Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground

“Competing perceptions of harm” drive much of today’s moral and political furor, according to this intriguing study by UNC-Chapel Hill neuroscience professor Gray (coauthor of The Mind Club). He argues that because humans spent most of history in constant fear of physical danger, the brain evolved a “harm-based” mindset that exercises a wide latitude when it comes to interpreting threats. For example, leftists might see systemic racism or wealth inequality as especially dangerous, while those on the right might feel most threatened by restrictions on firearms and perceived attacks on religious freedoms. According to the author, this means that both sides act in a manner that is self-protective rather than predatory, a notion that underlies his strategies for bridging social divides—for instance, by “learning about [one another’s] experiences of suffering” in a “psychologically safe” environment where people can share emotions without fear of attack. While the author spends more time discussing how humans developed the harm-based mindset than offering advice for overcoming its ill effects, he makes a solid case for rejecting the “easy idea that people who disagree with you are motivated to destroy.” It’s a well-supported study of the neuroscience behind one of today’s most pressing social issues. (Jan.)