![]() ![]() ![]() On both sides, most people are just trusting their tribe’s designated experts.Īnd what energizes this trust? Often, I think, the answer is antagonism. ![]() As with most issues, few people in either tribe have looked closely at the actual evidence. Pinker is not under the illusion that many members of his (and my) climate-change tribe are under: that people in our tribe have objectively assessed the evidence, whereas climate change skeptics have for some reason failed to do that. Namely, it shapes and drives some of the cognitive distortions that muddy our thinking about critical issues it warps reason.Ĭonsider, again, climate change. For now the point is that tribal antagonism also poses a subtler challenge to his thesis. I do think this form of antagonism is a bigger problem for Pinker’s thesis than he realizes, but that’s a story for another day. I’m not talking about the obvious downside of tribal antagonism-the way it leads nations to go to war or dissolve in civil strife, the way it fosters conflict along ethnic or religious lines. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |