Wie wir politisch Andersdenkende besser verstehen
Der Psychologe Kurt Gray hat das Buch »Outraged« geschrieben, das mir eine wertvolle Lektüre scheint:
Outraged reveals that moral conflict is rooted in harm—what we see as harmful, who we think is most vulnerable, and how we believe harm can be avoided. Social identity plays a key role in shaping these perceptions. Our groups don’t just tell us who we are; they also guide how we make sense of the world, including what we view as a threat and who we feel compelled to protect.
For example, liberals and conservatives agree that harm should be prevented but differ on who is most vulnerable. Liberals tend to focus more on the environment, immigrants, or marginalized groups, while conservatives focus more on the unborn, business owners, or law enforcement. These differences aren’t because one side is immoral, but because our groups help define who we believe needs protection.
By understanding the ways our identities shape our moral intuitions about harm, we can begin to bridge divides. Instead of assuming malice from the other side, we can see their actions as attempts to protect what matters to them—just as we are trying to do. This shift in perspective is crucial for moving beyond outrage and finding common ground.
The core idea in Outraged is simple: our moral judgments come from gut feelings about harm. We’re all wired to protect ourselves and the vulnerable, but conflicts arise when we disagree about who the “real” victims are and what’s causing harm.
Humans evolved as prey, not predators, which shaped our deep sensitivity to threats. This is why moral debates often feel so charged—we’re not debating logic, we’re reacting to perceived dangers. If you want to bridge divides, ask yourself—what harm do they see? That question opens the door to understanding.
Writing the book also changed me. I dove deep into anthropology and learned that humans didn’t evolve as predators, but as prey. We spent millions of years avoiding lions and eagles, and that shaped a deep-seated fear of threats. It’s why we’re so quick to see harm—and to accuse others of causing it. This shift in perspective changed how I see political divides. Instead of seeing the other side as “predators” trying to destroy the world, I see them as scared, just like us, trying to protect what they think matters most. That realization is powerful.
Studies also show that, no matter the value (or the specific scenario), people make moral judgments based on intuitive perceptions of harm. This perceived harm is broader than direct physical suffering, but it is genuinely perceived. When religious conservatives condemn gay rights because they seem harmful to them, they are using empty words, but expressing genuine convictions about what leads to suffering. Recognizing that shared focus on harm reshapes how we think about morality and gives us a real foundation for better understanding.
Wie kann man Polarisierung überbrücken?
So how do we bridge divides? The best way is through stories—especially stories about harm. Sharing personal stories of suffering helps people on the other side see that you care about protecting the vulnerable, just like they do. These stories create understanding and open the door to better conversations.
But not everyone has stories of suffering. Even if you don’t have a poignant story of harm, you can still improve conversations with three steps: Connect, Invite, Validate, which spells CIV, the beginning of more CIVil conversations.
Connect. Ask real, curious questions about the other person’s experiences. Before you talk about politics, show that you’re genuinely interested in understanding them as a person.
Invite. Once you've seen each other's humanity, you can invite them to share their beliefs (not demand). Encourage them to help you understand what they think and why.
Validate. Thank them for opening up. You don’t have to agree with them, but acknowledging their willingness to share can help foster mutual respect.
Hier das Buch. Zum ganzen Beitrag:
