We live in a culture that treats disagreement as a character defect.
When someone rejects a clearly documented fact, dismisses scientific consensus, or adopts a political stance we find incomprehensible, our default assumption is almost always the same: they are uninformed, irrational, or morally compromised. We tell ourselves that if we simply assemble better evidence, deliver clearer arguments, or fact-check their errors, the truth will inevitably win out.
Yet decades of behavioral science demonstrate that information rarely changes minds when identity is at stake.
In Episode 805 of Passion Struck, NYU neuroscientist and social psychologist Dr. Jay Van Bavel joined me to explore why good people become so divided. In a world reshaped by digital sorting, algorithmic feedback loops, and political fragmentation, people are not withdrawing into tribal camps out of malice. They are doing so because the human brain evolved to prioritize group identity and belonging over objective accuracy.
Understanding why good people become so divided requires us to look past the surface noise of political debate and examine the psychological forces governing how we construct reality.
Why Facts Alone Rarely Change People’s Minds
For generations, public discourse operated under what psychologists call the information deficit model. This theory assumes that people hold false beliefs simply because they lack accurate information. Provide the correct data, and their beliefs will naturally update.
In practice, human cognition works in reverse.
When information threatens a person’s core social identity or standing within a community, the brain treats that information as an attack. Rather than processing evidence neutrally, we deploy cognitive resources to protect our identity—a phenomenon known in social neuroscience as identity-protective cognition. This explains why facts don’t change minds when a belief is tied to who we are
The Limits of Fact-Checking
During our conversation, Jay recalled an early career experience conducting anti-racism workshops in high schools. Assuming that prejudice stemmed from ignorance, his team presented students with evidence disproving various stereotypes.
The results were unexpected. When a false premise was disproven, the students did not abandon their bias. Instead, they simply shifted to a different stereotype to justify their underlying emotional stance.
“If you updated them, they didn’t update. They just shifted to another stereotype, and they would keep doing that to try to cling to their belief… A lot of the origins of our biases are social.”
— Dr. Jay Van Bavel
Fact-checking and content moderation can nudge people toward accuracy in neutral contexts, but they struggle against polarized, identity-driven beliefs. Direct corrections from outside groups can even trigger a backlash effect, driving individuals deeper into their original position.
How Belonging Quietly Shapes Your Beliefs
The primary driver of human conviction is not individual logic, but social connection.
According to social identity theory, a significant portion of our self-concept is derived from the social groups to which we belong—our political parties, religious communities, professions, and cultural networks. The brain instinctively adopts the norms and beliefs of these groups to secure inclusion.
We Don’t Just Join Groups—Groups Begin Shaping Us
Research across 105 distinct societal groups reveals that the single strongest predictor of whether an individual will express prejudice or adopt a specific stance is not their personal intellect or moral philosophy. It is what they perceive others in their community believe.
The correlation between perceived community norms and individual expression approaches an astonishing 0.95—a near-perfect alignment. We absorb the consensus of our tribe because social exclusion historically signaled physical danger. This deep need for identity and belonging explains why good people become polarized even when the facts contradict their group’s narrative.
Sycophantic AI and the Digital Echo Chamber
On the podcast, Jay highlighted brand-new research from his lab examining how artificial intelligence accelerates this instinct. Many AI chatbots are engineered to be highly sycophantic—flattering users, validating questionable premises, and praising individuals for sharing their existing views.
When researchers crank up AI sycophancy, users report higher satisfaction and engage longer. However, this flattery produces a dangerous side effect: it inflates user overconfidence and pushes their beliefs toward greater extremes.
When presented with an AI designed to challenge them with objective facts, average users dismiss the corrective AI as biased, while praising the flattering AI as accurate. Technology is actively feeding our psychological blind spots for profit.
Why Polarization Feels So Personal
Cultural friction no longer feels like a disagreement over policy; it feels like an existential threat. Understanding why polarization feels so personal requires examining how social polarization alters our cognition
Jay and I discussed how two dangerous psychological traits escalate across the ideological spectrum as society becomes sorted:
- Dogmatism: The unshakeable conviction that one’s views are unquestionably correct and that anyone who disagrees is fundamentally wrong.
- Belief superiority: The conviction that one’s moral or intellectual judgment is superior to those holding alternative views.
Data indicates that extreme certainty is no longer confined to a single political wing. As polarization deepens, individuals at both ideological extremes exhibit rising levels of dogmatism and belief superiority.
When someone challenges your political or cultural beliefs, the brain processes that challenge in the same neural regions that handle physical pain and survival threats. Disagreement feels personal because, to your biological nervous system, it is personal.
The Hidden Cost of Living in an “Us vs. Them” World
Living in a perpetual state of tribal hostility carries a profound human toll that extends far beyond political elections.
The Epidemic of Unmattering
During our interview, I shared my research around The Mattering Effect and why the widespread breakdown in social cohesion stems from something deeper than isolation. While much attention has been directed toward the epidemic of loneliness, loneliness is often a symptom of an underlying crisis: the experience of unmattering.
Unmattering is the quiet, painful realization that you are invisible, undervalued, or seen merely for your transactional utility within a group. As Jay noted, when people stop feeling that they matter as individuals, they become increasingly defensive, cynical, and susceptible to radical tribal movements that offer a cheap sense of collective identity.
The Erosion of Cross-Group Trust
Polarization destroys the social infrastructure required for institutions, businesses, and communities to function.
Jay referenced a landmark study analyzing 61,000 Microsoft employees during the shift to remote work. While remote work allowed individuals to remain productive within their isolated teams, it drastically eroded cross-organizational relationships and broad institutional trust.
When people stop interacting across group boundaries—whether at the office water cooler, local parks, or civic organizations—innovation stalls and suspicion thrives.
How to Build Bridges Without Losing Yourself
Reversing division does not require abandoning your principles or agreeing with every opposing view. As Jay outlined on the podcast, it requires cultivating specific cognitive capacities that reopen the door to constructive engagement.
1. Practice Intellectual Humility
Intellectual humility is the recognition that your knowledge is limited and that you might be wrong.
Jay pointed to Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman as an exemplar of this trait. Despite his monumental contributions to behavioral economics, Kahneman routinely celebrated finding flaws in his own published work, viewing error correction as the ultimate superpower of growth.
Research shows that individuals who score high in intellectual humility share distinct characteristics:
- They are significantly less susceptible to conspiracy theories and misinformation.
- They do not reject challenging ideas outright; they evaluate evidence critically while maintaining curiosity.
- They are willing to engage with disagreeable information without becoming defensive.
2. Create Contact on Equal Footing: The I-House Model
Jay shared findings from a multi-year study his lab conducted on International House (I-House) in New York, which brings together students from scores of different nations, religions, and political systems to live under one roof.
Long-term studies of I-House alumni reveal remarkably high levels of empathy and intellectual humility, alongside extraordinarily low levels of polarization.
The model succeeds because it relies on positive intergroup contact on equal footing. Residents break bread together daily, navigate contentious debates within a culture of mutual respect, and build deep personal relationships before tackling disagreement.
Psychological safety is not the absence of disagreement; it is the presence of respect that makes disagreement safe.
3. Harness Collective Joy
Divisions weaken when people participate in shared, transcendent experiences.
Psychologists refer to this as collective effervescence—the shared joy and sense of unity that occurs when humans gather around a common focus, whether through sports, music, community projects, or cultural celebrations.
When communities come together for shared events, local crime rates drop, social anxiety eases, and strangers begin viewing one another as allies rather than adversaries.
4. Initiate Micro-Connections
Jay closed our interview by highlighting a famous study conducted on Chicago commuters by psychologist Nicholas Epley. Participants asked to talk to a stranger during their daily train ride anticipated the experience would be awkward and unpleasant.
In reality, those who reached out reported significantly higher levels of well-being and positive energy throughout their day. Small, daily acts of social connection build the bridge capital necessary to sustain a healthy society.
About Today’s Guest, Jay Van Bavel
Jay Van Bavel, an Associate Professor of Psychology & Neural Science at New York University, is also affiliated with the Stern School of Business in Management and Organizations and serves as the Director of the Social Identity & Morality Lab. He co-authored the book “The Power of Us: Harnessing Our Shared Identities to Improve Performance, Increase Cooperation, and Promote Social Harmony.” Prior to his current position, Jay earned his Ph.D. from the University of Toronto and completed a Postdoctoral Fellowship at The Ohio State University.
Jay’s research explores the impact of collective concerns, such as group identities, moral values, and political beliefs, on the mind, brain, and behavior. His work delves into issues of group identity, social motivation, cooperation, implicit bias, moral judgment, decision-making, and social media, utilizing neuroimaging, lesion patients, social cognitive tasks, economic tasks, cross-cultural surveys, and computational social science.
Is Society Breaking Down? The Truth About Our Trust Deficit
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do good people become polarized?
People rarely adopt complex beliefs based on isolated facts alone. Our identities, cultural backgrounds, and the social groups we rely on for belonging strongly influence how we interpret information, evaluate risks, and decide whom to trust.
What is social identity theory?
Social identity theory, formulated by Henri Tajfel and John Turner, demonstrates that a person’s sense of who they are depends on the groups to which they belong. These group memberships create an in-group bias, shaping how individuals process information and interact with out-groups.
Why don’t facts change people’s minds during a disagreement?
When a belief is intertwined with a person’s identity or social standing, accepting a contradictory fact feels like risking social rejection. The brain prioritizes identity protection over objective accuracy, leading individuals to rationalize or dismiss contradictory evidence.
How can we overcome political and social polarization?
Polarization can be reduced by cultivating intellectual humility, fostering positive contact between diverse groups on equal footing, establishing shared goals, and engaging in local community experiences that emphasize common humanity.
What is the difference between loneliness and unmattering?
Loneliness is the feeling of being isolated or lacking social contact. Unmattering is the deeper psychological experience of feeling invisible, unimportant, or valued only for your productivity rather than your humanity. Unmattering often fuels social defensiveness and tribalism.
Listen to my previous discussion with Dr. Jay Van Bavel in episoe 265 of Passion Struck.
