We live in a culture that often treats disagreement as a character defect. When someone rejects a fact we consider obvious or holds a worldview we cannot understand, our instinct is to reach for better evidence, stronger arguments, or another fact check.
But what happens when the belief we are challenging is tied to something deeper than information?
In Episode 805 of Passion Struck, I sat down with NYU social neuroscientist Dr. Jay Van Bavel to explore why good people become so divided, and what psychology reveals about identity, belonging, belief, and polarization. His research offers a humbling insight: when a belief becomes intertwined with our identity and our sense of belonging, facts alone may not be enough to change our minds.
The deeper question isn’t simply why people believe different things. It’s why disagreement can feel so personal, why belonging can shape what we believe, and what it takes to rebuild trust across our differences.
Why Facts Alone Rarely Change People’s Minds
For generations, we have approached disagreement as though it were primarily an information problem. If someone believes something that is demonstrably false, the instinct is to provide better evidence, clearer explanations, and stronger arguments. The assumption is that once the right information reaches the right person, the belief will naturally change.
But human beings rarely process information in isolation.
When a belief becomes connected to our identity, our relationships, or our place within a community, challenging that belief can feel like challenging something much more personal. Instead of simply evaluating whether a claim is accurate, we may begin defending what the claim represents about who we are and where we belong.
Jay Van Bavel illustrated this through his early work with students in anti-bias workshops. When students were presented with evidence that contradicted stereotypes, disproving one stereotype did not necessarily eliminate the underlying bias. Instead, some shifted toward another stereotype that allowed them to preserve the same social and emotional position.
The lesson is uncomfortable but important: if we want to understand why good people become divided, we have to look beyond the information people possess and examine the identities and social environments that give those beliefs meaning.
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.
In this Episode, You’ll learn:
- Why facts don’t always change minds and how identity-protective cognition can cause people to defend beliefs that have been challenged by evidence.
- How belonging shapes belief, including the powerful influence our perception of group norms can have on our attitudes and behavior.
- How AI can reinforce our blind spots, particularly when sycophantic systems validate what we already believe instead of challenging us.
- Why polarization feels so personal and how dogmatism and belief superiority can deepen division.
- The hidden connection between polarization and unmattering, and what happens when people no longer feel seen, valued, or significant.
- Why intellectual humility matters, and how being willing to question our own assumptions can reopen the door to learning.
- What the I House model teaches us about bridging differences, including the role of equal footing, meaningful contact, and psychological safety.
- How collective joy can reconnect us, reminding people that they share something larger than the identities dividing them.
- Why small human connections matter, and how a simple conversation with another person can become a building block of social trust.
How Belonging Quietly Shapes What We Believe, Defend, and Reject
Belonging is one of the most powerful forces shaping human behavior. The groups we identify with give us more than community. They provide social norms, shared values, language, expectations, and a framework for understanding the world around us.
Over time, those influences can become so familiar that we stop noticing them.
We may believe we arrived at an opinion entirely through independent reasoning, while our perception of what people around us believe is quietly influencing what we accept, reject, defend, and even say out loud. Jay’s research points to the remarkable relationship between perceived community norms and individual expressions of prejudice and belief.
This helps explain why belonging can be both a source of strength and a source of division. The same psychological machinery that allows us to build loyal teams, families, and communities can also create an increasingly rigid distinction between “us” and “them.”
The question, then, is not simply whether we belong. It is whether the groups we belong to make us more curious and expansive, or more certain and defensive.
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
Technology is beginning to interact with these psychological tendencies in ways that deserve careful attention.
Jay discussed research examining how sycophantic AI systems can validate users’ existing assumptions and make people feel more satisfied with their interactions. The concern is that an AI designed primarily to agree with us may become another source of reinforcement rather than a tool that exposes us to perspectives we have overlooked.
That creates a new version of an old problem: the easier it becomes to surround ourselves with information that confirms who we already believe ourselves to be, the harder it may become to recognize our blind spots.
Why Polarization Becomes Personal When Beliefs Become Part of Who We Are
Polarization is often described as a disagreement over ideas, policies, or competing visions of society. But when those ideas become fused with identity, disagreement can acquire an entirely different emotional weight.
Jay and I explored how increasing polarization can intensify two psychological tendencies that make division harder to escape:
- 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.
As polarization deepens, these tendencies can reinforce one another. The more certain we become that our side possesses the truth, the easier it becomes to dismiss people on the other side rather than engage with them. And when our beliefs are closely tied to our identity, challenging an idea can feel like challenging the person who holds it.
That is what makes polarization so difficult to resolve through facts alone. The disagreement may appear to be about information, but underneath it can involve belonging, identity, status, morality, and our need to feel secure within a group.
The challenge is not to eliminate conviction. It is to develop enough intellectual humility to question our certainty without feeling that we are betraying who we are.
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 on 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 as a reminder of the Humanity We Share
Some forms of connection happen before conversation ever begins.
A sporting event, a concert, a community celebration, a shared meal, or a project that requires cooperation can create what psychologists call collective effervescence: the shared energy and sense of connection that emerges when people experience something together.
Jay pointed to these experiences as moments that can temporarily loosen the boundaries between groups and remind us that the person standing beside us is more than the label we have assigned to them.
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. Rebuilding social trust does not always begin with a grand initiative. Sometimes it begins with a conversation.
Jay closed our conversation by pointing to research showing that people often underestimate how positive it can feel to connect with strangers. Those small interactions can create social connection and strengthen the social fabric around us.
That gives us something practical to carry into our everyday lives.
We can ask one more question. Listen a little longer. Talk to someone we normally would not approach. Tell someone they matter. The future of social cohesion may be shaped not only by what happens in institutions, but by what happens between people.
Stop trying to win the argument. Start helping people matter.
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.
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.
What Is Social Identity Theory and How Does It Shape Our Beliefs?
Social identity theory explains how our sense of who we are is partly shaped by the groups to which we belong. These groups can influence the norms, beliefs, and behaviors we adopt, particularly when belonging and acceptance are important to us. Understanding this process helps explain why people can become deeply attached to beliefs that are reinforced by their communities.
Why Does Polarization Feel So Personal?
Polarization can feel personal when our beliefs become closely connected to our identity. As division intensifies, dogmatism and belief superiority can make disagreement feel like a challenge to our moral or intellectual standing rather than simply an exchange of ideas. This can make people more defensive and less willing to consider perspectives that challenge their existing worldview.
What Is Intellectual Humility and Why Does It Matter?
Intellectual humility is the willingness to recognize that our knowledge is limited and that we may be wrong. It does not require abandoning conviction. Instead, it allows us to evaluate our ideas critically, remain open to contradictory evidence, and continue learning when our assumptions are challenged.
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.
How Can We Build Trust Across Divided Groups?
Trust grows through meaningful human contact, shared experiences, and environments where people can interact with one another on equal footing. Instead of beginning every interaction by trying to change someone’s mind, we can create opportunities to listen, understand, cooperate, and discover what we share.
How Can Small Acts of Connection Strengthen Society?
Small interactions can create connection and build social trust over time. A conversation with a neighbor, reaching out to someone you have lost touch with, sharing an experience, or simply making another person feel seen can strengthen the social bonds that allow communities to flourish. As Jay emphasized, rebuilding connection can begin with something as simple as reaching out to one person in a positive way.
Listen to my previous discussion with Dr. Jay Van Bavel in episoe 265 of Passion Struck.
