We like to believe we make decisions by weighing evidence, considering outcomes, and thinking things through. But in reality, most of our choices are guided by something far more powerful and far less examined: our sacred values.
In this episode of Passion Struck, I interview Steven Sloman, one of the world’s leading cognitive scientists and the author of The Cost of Conviction, to explore how our deepest moral commitments shape the way we think, argue, vote, and lead. Steven explains why relying too heavily on sacred values can quietly override consequences, shut down reasoning, and fuel the kind of polarization we see everywhere today.
Drawing on decades of research in decision-making, psychology, and collective cognition, this conversation challenges the assumption that moral certainty equates with moral clarity. Instead, Steven shows how humility, tradeoff thinking, and shared reasoning are essential if we want better decisions and a less divided society.
Our Deeply Held Sacred Values, and How Decisions Really Get Made
Steven Sloman introduces a powerful distinction between two ways humans make decisions. One approach focuses on consequences and outcomes. The other relies on moral absolutes that frame actions as simply right or wrong. While both are necessary, problems arise when these deepest values dominate situations that require nuance, tradeoffs, and long-term thinking.
When these deepest values take over, decision-making feels easier and more emotionally satisfying. But that ease often comes at the cost of understanding, empathy, and flexibility. This is where good intentions can quietly lead us astray.
Taboo Tradeoffs and Why Moral Absolutes Break Down
One of the most striking parts of this conversation is Steven’s explanation of taboo tradeoffs. These occur when people refuse to exchange moral convictions for any material or practical benefit, even when circumstances demand difficult choices.
Steven also introduces tragic tradeoffs, moments when two deepest values collide, and no option preserves moral purity. These moments reveal why absolute thinking struggles in a complex world and why mature decision making requires accepting loss, ambiguity, and responsibility.
<Key Highlights From This Steven Sloman Interview
- Why sacred values feel morally powerful but cognitively limiting
- How the cost of conviction shows up in politics, leadership, and everyday life
- The difference between taboo tradeoffs and tragic tradeoffs
- Why the knowledge illusion fuels overconfidence and conflict
- How polarization psychology turns disagreement into identity warfare
- What adversarial cooperation can teach us about better thinking together
Why This Conversation Matters Today
We are living in a moment defined by certainty and division. Everyone believes they are right. Everyone believes their values are under attack. And as a result, we are losing the ability to think together.
This conversation matters because it offers a way out. Not by abandoning values, but by learning when to hold them lightly, when to question them, and when to shift our focus toward consequences and shared outcomes. If we want better decisions, stronger leadership, and a healthier society, this episode offers a science-grounded starting point.
The Cost of Conviction in Modern Society
In The Cost of Conviction, Steven argues that moral certainty has become one of the most powerful drivers of social conflict. Conviction simplifies complex issues into slogans and absolutes, making disagreement feel threatening rather than productive.
We explore how this mindset affects politics, leadership, and everyday relationships. When values are treated as untouchable, conversations stagnate, and communities begin to define themselves in opposition to one another rather than around shared goals.
Building on his earlier work, Steven explains the knowledge illusion, our tendency to overestimate how well we understand systems and policies. This illusion becomes especially dangerous in political and social debates, where confidence often replaces comprehension.
When people are asked to explain how policies work, certainty collapses. What remains are shared narratives borrowed from communities rather than true understanding. Recognizing this illusion is a crucial step toward better thinking.
Polarization Psychology and Affective Polarization
We also dive into polarization psychology and the rise of affective polarization, where disagreement turns emotional and opponents are seen as immoral rather than mistaken. Steven explains how deepest values bind groups together but also intensify hostility toward outsiders.
As identities harden around values, compromise feels like betrayal, and cooperation becomes nearly impossible. This dynamic explains why so many debates feel stuck and why progress often stalls even when the stakes are high.
Guest Bio – Steven Sloman
Steven Sloman is a cognitive scientist at Brown University, where he has taught since 1992. He studies how people think, decide, and reason both individually and collectively, with a focus on causal reasoning, judgment, and collective cognition.
He is the author of Causal Models, The Knowledge Illusion, and The Cost of Conviction, and his work has been featured in The New Yorker, The New York Times, Scientific American, The Economist, and National Geographic. Steven has served as Editor-in-Chief of Cognition and continues to shape the field of decision science through research, teaching, and public scholarship.
Learn More and Connect
👉 All episode links, my books You Matter, Luma, and Passion Struck, The Ignited Life newsletter, and the Start Mattering store are here: linktr.ee/John_R_Miles
🛍️ StartMattering.com | 🔗 TheIgnitedLife.net