Skip to main content
  Log In
Menu
Displaying 1 of 1
Outraged : why we fight about morality and politics and how to find common ground
Book
2025
Google Books Preview
Add to My List  
Where is it?
Fiction/Biography Profile
Genre
NonFiction
Psychology
Philosophy
Social sciences
Topics
Morality
Political commentators
Belief and doubt
Fear
Philosophy
Large Cover Image
Trade Reviews
Publishers Weekly Review
"Competing perceptions of harm" drive much of today's moral and political furor, according to this intriguing study by UNC-Chapel Hill neuroscience professor Gray (coauthor of The Mind Club). He argues that because humans spent most of history in constant fear of physical danger, the brain evolved a "harm-based" mindset that exercises a wide latitude when it comes to interpreting threats. For example, leftists might see systemic racism or wealth inequality as especially dangerous, while those on the right might feel most threatened by restrictions on firearms and perceived attacks on religious freedoms. According to the author, this means that both sides act in a manner that is self-protective rather than predatory, a notion that underlies his strategies for bridging social divides--for instance, by "learning about experiences of suffering" in a "psychologically safe" environment where people can share emotions without fear of attack. While the author spends more time discussing how humans developed the harm-based mindset than offering advice for overcoming its ill effects, he makes a solid case for rejecting the "easy idea that people who disagree with you are motivated to destroy." It's a well-supported study of the neuroscience behind one of today's most pressing social issues. (Jan.)
Kirkus Review
A social psychologist offers counterintuitive advice for bridging partisan differences. Gray, whose University of North Carolina lab studies morality and beliefs, wants us to ditch what he calls the "destruction narrative"--the notion that those who don't agree with our views aren't just wrong but want to annihilate our way of life. He traces this outlook to early humankind, when our ancestors were more apt to be preyed upon by other animals. "Hardwired" to stave off mortal threats, we "intuitively" worry that those who don't share our moral values might be harmful. This anxiety, of course, is deepened by social media, where misinformation and opportunism fuel ceaseless moral outrage. It's a thoughtful argument, though Gray offers little evidence that "feelings of danger" are intensified because people doomscroll when they're "on the toilet or in bed," essentially defenseless. Relying on his own lab studies, he does a solid job of demonstrating that people who want to find areas of potential agreement with political adversaries shouldn't rely solely on objective truths. Often, he argues, facts should temporarily go on the back burner. In an era when "everyone has their own statistics," facts alone are unlikely to change the "moral convictions" that underlie a person's views on climate change or sectarian violence. "Facts are essential to every aspect of life," he hastens to note, but his research indicates that "harm-based stories" are more effective at lowering the temperature. People who cite "personal experiences of harm" when discussing issues like abortion or gun violence are seen as "more human and more rational" than those who rely exclusively on trustworthy data. Is Gray's guidance a revealing indictment of American political life's superficiality? Perhaps, but it's clear that facts alone aren't getting the job done. A hopeful, helpful prescription for overcoming polarization. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Summary
A NEXT BIG IDEA CLUB MUST-READ BOOK A groundbreaking new perspective on the moral mind that rewrites our understanding of where moral judgments come from, and how we can overcome the feelings of outrage that so often divide us

"A riveting read. . . . Overturns widespread assumptions about why we're divided and reveals how we can come together."-Adam Grant, #1 New York Times best-selling author

It's easy to assume that liberals and conservatives have radically different moral foundations. In Outraged, Kurt Gray showcases the latest science to demonstrate that we all have the same moral mind-that everyone's moral judgments stem from feeling threatened or vulnerable to harm.

We all care about protecting ourselves and the vulnerable. Conflict arises, however, when we have different perceptions of harm. We get outraged when we disagree about who the "real" victim is, whether we're talking about political issues, fights with our in-laws, or arguments on the playground.

In this fascinating and insightful tour of our moral minds, Gray tackles popular myths that prevent us from understanding ourselves and those around us. While it is commonly believed that our ancestors were apex predators, Gray argues that for the majority of our evolutionary history, humans were more hunted than hunter. This explains why our minds are hard-wired to perceive threats, and provides surprising insights on the scientific origins of our values and beliefs. Though we might think ourselves driven by objective reasoning, Gray unveils new research that finds our moral judgments are based on gut feelings rather than rational thought, and presents a compelling reminder that we are more alike than we might think.

Drawing on groundbreaking research, Gray provides a captivating new explanation for our moral outrage, and unpacks how to best bridge divides. If you want to understand the morals of the "other side," ask yourself a simple question-what harms do they see?
Librarian's View
Displaying 1 of 1