The psychologist Jonathan Haidt once wrote that the “fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance.”
I’ve long thought that this explains most political debate, and via a Twitter mutual, another psychology paper confirms it: that when an empirical conclusion is likely to be true, but also points to something morally objectionable, people think that others should believe it less, even if it’s true.
Of course that’s all true, and our values dictate the way we see the world — but over the course of 2020 it appears that diverging moral visions have almost evolved into completely different realities.
To take the biggest issue in the English-speaking world, on the site today Louise Perry highlights the different ways that the Jacob Blake shooting has been framed.
Blake’s alleged crimes have been reported in places, but the average casual reader who gathered most of their news online would probably be unaware of the full story — as they would be with the details involving the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, the case which helped spark the Black Lives Matter movement.
At the heart of the BLM protests and the wider progressive movement is the goal of racial equality – not equality before the law, as was once fought for, but equality of outcomes, a dream no society has ever come close to achieving but which millions of Americans are now prepared to invest their money, hopes and country on.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe