This was a very thoughtful, intriguing article on the different ways our brains conjure up and deal with prejudice. For me, it was a major prompt to search even deeper for - Why I think what I do about the "out" groups and to become ever-more deliberate as I engage in uncomfortable interactions. One on one engagement is so often the most fertile ground for growth.
Lucy, that's so kind of you to say. I was trying to think if I had anything useful to add, and really wasn't sure, so especially nice to get this comment.
The "prejudice + suppression = expression" model is useful. But I think this war is a reminder that "the harming of innocents is always a tragedy to be mourned, no matter who those innocents are", while very true, can lead to a moral relativism or equivalency which obscures the important foreign policy implications of this tragedy.
I agree. I think there's a somewhat narrow corridor of comprehensive compassion without undue relativism. I find it difficult to navigate; even if I were somehow puppet master of all the world, I'm not sure what all the right things to do here would be. In any case, your point is well taken, and important.
I agree with you whole-heartedly, but would add my usual disclaimer - that's a really complex issue (foreign policy implications). Getting past ego's, ulterior motives and economics might go a long way in lessening the divide.
I think there have been a lot of really good articles by writers like Walter Russell Meade, Thomas Friedman, and David Brooks that have helped to simplify some of the complexities and show the moral, diplomatic, and political failings on both sides, while condemning Hamas's attack. Were there any more specifics you were thinking of in lessening the divide?
Not at all. The specifics of all the failings on both sides may be spot on. Getting the main actors to change in meaningful ways is where it gets complicated.
True, it seemed like 1999-2000 was the last time the two sides were close to anything resembling progress, specifically on a two state solution compromise.
First, this is a great meta article, stepping back from the reactionary and allowing a response to formulate… or at least the admirable framework for a response!
I agree the crux of this piece is “prejudice + suppression = expression.”
My daughter goes to a private, progressive education school in which social justice and respect for all groups is a daily practice. Her DEFAULT mode is anti-racism, and I’m not exaggerating. I’m worried about other schools, families, societies, and governments that don’t believe in suppression and inclusivity and egalitarianism - but rather foment hatred of the other.
We can argue that “both sides” in this terrorism event have not done a good enough job at suppression… but clearly Hamas came to power through the Palestinian people’s majority will with an explicit creed of killing Jews. Many in the Muslim world share this goal, see Hezbollah, Iran, etc.
If someone told me they wanted to kill me, and then started killing, torturing, raping, and burning my children alive… F suppression.
How’s that for the opposite goal of this lovely piece?!?
Ryan, I hear you. And frankly, I do read into some of this that there are people who would eagerly kill or capture me and my family if the opportunity presented itself. I certainly don't claim to know the right balance here, but having read a fair bit on the history of violence, I find the precipitous drop in just daily accepted brutality to be an almost unbelievable achievement of humanity, and that a lot of that is due both to changes in our institutions, and our norms. (Two books that influenced me: Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature, and North et al.'s Violence and Social Orders.) I'm not making a "turn the other cheek" claim, and suppression is presumably unrealistic for people directly involved anyway, but as someone following from afar, I couldn't think of much useful to contribute other than perhaps to ask that people put a moment of thought into what they do on social media before hitting those share buttons. As you can no doubt tell, I have no clear thoughts, but I always enjoy batting things around with you in these comments.
Thank you for this powerful, thoughtful post. I appreciate how you clarified without reducing the complexity of these studies, and encouraging us to keep adding our small but significant contributions to the Good.
Thank you for these kind words. ...I think "small but significant" will stick in my head, as it's the only way I can think to proceed much of the time.
I can remember that an individual may be suppressing views, but I forget to consider what that looks like at scale: “massive aquifers of prejudice bubbling just below our collective surface.” Thanks for the thoughtful post, David.
I've often thought that the "massive aquifers of prejudice" bubbling to the surface during the Obama years were major contributors toward the political mess that the US is now in. The prejudice had been there, but people were given permission to express it.
Beautifully said. I tend to not post when I'm feeling emotionally reactive, period. Just like I'm not going to text a friend my upset. We all use social media in our own way, I guess. A lot of damage is done when people use it as a vehicle for strong emotion.
I appreciate how thoughtful this was, David. I've been stewing on it and it made me think of a few things. First off, I agree with what you said that it's okay not to have an opinion on nearly everything for nearly everyone (trying to write that sentence and paraphrase yours was clunky so hat tip to you for finding a smooth way to say it). I guess politicians would be an exception, and I remember listening to a Congressman speak one time, and he said that one of the hardest parts of the job was being expected to know at least a little bit about everything. Second, this post made me think about most of the posts my friends have been making about this crisis. A lot of it frustrated me because it seemed like virtue signaling that wouldn't be followed up with any action that was actually helpful, but I guess this post maybe speaks to some of the value it can bring? Does that make sense? I guess what I'm saying is that one read of your post is that if posting is a way to promote social norms that suppress prejudice, then maybe I should feel less hesitant about posting something that feels like virtue signaling. What do you think?
Hey Matt, thanks, as always, for the unique and thoughtful question. Obviously, I don't have any great answers for any of this, but I think you know that, and we're just two people examining our intuition. Regarding the Congressman, that's an interesting anecdote. Indeed they generally do need to have a take, since their remit is basically everything that could fall under governance, and their takes help the public evaluate them. So, yeah, I guess take-having is one of the most important parts of their job. (Speaking of, it's too bad that changing takes is derided as "flip-flopping" in politics, given that so much judgment and decision making research shows that good decision makers are constantly tweaking their ideas, and sometimes outright changing them. Maybe the Good Judgment Project could start a politician scorecard, like the NRA does for its interests, except this one would be for willingness to change one's mind. Would be nice to see mind-changing get a better brand!) To your second point, I definitely know that feeling of frustration you’re talking about, because I have it too. In the last few years, I’ve increasingly seen some of the pile-on virtue signaling at least partly through the lens of power dynamics, and the ways that identity groups try to wield power, particularly when they don’t have much access to traditional levers of power. I guess I think a lot of the devil is probably in the virtue-signaling details, but I think I tend to agree with your point, that virtue signaling, even when frustrating, may have some useful practical purpose. You reminded me of a Steven Pinker talk I went to, after his book about the general decline of violence came out, and I recall that he attributed some of the decline in tolerance for violence (including bullying) to public reactions to dramatic stories. And he suggested that for much of history those stories didn’t travel so far, and so the collective reaction didn’t have much impact. So, with the enormous caveat that the details of the virtue-signaling probably matter a lot, I think you’re on to something.
I think I agree with this thanks, David. I guess I'll try not to turn my nose up at virtue signaling as much from now on. The flip-flopping politician point is such a big frustration I have. I think I first read about Tetlock's work in Range, and then it's popped up in a bunch of books for me since. Like you said, the findings are just so clear. In the PoliSci classes I took in college, this ad ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucdGspCOvM4 ) was the hallmark of showing how flip-flopping can doom a politician. My dream is that one day I hope we can look back on it and cringe at the norms of earlier generations that derided politicians for changing their minds.
Oh man, what a commercial! ...So much of this, the need for some politicians to be extreme and unswerving, feels to me like it resonates with Mancur Olson's frame of collective action, and how nations decline. Have we talked about him at all yet? I feel like I mentioned him to you in passing, but I'm not sure...
Oh I don't think we have. I just asked chat gpt about it (I find this to be a good use because then I can ask really specific follow up questions) and it sounds like the idea is that collective action works better in small groups than large ones and that large nations have special interest groups pop up who get good at pursuing policy that benefits them but at the cost of the broader population. Is that the general idea?
While this a useful explainer on how we feel or how we navigate our feelings through it, I think it's way more important to bear the moral responsibility and reject injustice..
You and I (and many others like us) theorizing from a far, is a privilege. We get to think beyond the basic feelings and process them, while people in have their livelihoods completely shattered, and their whole families wiped out from registers..
I just want people (you and I included) to think of that when they think of hating others, and expressing it so publicly..
Hi Abdulrahman, I have no illusion about the privilege of theorizing from afar. The fact is, I am afar (even with affected family), and everyone reading this is afar, and so there is little else I can do or potentially add to the conversation that might be even in the very slightest way useful for anyone. For the most part, and for this reason, I wasn't planning to post anything at all. But after reading this paper, I felt, short of attempting to police peoples' feelings, which I don't think is possible anyway, I could at least think aloud about what we actually choose to post — as I was thinking it through for myself. There are many instances in which I think hate is absolutely justified, but also struggle with where the processing of it gets us, in practical terms.
I posted on my substack the other day that I cannot hate ordinary Gazans. But what about the people who live thousands of miles from Gaza and express support and solidarity with Hamas? Especially the little Adolf Eichmann's running around Harvard and other college campuses? I think they deserve all of the hatred I can muster.
First of all, just want to say that I've read and really appreciate some of your writing, and glad to see you here. That aside, I certainly don't begrudge those feelings. I imagine it's similar to how I felt watching video of students chanting "from the river to the sea" outside the dorm I once lived in. Those actions obviously aren't specifically the kind of social media posts I write about here, but I do think they would fall squarely in the not-good-to-share category of commentary, according to the general rubric I was reading about. In any case, I don't begrudge the feelings, but was aiming (perhaps unsuccessfully) to think aloud more narrowly here about the practical impacts of peoples' reactionary posts.
On the one hand I really follow you and am disgusted with some of the responses I've seen. But I personally don't see where hate has ever accomplished anything good/enduring. This newest war is built on a really solid and growing foundation of hate - I'm not sure adding to it is likely to help. Better understanding the root causes and origins might be another option that would open up the possibility for better outcomes.
I agree, although I don't think it is actually possible, or necessary, to bar someone from the emotion of hate in the moment. And one could argue that, say, powerful hatred or revulsion toward Nazi ideology, or slavery accomplished some things. But at the moment I'm kind of taking a lot of hatred on both sides as a given, and wondering what might be done to avoid the worst manifestations of it. I think, in the longer term, your point about understanding causes is clearly important. I'm not sure it gets us to a better place, given that the root cause one sees has a lot to do with where they draw the timeline, but I think it's important nonetheless. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Mark.
You're welcome David. We're definitely on the same page and as you said, we can't begrudge someone for hating people who are overflowing with evil. I certainly struggle with hatred myself at times, but I try to keep reminding myself that hatred toward people is an understandable reaction but has a very poor track in terms of being a successful strategy. Hatred toward ideology is another matter completely - especially with the two examples you gave. I have zero problems there.
This was a very thoughtful, intriguing article on the different ways our brains conjure up and deal with prejudice. For me, it was a major prompt to search even deeper for - Why I think what I do about the "out" groups and to become ever-more deliberate as I engage in uncomfortable interactions. One on one engagement is so often the most fertile ground for growth.
Thank you. A useful & helpful intervention for navigating these churning emotional seas.
Lucy, that's so kind of you to say. I was trying to think if I had anything useful to add, and really wasn't sure, so especially nice to get this comment.
The "prejudice + suppression = expression" model is useful. But I think this war is a reminder that "the harming of innocents is always a tragedy to be mourned, no matter who those innocents are", while very true, can lead to a moral relativism or equivalency which obscures the important foreign policy implications of this tragedy.
I agree. I think there's a somewhat narrow corridor of comprehensive compassion without undue relativism. I find it difficult to navigate; even if I were somehow puppet master of all the world, I'm not sure what all the right things to do here would be. In any case, your point is well taken, and important.
I agree with you whole-heartedly, but would add my usual disclaimer - that's a really complex issue (foreign policy implications). Getting past ego's, ulterior motives and economics might go a long way in lessening the divide.
I think there have been a lot of really good articles by writers like Walter Russell Meade, Thomas Friedman, and David Brooks that have helped to simplify some of the complexities and show the moral, diplomatic, and political failings on both sides, while condemning Hamas's attack. Were there any more specifics you were thinking of in lessening the divide?
Not at all. The specifics of all the failings on both sides may be spot on. Getting the main actors to change in meaningful ways is where it gets complicated.
True, it seemed like 1999-2000 was the last time the two sides were close to anything resembling progress, specifically on a two state solution compromise.
First, this is a great meta article, stepping back from the reactionary and allowing a response to formulate… or at least the admirable framework for a response!
I agree the crux of this piece is “prejudice + suppression = expression.”
My daughter goes to a private, progressive education school in which social justice and respect for all groups is a daily practice. Her DEFAULT mode is anti-racism, and I’m not exaggerating. I’m worried about other schools, families, societies, and governments that don’t believe in suppression and inclusivity and egalitarianism - but rather foment hatred of the other.
We can argue that “both sides” in this terrorism event have not done a good enough job at suppression… but clearly Hamas came to power through the Palestinian people’s majority will with an explicit creed of killing Jews. Many in the Muslim world share this goal, see Hezbollah, Iran, etc.
If someone told me they wanted to kill me, and then started killing, torturing, raping, and burning my children alive… F suppression.
How’s that for the opposite goal of this lovely piece?!?
Ryan, I hear you. And frankly, I do read into some of this that there are people who would eagerly kill or capture me and my family if the opportunity presented itself. I certainly don't claim to know the right balance here, but having read a fair bit on the history of violence, I find the precipitous drop in just daily accepted brutality to be an almost unbelievable achievement of humanity, and that a lot of that is due both to changes in our institutions, and our norms. (Two books that influenced me: Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature, and North et al.'s Violence and Social Orders.) I'm not making a "turn the other cheek" claim, and suppression is presumably unrealistic for people directly involved anyway, but as someone following from afar, I couldn't think of much useful to contribute other than perhaps to ask that people put a moment of thought into what they do on social media before hitting those share buttons. As you can no doubt tell, I have no clear thoughts, but I always enjoy batting things around with you in these comments.
Thank you for this powerful, thoughtful post. I appreciate how you clarified without reducing the complexity of these studies, and encouraging us to keep adding our small but significant contributions to the Good.
Thank you for these kind words. ...I think "small but significant" will stick in my head, as it's the only way I can think to proceed much of the time.
Enlightened (as usual.)
Good psychology lesson and interesting referenced articles/research. Thank you!
So kind of you to say, Michael, and thank you for reading.
I can remember that an individual may be suppressing views, but I forget to consider what that looks like at scale: “massive aquifers of prejudice bubbling just below our collective surface.” Thanks for the thoughtful post, David.
Thanks so much Steve. Really appreciate the kind words, and the thoughtful comment.
I've often thought that the "massive aquifers of prejudice" bubbling to the surface during the Obama years were major contributors toward the political mess that the US is now in. The prejudice had been there, but people were given permission to express it.
As always, well thought through and expressed. Thanks.
Adam, appreciate that. I really admire your thinking and writing, so very meaningful to hear.
Beautifully said. I tend to not post when I'm feeling emotionally reactive, period. Just like I'm not going to text a friend my upset. We all use social media in our own way, I guess. A lot of damage is done when people use it as a vehicle for strong emotion.
I appreciate how thoughtful this was, David. I've been stewing on it and it made me think of a few things. First off, I agree with what you said that it's okay not to have an opinion on nearly everything for nearly everyone (trying to write that sentence and paraphrase yours was clunky so hat tip to you for finding a smooth way to say it). I guess politicians would be an exception, and I remember listening to a Congressman speak one time, and he said that one of the hardest parts of the job was being expected to know at least a little bit about everything. Second, this post made me think about most of the posts my friends have been making about this crisis. A lot of it frustrated me because it seemed like virtue signaling that wouldn't be followed up with any action that was actually helpful, but I guess this post maybe speaks to some of the value it can bring? Does that make sense? I guess what I'm saying is that one read of your post is that if posting is a way to promote social norms that suppress prejudice, then maybe I should feel less hesitant about posting something that feels like virtue signaling. What do you think?
Hey Matt, thanks, as always, for the unique and thoughtful question. Obviously, I don't have any great answers for any of this, but I think you know that, and we're just two people examining our intuition. Regarding the Congressman, that's an interesting anecdote. Indeed they generally do need to have a take, since their remit is basically everything that could fall under governance, and their takes help the public evaluate them. So, yeah, I guess take-having is one of the most important parts of their job. (Speaking of, it's too bad that changing takes is derided as "flip-flopping" in politics, given that so much judgment and decision making research shows that good decision makers are constantly tweaking their ideas, and sometimes outright changing them. Maybe the Good Judgment Project could start a politician scorecard, like the NRA does for its interests, except this one would be for willingness to change one's mind. Would be nice to see mind-changing get a better brand!) To your second point, I definitely know that feeling of frustration you’re talking about, because I have it too. In the last few years, I’ve increasingly seen some of the pile-on virtue signaling at least partly through the lens of power dynamics, and the ways that identity groups try to wield power, particularly when they don’t have much access to traditional levers of power. I guess I think a lot of the devil is probably in the virtue-signaling details, but I think I tend to agree with your point, that virtue signaling, even when frustrating, may have some useful practical purpose. You reminded me of a Steven Pinker talk I went to, after his book about the general decline of violence came out, and I recall that he attributed some of the decline in tolerance for violence (including bullying) to public reactions to dramatic stories. And he suggested that for much of history those stories didn’t travel so far, and so the collective reaction didn’t have much impact. So, with the enormous caveat that the details of the virtue-signaling probably matter a lot, I think you’re on to something.
I think I agree with this thanks, David. I guess I'll try not to turn my nose up at virtue signaling as much from now on. The flip-flopping politician point is such a big frustration I have. I think I first read about Tetlock's work in Range, and then it's popped up in a bunch of books for me since. Like you said, the findings are just so clear. In the PoliSci classes I took in college, this ad ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucdGspCOvM4 ) was the hallmark of showing how flip-flopping can doom a politician. My dream is that one day I hope we can look back on it and cringe at the norms of earlier generations that derided politicians for changing their minds.
Oh man, what a commercial! ...So much of this, the need for some politicians to be extreme and unswerving, feels to me like it resonates with Mancur Olson's frame of collective action, and how nations decline. Have we talked about him at all yet? I feel like I mentioned him to you in passing, but I'm not sure...
Oh I don't think we have. I just asked chat gpt about it (I find this to be a good use because then I can ask really specific follow up questions) and it sounds like the idea is that collective action works better in small groups than large ones and that large nations have special interest groups pop up who get good at pursuing policy that benefits them but at the cost of the broader population. Is that the general idea?
I appreciate you and appreciate your work David.
While this a useful explainer on how we feel or how we navigate our feelings through it, I think it's way more important to bear the moral responsibility and reject injustice..
You and I (and many others like us) theorizing from a far, is a privilege. We get to think beyond the basic feelings and process them, while people in have their livelihoods completely shattered, and their whole families wiped out from registers..
I just want people (you and I included) to think of that when they think of hating others, and expressing it so publicly..
Hi Abdulrahman, I have no illusion about the privilege of theorizing from afar. The fact is, I am afar (even with affected family), and everyone reading this is afar, and so there is little else I can do or potentially add to the conversation that might be even in the very slightest way useful for anyone. For the most part, and for this reason, I wasn't planning to post anything at all. But after reading this paper, I felt, short of attempting to police peoples' feelings, which I don't think is possible anyway, I could at least think aloud about what we actually choose to post — as I was thinking it through for myself. There are many instances in which I think hate is absolutely justified, but also struggle with where the processing of it gets us, in practical terms.
I posted on my substack the other day that I cannot hate ordinary Gazans. But what about the people who live thousands of miles from Gaza and express support and solidarity with Hamas? Especially the little Adolf Eichmann's running around Harvard and other college campuses? I think they deserve all of the hatred I can muster.
First of all, just want to say that I've read and really appreciate some of your writing, and glad to see you here. That aside, I certainly don't begrudge those feelings. I imagine it's similar to how I felt watching video of students chanting "from the river to the sea" outside the dorm I once lived in. Those actions obviously aren't specifically the kind of social media posts I write about here, but I do think they would fall squarely in the not-good-to-share category of commentary, according to the general rubric I was reading about. In any case, I don't begrudge the feelings, but was aiming (perhaps unsuccessfully) to think aloud more narrowly here about the practical impacts of peoples' reactionary posts.
On the one hand I really follow you and am disgusted with some of the responses I've seen. But I personally don't see where hate has ever accomplished anything good/enduring. This newest war is built on a really solid and growing foundation of hate - I'm not sure adding to it is likely to help. Better understanding the root causes and origins might be another option that would open up the possibility for better outcomes.
I agree, although I don't think it is actually possible, or necessary, to bar someone from the emotion of hate in the moment. And one could argue that, say, powerful hatred or revulsion toward Nazi ideology, or slavery accomplished some things. But at the moment I'm kind of taking a lot of hatred on both sides as a given, and wondering what might be done to avoid the worst manifestations of it. I think, in the longer term, your point about understanding causes is clearly important. I'm not sure it gets us to a better place, given that the root cause one sees has a lot to do with where they draw the timeline, but I think it's important nonetheless. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Mark.
You're welcome David. We're definitely on the same page and as you said, we can't begrudge someone for hating people who are overflowing with evil. I certainly struggle with hatred myself at times, but I try to keep reminding myself that hatred toward people is an understandable reaction but has a very poor track in terms of being a successful strategy. Hatred toward ideology is another matter completely - especially with the two examples you gave. I have zero problems there.