-
I'm a political and social psychologist.
-
I study how people understand the world
-
and what this means for society
and for democracy ...
-
which, as it turns out, is quite a lot.
-
Some people see the world
as safe and good,
-
and this allows them
to be OK with uncertainty
-
and to take time to explore and play.
-
Others are acutely aware
of threats in their environment,
-
so they prioritize order
and predictability
-
over openness and experimentation.
-
In my academic research,
-
I study how these two approaches
shape how we think and feel
-
about everything from art to politics.
-
I also explore how political elites
-
and partisan media
use these very differences
-
to engender hatred and fear
-
and how the economics of our media system
exploit these same divides.
-
But after studying this,
-
I have come away not with a sense
that we are doomed to be divided
-
but that it's up to us
to see both sets of traits
-
as necessary and even valuable.
-
Take for example two men who have been
so influential in my own life.
-
First, my late husband, Mike.
-
He was an artist who saw the world
as safe and good.
-
He welcomed ambiguity
and play in his life.
-
In fact, we met through improv comedy
-
where he taught improvisers
to listen and be open
-
and to be comfortable not knowing
what was going to happen next.
-
After we got married and had our baby boy,
-
Mike was diagnosed with a brain tumor.
-
And through months
of hospitalizations and surgeries,
-
I followed Mike's lead,
-
trying to practice being open,
-
trying to be OK not knowing
what was going to happen next.
-
It was Mike's tolerance for ambiguity
-
that allowed me to survive
those months of uncertainty,
-
and that helped me explore new ways
to rebuild my life after he died.
-
About a year and a half
after Mike passed away,
-
I met my current husband, PJ.
-
PJ is a criminal prosecutor
-
who sees the world as potentially good
-
provided that threats
are properly managed.
-
He also is someone
who embraces order and predictability
-
in his daily routine,
-
in the foods that he eats,
-
in his selection of wardrobe.
-
And PJ has a vicious wit,
-
but he's also morally very serious
-
with a strong sense of duty and purpose.
-
And he values tradition,
loyalty and family,
-
which is why at the age of 28
-
he did not hesitate to marry a widow,
-
adopt her baby boy
-
and raise him as his son.
-
It was PJ's need for certainty and closure
-
that brought stability to our lives.
-
I share these two stories of Mike and PJ
-
not just because they're personal,
-
but because they illustrate two things
that I have found in my own research.
-
First, that our psychological traits
shape how we engage with the world,
-
and second,
-
that both of these approaches
make all of our lives possible.
-
Tragically though, political and economic
incentives of our media environment
-
seek to exploit these differences
-
to get us angry,
-
to get our attention,
-
to get clicks
-
and to turn us against one another.
-
And it works.
-
It works in part because
these same sets of traits
-
are related to core
political and cultural beliefs.
-
For years, political
psychologists have studied
-
how our psychological traits
shape our political beliefs.
-
We've conducted experiments to understand
-
how our psychology and our politics shape
how we respond to apolitical stimuli.
-
And this research has shown
-
that those people
who are less concerned with threats,
-
who are tolerant of ambiguity,
-
these people tend to be
more culturally and socially liberal
-
on matters like immigration
or crime or sexuality.
-
And because they're tolerant of ambiguity,
-
they also tend to be OK with nuance
-
and they enjoy thinking
for the sake of thinking,
-
which helps explain why it is
-
that there are distinct aesthetic
preferences on the left and the right,
-
with liberals more likely
than conservatives
-
to appreciate things like abstract art
-
or even stories that lack a clear ending.
-
In my experimental work,
-
I've also found that these
differences help explain
-
why ironic, political satire
is more likely to be appreciated
-
and understood by liberals
than conservatives.
-
On the other hand,
-
those people who
are monitoring for threats,
-
who prefer certainty and closure,
-
those tend to be our political,
cultural, social conservatives.
-
Because they're on alert,
-
they also make decisions
quickly and efficiently,
-
guided by intuition and emotion.
-
And we've found
that these traits help explain
-
why conservatives enjoy
political opinion talk programming
-
that clearly and efficiently
identifies threats and enemies.
-
What is essential though
-
is that these propensities
are not absolute --
-
they're not fixed.
-
There are liberals
who are monitoring for threats
-
just as there are conservatives
who are tolerant of ambiguity.
-
In fact, PJ's political beliefs
-
are not that radically different
from those that Mike held.
-
The link between psychology
and politics is contingent on context:
-
who we're with
and what's going on around us.
-
The problem is that right now,
-
our dominant context,
-
our political and media context,
-
actually needs these
differences to be absolute,
-
to be reinforced
-
and even to be weaponized.
-
For reasons related to power and profit,
-
some in politics and media
want us to believe
-
that those people who approach
the world differently from us --
-
the Mikes or the PJs --
-
themselves are dangerous.
-
And social media platforms
use algorithms and microtargeting
-
to deliver divisive messages
-
in our preferred messaging aesthetic.
-
Messages that relate to politics,
culture and race.
-
And we see the devastating effects
of these messages every single day.
-
Americans who are angry
and fearful of the other side.
-
Charges of the other side
destroying America.
-
But stop and think for a moment.
-
What would happen if those differences
had never been weaponized?
-
It is liberal inclinations
towards openness and flexibility
-
that allow us to cope with uncertainty
-
and that allow us to explore new paths
towards innovation, creativity --
-
scientific discovery.
-
Think of things like space travel
or cures for diseases
-
or art that imagines
and reimagines a better world.
-
And those conservative inclinations
towards vigilance and security
-
and tradition.
-
These are the things that motivate us
-
to do what must be done
-
for our own protection and stability.
-
Think of the safety
that's offered by our armed forces
-
or the security of our banking system.
-
Or think about the stability
-
that's offered by such democratic
institutions as jury duty,
-
or cultural traditions
like fireworks on the Fourth of July.
-
What if the real threat
posed to society and democracy
-
is not actually posed by the other side?
-
What if the real danger is posed
by political and media elites
-
who try to get us to think
-
that we'd be better off
without the other side
-
and who use these divisions
for their own personal,
-
financial, political benefit?
-
Mike and PJ engaged
with the world very differently,
-
but these distinct approaches
continue to enrich my life every day.
-
Instead of our political and media context
-
determining that
the other side is the enemy
-
and lulling us into believing
that that's true,
-
what if we choose to create the context?
-
Real people connecting
with other real people,
-
appreciating these two approaches
for what they are:
-
necessary gifts that can help us all
survive and thrive together.
-
Thank you.