The other side is not evil: Kurt Gray on how fear drives political divides

In political debates, it can be easy to dismiss the other side by turning them into stereotypes or rejecting their viewpoints as “dumb.” Sometimes, though, the rhetoric goes further, and people can accuse the other side of being immoral or even evil. Why is that? In this short video, Kurt Gray, a psychology and neuroscience professor at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, digs deep into human history to explain the evolutionary root causes of political polarization.

Kurt Gray, "The Psychology of Political Polarization: Conservatives v. Liberals," StandTogether.org, 19 January 2024.

 

1. How is our sense of morality related to human evolution? Consider Gray’s description of the differences between the mindset of predators and prey (1:43) and how he defines morality (2:26).
   
2. Gray argues all people have “a moral sense” that leads them to protect themselves, their families, and their society (3:10). Disagreements happen because people argue about who or what is most in need of protection. He uses the example of immigration to illustrate this issue. How do liberals and conservatives view this issue differently? Who are they trying to protect from harm? What’s another example that illustrates this point?
3. At the end of this video, Gray addresses the “so what?” and “who cares?” questions. Paraphrase his response to the “so what?” and “who cares?” questions. How might political debates be different if people tried to understand what the other side felt threatened by? You may use a template from the book to compose these responses.
4. Do you find Gray’s argument persuasive? Why or why not? What other factors, such as social media, might also contribute to viewing the “other side” as evil or immoral? What are the limits to Gray’s argument and solution? Compose a short response to his argument in which you agree, disagree, or agree and disagree with his claims.

Comments

[Chrissy]

At first glance, Gray's definition about moral seems logical and appealing to me. We are afraid of threats, so we create moral to protect people. But there are some loopholes in this definition. Yes we want to protect ourselves, but why do we establish moral to protect the other ones, the "vulnerable" people? Humans are selfish. We don't have to care for the vulnerable to protect ourselves. So I doubt the evolutional theory of moral.

[Sophie]

It’s very interesting how Gray explains the division between the liberals and the conservatives. They hold different opinions because they categorize people differently according to vulnerability. They “protect” different communities based on what sort of “threat” they feel. When the concept of “morality” switches from right/wrong to threat/protection, we seem to throw our rationalism and empathy away at the same time. When we feel that our rights are violated, we view the “predators” as inhumane. And to defense ourselves, we give up our faith in communicating the human way. We’ve then naturally given up the opportunity to stand on the same, human ground.

[Cindy]

I agree with Grey that different people have different moral standards because people’s interests are different. Just like the example illustrated by Grey in this video, liberals and conservatives think differently on the issue of immigration. Liberals think that the immigrants are the victim because they lack of protection, but the conservatives think that people who are in the States are the victims because immigrants will harm their interests and safety. Thus, we can’t simply comment on which side is right or wrong since their positions are different but at the same time, they are indeed trying to protect what they each think are victims. The title “The Other Side is not Evil,” reinforces this point that we should respect people’s thoughts on morality. They are not “dumb” but they think differently.

[James]

I think Gray has a point here about how people define their own moralities because each individual views victims differently. It is an act of self-protection which causes them to advocate for different sides in politics. The solution Gray gave is useful, but I think it is hard for everyone to control their emotions and have conversations about politics every time, or else all the protests wouldn't happen. I think it will still be chaotic if everyone defines their own morality. We have to go back to Him for the standard of right and wrong.

[Constantine S]

I think that throughout his reasoning, Kurt Gray presents a very important topic that many people today seem to overlook, and that's being able to understand the other perspective in the story. There's another article written by the author Blanda, which is titled "The Other Side is not Dumb" which covers a topic similar to this article. In Blanda’s article, they argue similarly in the sense that they remark on the fact that many people don’t take the time of day to even understand where another perspective is coming from. Oftentimes, many people are quick to dismiss other people because they think differently, and share a different opinion. I think that this topic bolsters the importance of hearing out and being able to build upon your perspective from the perspectives of others. It really goes to show that the world doesn't revolve around a single perspective but the thoughts and feelings of many. When it comes to critical thinking, one fails to critically think when they dismiss the other side. Being able to critically understand and be open-minded towards other reasons and opinions is part of critical thinking. It's a skill one has to develop by being in the position of getting disagreed with. It's a necessary part to grow as a critical thinker, and many people today dismiss the other side as being worse than theirs because it's different. I definitely agree with the point that in order to be truly open-minded, we must be able to understand the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of other people, and use those perspectives to help build our own. Without the ability to communicate, respond, and understand other people, it would be impossible to come to any understanding with different perspectives. Being able to listen to others is a skill that’s just as vital as having your own thoughts. Being able to grow through other perspectives is an essential part of critical thinking.

[Bennett]

Kurt Gray’s argument in "The Psychology of Political Polarization" is persuasive in highlighting how psychological mechanisms, such as moral judgments, deepen political divides. His insights align with established theories, emphasizing that viewing opponents as morally corrupt exacerbates polarization. However, Gray's argument overlooks factors like social media, which fosters echo chambers and distorts perceptions of the "other side." Anonymity online can dehumanize opponents, making it easier to view them as evil. Additionally, his proposed solutions of promoting empathy may be limited without addressing systemic issues like economic inequality and media influence that reinforce polarization. I agree with Gray's analysis of the psychological roots of polarization but believe he should consider the broader context of social media and structural factors to create more effective strategies for overcoming political divides.