The Tribalism of Truth

Morally objective or relative?: A religious pregnant woman seeking an abortion argues in court that her deeply held religious beliefs are that that “a nonviable fetus is not a separate human being but is part of her body and that abortion of a nonviable fetus does not terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.” The woman is arguing violation of the establishment clause by being forced by state law to wait (i) 72 hours to have her abortion, and (ii) read a pamphlet that states that life begins at conception, which she argues is a nonmedical religious viewpoint she rejects as false.

Writing for Scientific American, cognitive scientist Matthew Fisher and colleagues raise the questions of if and how polarized American political discourse affects perceptions of truth. Fisher is not asking if being an objectivist shapes behaviors. For example, some research evidence shows that objectivists tend to shy away from relativists or objectivists with opposing beliefs. The hypothesis is that it's not worth listening to anyone who disagrees with the objectivist's personal beliefs. That point requires new research to answer.

Instead Fisher asks this: Is it possible that when objectivists interact with people who disagree with their beliefs, they experience subtle mindset shifts that alter the degree to which they are objectivist about challenged beliefs? Existing research is clear that people vary in their degree of relativism and objectivism. What is not yet known is if or how mindsets change in response to belief challenges under various social circumstances.

The winning vs learning experiment: Fisher describes one experiment that he and his colleagues ran to begin answering the ‘mindset shift’ question. (Mindset shift is my term for the phenomenon - Fisher didn't label it) In the win vs learn experiment, Fisher paired people with opposite views on abortion, gun control and other issues. The pairs would engage in an online conversation under one of two sets of instructions. The first group was instructed that the conversation was competitive and a winner would be assessed. The second group instructed that the conversation was intended to be informational to assess how well each participant came to understand the other's beliefs and basis for them.

Not surprisingly, the online conversations in first group sounded exactly like current, emotionally charged and polarized political rhetoric. It was mostly useless. By contrast, the second group conversations had a civilized tone and generally revealed the reasons for why people believed as they did.

The participants were then assessed for what effects, if any, could be detected in mindsets. Fisher asked: “But would these exchanges in turn lead to different views about the very nature of the question being discussed? After the conversation was over, we asked participants whether they thought there was an objective truth about the topics they had just debated.”

The tentative answer is yes: “Strikingly, these 15-minute exchanges actually shifted people's views [i.e., caused mindset shift]. People were more objectivist after arguing to win than they were after arguing to learn.”

Given that result, ‘arguing’ in the learning mode seems like a misnomer. When one is learning without the fact- and logic-destroying motivation to win, maybe it's better to call it conversing. In terms of brain biology, debating to win doesn't have the same biological effect as conversing to learn.

If the results here hold up to additional research and are found to be influential, there could be important implications for politics. First, Americans would do well to reject the winner take all attitude that increasingly characterize polarized political debate and rhetoric. Second, one should acknowledge that the objectivist mindset has been actively fostered for decades by the two-party system, especially republicans and their no-compromise ideology. That no-compromise mindset is now growing on the left, presumably in reaction to its rise on the right. That rejection of civility for moral absolutes constituted a profound betrayal of the American people and democratic norms. Unless one is an intractable moral objectivist,[1] it may also constitute a threat to American democracy and values.

Footnote:
1. To test whether you tend toward moral relativism or objectivism, here's a self-assessment test. “This short word problem has proven remarkably successful in assessing people's tendency to look at multiple possibilities, an indication of a relativist moral sensibility. Try the test and see in which camp you belong.”

The green blocks problem There are five blocks in a stack. In this stack, the second block from the top is green, and the fourth is not green. Is a green block definitely on top of a non-green block?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Cannot be determined

B&B orig: 2/4/18; DP 8/11/19