now I get I get this all the time, you know, all the time, are there are these Our field of psychology is full of like left committed biased psychologists. It's the truth. And but and so they get so mad when I say that because I like to think like that, like like that sentence, I just read of yours is like, is how I like to think. I really like that kind of balance there. I want to understand what's in front of me and make some decisions based on what we currently have. And so I love that way of thinking. But but do you understand that? So there are a lot of people who would really balk at that based on their own commitments and say, you can't both side this.

Yeah, I mean I think folks on the you know, speaking of both sidism, right, like folks on the left and the right think that any willingness to try to understand the other side is betrayal. They do, you're right, and so but you know, as a cetal psychologist, you know, I feel like we have to understand the minds of everyone. And that's including folks who might vote or think differently than us, but it doesn't mean their minds are different. And I think this is the big is the big worry with some theories out there that's like one side is you know, authentically moral and the other side is not. And you know, there are theories out there that say, like what, it's really liberals or it's really conservatives who are the good people? But I think at the end of the day, you know, we all have the same hardware, we all have the same desire to protect ourselves, and so you need to take those facts as a given when you look at the mind and try to figure out, well, what drives moral disagreement, And that sentence you read suggests that it's different concerns about protecting ourselves and different kind of basic assumptions about what causes harm.

Yes, and it's terribly a conversation here. I think there's there's something else going on that I've noticed where I think that if transgressions are happening on your in group, much more likely to just excuse it and just overlook it. If you're committed to that group, then the other side is to let it go, you know. And I saw this in the most recent Trump rally in Madison Square Garden. You know, I wrote a tweet like I didn't feel like the tone was very humanistic and kind. It was. There were a lot of things that I felt were objectively rude to like the people Puerto Rico, for instance, And to me, it boggles my mind that that's not just an objective truth, that that's rude. So the way people responded were, Oh, Scott, you're so caught up on the left that you you don't understand that this is the stuff subjective? And I guess I just don't get it. Like if I say to you, fuck you, Kurt, I hope you die, how could someone say, oh, Scott, that's subjective, that's you're you're being biased because of your own lens. So do you see my point? I don't understand why there aren't certain things that are so obviously rude to everyone that we can't at least all admit that's rude. I guess I don't get it. Can you explain this to me? And you want to you share my confusion at all.

It's kind of funny, right, because we were just talking about how these perceptions of harm vary from group to group, right, And I think that this is another example, right, Like, this is an example that you know, on one side, you're like, look, this is so like calling what an island of garbage that comedian said, right, that seems so obviously wrong and harmful to many people, right, to both of us, I think, But for folks on the other side, they're like, look, it's just a joke. And in fact, you know, we we're doing some research now about these perceptions of comedy, right, and seems to be like, hey, just lighten up. It's just a joke. It's just poking fun at our you know, at our convictions. And so I think as many folks on the right as well, argued like Mark Rubio, right, he was like, that's not a very funny joke, if you call it a joke at all. So I think there are folks on both sides who think that. But the whole point of of our perceptions is that they do vary. They do vary, and so maybe some people say, well, you know, the real harm we should be considering ish policies or you know, like, so it.

All comes down to a hierarchy or ranking of perceived harms, not just not not whether or not something in isolation is good or not, because people, if they see a greater harm on the other side, then there'll be more likely to forgive the harm on their side.

Yeah. Actually, yeah, So I appreciate you bringing that up, because all these contentious moral issues are ultimately trade offs, right, They're trade offs about like when it comes to abortion, no one's like I just want to hurt women if you're on the right, you say, or you're you know, pro life, you say, well, I really want to protect fetuses, and I just know that, you know, I acknowledge that there might be some suffering caused. Likewise, pro choice folks are like, well, I just want to protect women's reproductive rights, and I understand right that there might be some harm cost of fetuses. So I think these are trade offs. But when you're in those positions, you only emphasize the kind of dominance of the harm you're concerned about.

I get it. That's that's really really elucidating, Kurt. Thank you. I've got to ask at this point, why does harm drive our moral minds? Like, what about the course of human evolution made that be the case?

Yeah, great question, And I think ultimately it comes down to our nature, and that's a nature I think we've misunderstood for a long time. So if you think about you know who we are deep down, who we evolved as you look at museum dioramas, right, let's say the Museum Natural History, and there's like pictures of cave men and women with spears hunting mammoths, and I think that's that's mostly not true. Not in the mist of evolution. So to hunt a mammoth or any big animal, right, you need stone tip spears, You need a lot of coordination. We didn't have stone tip spears for a long time. We just had sharpened sticks. And we were a lot smaller back in the day than we are now. So we were a little, you know, furry, ultimately terrified apes that spend most of our time hiding from predators and not hunting them. And I think if you look back in the record, you'll find that that mostly we were prey. We were terrifying our you know, kids were picked off by eagles, we slept in the night, and our children got eaten by cougars. Right, So our entire psychology is built around concern about getting harmed and protecting ourselves. And and you can draw kind of almost a straight line from millions of years ago of being afraid to being afraid today, not of animal predators but of moral predators.

Yeah, that's that's a great, great kind of tree that the evolution of this. So it is something really deeply ingrained in us. Earlier, I was trying to say, what is it?

Is it a need?

Is it it's it's a module. It's like you know it's an evolutionary module in a way.

Yeah, I mean I'm a little that module is a is a powerful word. But I think I don't think you need to say it's like that, you know, encapsulated in our mind as much as just like underlying a lot of things, right, like just the history that's kind of like baked into all sorts of places in it in our brain.

You're such a social psychologist, I know clearly there's a I mean, if it's evolutionary, you just made the argument, you're definitely there is. Definitely it's in our genes. That's that's that that would be a logical outgrowth of the evolution that you just described.

Yeah, I agree, I agree that you know definitely it's in our genes. And then the question is like where is in our brain? I don't know.

Sure.

To me, it's a black box. It just cools the blood. As far as I you know, as far as I know, I love it.

I love this. I love this whole conversation. Oh boy. So, and and then how does harm fuel morality? How does the process work? Can you guys go a little bit deeper into what you've observed?

You bet so? As I mentioned, right, It's all about a matter of perception. And so maybe this is a little more kind of like in the science than than is in the book. But we have a kind of template in our minds. So here's an example of a template. Let's say I say, like, what's it like to go to a restaurant? And then your template is like, while I sit down and someone comes and takes my order and then brings me food, right Like, and if something was that was exactly you know, you sit down, you take your take your order, bring your food, you pay for it. You're like, well, that's a restaurant. And when it comes to morality, our template for something that's immoral, for something we should get outraged about, is harm, and in particular victimization to someone vulnerable. Right, So if you're like, look, this act victimizes someone vulnerable, like child abuse, You're like, that's obviously immoral. And then and then the more it kind of resembles that kind of thing, the more you think your mind kind of detects something in the world as immoral. Right. And so if if you're like, well, you know, I kick something out in the woods and I'm like, okay, well I'm assuming it's a tree, so it's probably all right. And then you're like, well it turned out to be a puppy. I'm like, oh, wow, Now I know that's moral because there's like this vulnerable victimization and so ultimately our mind is like a vulnerable victimization detector when it comes to morality, and the more there's that, the more a moral sense is triggered.

There's a lot there because it feels like there's a difference between the left and the right in there focus on quote, vulnerable populations, but that's only at first Blush. You're giving additional nuance here, suggesting that while that may be an explicit thing, you know, with the left using that phrase, you know, we care about vulnera publishing and the right caring more about other issues. In reality, it sounds like you're saying, like even the right, a lot of it comes down to what they view as the vulnerable populations to protect. Is that a fair statement.

Yeah, it's absolutely fair. But I think you do hit on a nuance that. Well, I'll go through the data. So we asked, you know, thousands of liberals and conservatives to tell us who they think is especially vulnerable to victimization and by how much. And what we find is that conservatives, you know, we're talking like committed conservatives seven out of seven on a conservative scale, they think that all people are round about equally vulnerable to suffering. So whether you're white or black, right, whether you're an immigrant or a citizen, whether you're a Muslim or Christian, you're roughly the same. And this kind of like really mirrors ideas of like America as a collection of individuals an individual agency. And so they would still base you know, committed conservatives would still base their moral judgments on vulnerability. But they see everyone as kind of equally vulnerable. Whether you're a CEO or you know, a worker and a company, you can still bleed if you're cut right, you're still disappointed if your goals aren't met. On the other hands, committed liberals like a one out of seven on conservatism. They see really big differences in who's especially vulnerable to victimization. They see folks like Muslims, undocumented immigrant, right, maybe poor African Americans as exceptionally vulnerable to harm. And then folks that you know, belong to groups that are maybe you could argue, or less marginalized right, especially in progressive circles those billionaires, Yeah, billionaires exactly, cops right, Progressive see those folks as basically almost impervious to harm. And so you've got this really powerful tension now between liberals who are like, look, there's two groups of people in the world, oppressors and the oppressed, the vulnerable and the invulnerable, and then conservatives who are like, look, everyone is basically equally vulnerable to suffering. And those are hugely different narratives, right, Like Conservers are like, well, it doesn't matter to what group you belong you can still suffer, and liberals are like, well, it matters vastly what group you belong to, and that dictates whether you can suffer or not. And I think think we could, you know, we could agree that folks on the far ends of the spectrum are not typical. Right, that's the whole point. But but it's interesting how they disagree. It's ultimately about vulnerability, but they see it really differently. What do you think, Well, you know, that's a it's a good question.

What's the truth?

I mean, you know, the truth is hard to ferret out because we see the world so imperfectly, and there's so much room for wiggle. But I think there's a grain of truth in both, not to you know, again to kind of like see the humanity in both sides. But I think it is the case that there are systemic differences in vulnerability based on your group identity. Right, It's just and I think even conservatives, you know, all but the kind of most most extreme conservatives, do believe this. So we do find differences. Right, It is the case that if you grew up extremely poor, you are generally more vulnerable to being mistreated, right, and then someone who grows up rich. At the same time, I think we should also understand that, you know, individuals have some agency and have some choice, and you know, and even if you are a richer person, you still suffer. You know, if your child is injured, if your child is killed, Right, that's still sad. And so it's a tension between kind of this idea of like a victim as an individual versus a victim of someone belonging to a group.

Oh, well, that's that, you nailed it. You nailed it. That's it individualism versus yeah, group based harm. Well, yeah, that really helped to help me really see that within that framework. Thank you. Look, let's just spend the rest of the time talking about what we can do to bridge divides.

Yeah, it's tricky, it's hard, but you've thought about it. I can tell you one thing that you shouldn't do. That that my research kind of reveals, kind of surprised us. So if you ask people what's going to take for you to respect someone on the other side, the majority of people and we've done this, they tell you, just give me the facts.

Right.

If I'm talking to someone on the other side, I want them to give me the facts and then we can agree on what the truth is and then take it from there. And we say, great, great, let's test a conversation now, and here are some facts. Well, it turns out people they say, those aren't the real facts. Give me the real those are fake facts. Right. And so the problem with kind of political conversations now is we have such different facts that we can't find common ground when it comes to statistics or you know data. Instead, what our data show is that the best way to bridge devise is through stories, you know, personal experiences, where you talk about the harms you suffer, where you talk about the vulnerabilities that you fear might get exploited, and those are the ways to better bridge divides.

Do you see good examples of that happening anywhere?

I mean absolutely, I mean, you know, we any kind of media source you look at, you'll find some differences. So in one study, we looked at YouTube videos about abortion, and we looked at the comments of those videos. And the comments of YouTube videos are not known to be especially supportive or kind, so it's kind of, you know, a challenging way to test our hypothesis. And some videos are about people's abortion stories. You know, this is my abortion, or this is my decision not to have an abortion, or some of those videos are about statistics right here, how many abortions happen in America today. Here's how easy or hard it is to have an abortion. And when we looked at those video comments, we found that the videos where people talked about their stories, the comments were much kinder and much not only more positive, but also like socially affiliated. These people wanted to be like, oh, you know, I want to be your friend. Basically, we find it in you know, shows on Fox News on CNN, hosts are more generous with their guests when they emphasize personal stories and facts and we find in conversations too. And I think you know listeners today, well you know you just tried at Thanksgiving or Christmas whatever, you know, any holidays where there's potential for division, and it works a lot better. And I'm happy to talk about more more tips as well, please, So you know, one of the best tips I'll say is to when you're having a conversation, try for understanding. Yeah, not for winning. And this is why started that, I know, right, don't we all want to win? Is that where we're here on this earth to dominate the other side with right, Like you look at social media, you're like, I just own this person and that's the video you want to click. You know, I can't wait to see my side own the other side. But like, no one comes away from that, you know in the end, like happier, no one changes their mind based on fact. Like no one's like, oh, you know what, I believe this about abortion or immigration, but then this person gave me the statistic and like, boy, now I change my Like never, that never happens, right, Instead, if you want to be like, oh I had a good conversation and now I see the humanity on the other side a little more. Yeah, that comes from like, oh, they were trying to understand me, and I was trying to understand them, and they were telling me about their personal experiences and I was trying to learn about not when learn about them. You know, I have this like uber ride with a Christian nationalist some time ago. You know, I'm like, I studied morality and politics, and folks are usually like, will hold my beer, you know, like, here's my story. Yeah, and you know, I don't know if you know many Christian nationalists. I don't, but there's potential for me to be like, well, you know, I don't know about that idea. But at first I was like, well, tell me how how you think about this idea? Right, tell me why with the roots of your belief and like what stories about yourself led you to this belief. And that conversation went when much better than it could have because he felt like I was trying to understand and not win. So it can work even in kind of extreme cases.

Yeah, people really just want to have their voices heard. They want to feel like they matter, and they want to feel like yeah, they get it. They want to get it out. Yeah, it's interesting. I mean I always find it interesting, like these examples of these, like people who kind of infiltrate the Kokook's Klan, you know, kind of befriend them and then eventually change their minds. You know, like there are real good examples of that. But I think it's a certain kind of person to do that. To put the outrage to the side is not easy when your own self is threatened. Absolutely right, It's easier to just intellectually put the outrage to the side when it's not something self relevant.

But yeah, right again, Like you know, if our minds are motivated by victimhood as as you know, we both argue, right, if you're in a situation where you feel threatened, where you feel like someone's the clear perpetrator, and not only are they victimizing others, but also you like in this case of Darryl Davis, the black man and blues musician who befriended hundreds of Kika k members and got them to hang up their robes. Like absolutely, that takes a special persons who's willing to over you know, like you're gonna sit down with someone who thinks that you're less than human. Wow, that takes a ton of fortitude and compassion and patience, and there are people out there who willing to do it and and bridge divides. I'm not saying people shouldn't have to do that, but it's it's good for humanity that there are people who are willing to do that.

But it's it's just it's just interesting, like people are funny, like even with their beliefs, Like they don't have those beliefs, they don't hold those beliefs all the time, and the humanity can crack through, I think with even with anyone.

Yeah, right, like at the end of the day, you know, we can interact as as fellow and equal human beings.

So you say that facts don't bridge divides? Why why is that? Why? Why why is science so under attack these days?

Yeah? I mean, I think there are lots of reasons why facts don't bridge divides today. Right, we have different media environments on the left and the right, social media bubbles. But I think you know, if we go back to evolution, right, our genes and our brains, we've never really been well equipped to deal with statistics, to deal with you know, these kind of distributed facts that we're we're talking about today, Right, if you're sitting around the campfire. It's night. You know, you've got your family and friends around you, you're camping. The things you're going to talk about, the things that are going to resonate with other people, are stories, right, like this thing happened. I heard this thing happened, there was a bear attack. Whatever. You're not like sixty seven percent of people right like that. That is not a good campfire story because our minds had not evolved to process statistics. And so when you're in conversations, especially when you feel threatened, right, You're not going to really think about the truth of statistics. You're going to You're going to kind of anchor onto these stories, especially these stories of threat And so this is why I think facts, you know, aren't great. And when it comes to morality, facts just seem like not the right currency. Ir yeah, exactly, you know, they're.

Not the right Actually a shame though, because like what didn't whatdn't I logical like Stephen Pinker. Stephen Pinker would be like, oh, I want to know the probabilities and the exact evidence that this is causing harm before I make my conclusion. But you're saying most people don't think like Stephen Pinker, don't you know what I'm saying. Stave Picker would think.

Like that, Come on, I like, I like your Pinker voice. It's very erudite, so you know. Yeah, Steve Pinker asked me a question actually when I was a second year grad student about, uh, you have a presentation about moral exemplars like Mother Teresa. And his question was basically like, ah, I know you'd think that, you know, you have in your study that Mother Teresa is a hero, but like, wasn't she actually kind of cruel and callous she took care of so obviously I still remember that, you know, twenty.

Years later, Tony, No, I mean, wouldn't do you see what I'm saying? What in a really logical rational mind want the facts.

Yes, I think that's true, and I think everyone wants facts when it's about like what blender should I be? You know, which which model car should I buy? But when it comes to morality, we just think that those facts are not the right facts, right, that there must be facts out there that support my idea. So you still want facts, but you want the facts that support you, right, Like if I'm like, look this, many people suffer at the border, there's many immigrants, you know, innocent immigrants like fleeing, I don't know, sectarian violence in Central America. And then you're like, if you're anti immigration, you're like, well, sure, but the real when they come into the country, you know, they cause crime and take jobs, and so the real facts we should be considering are experiences, yeah, being killed, you know, how many citizens or jobs are taken or being killed by you know, gangs of immigrants. Right, So, like I think you're just like, look that that's not relevant. And I want to say, facts do matter once you kind of like establish these stories, right, but when you're so entrenched in your moral view, you only consider facts that are are consistent with those beliefs.

Yeah, my mind just keeps thinking about the oh they're eating our dogs, you know, like that's a story, not a.

Fact, exactly exactly right. And so then you get into the and this is maxed you know, too too huge a question for any you know, one podcast of like well what does it mean to be true? Like aren't facts collection of stories? And is in the story of particular fact? And it gets it gets kind of like head spinny real fast. But I think we're just used to dealing with like one person's experience. And this is why when people lie, like the that news anchor who who lied about being in a helicopter crash. Yeah, I'm blank, and we're like so felt so betrayed because we're like, wait a second, you can't lie about stories because you know what happens to you.

You know, I hear Steven Thinker's license my head. Do you know what what he's saying? Do you know what he's saying? In my head? He's saying, court datum is not data. True.

I feel like that's the first time I've heard the word datum in a long time. Very very erudite. Again, but again, you can you know, we're confronted with so many studies where we're like, well, those data aren't the right data. They weren't collected or modernist. It's true, right, but like lived experiences, you know, do matter. And even yeah, even if you think about folks like Pinker, and even if you think about folks like Height right, who often a similar claims. Right, those folks will say, well, here's this experience I had on Twitter, Here's this experience I had teaching in my classes. Even those folks will anchor on their own experiences then and then martial facts that kind of support those those feelings. So all of us in a sense are kind of powerless in the face of our own lived experience because we're human beings, you know, and that's the lens we see the world through.

Yeah, good point. Why is hope and humility important for helping us?

Bridge divides well, at the end of the day, whether you you know, live in a community or a city or a country. You know, we might vote for different people or believe different things, but ultimately we need to come together to achieve greater things. We need to have conversations to figure out the right way forward. And those compromises and conversations require us to see each other as human and work together. And I think that's why humility is necessary, and I think hope is warranted because at the end of the day, no one we talk about this, you know a little bit. I talk about this in the book, Like, no one is out there trying to destroy the world. No one's a super villain who just like wants to burn it all down for the sake of it, Right, We're all trying to just build something better. Altimate Lee and I think recognizing that core human motivation, I think can give us hope to have those conversations, to bridge those divides into work together.

As my grandmother would say, from your mouth and God's ears, Kurt, I can't impress upon you enough how important I find your research and how it's influenced me in my own work. And I really truly wish you all the best with your book tour, and thank you for chatting with me today.

Yeah, thanks very much for having me on

The Psychology Podcast

In each episode, we talk with inspiring scientists, thinkers, and other self-actualized individuals  
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 456 clip(s)