Good Reasonable People: The Psychology Behind America’s Dangerous Divide
Book Spotlight
Like most people, I’ve felt the tension of being in relationship with others who have different political identities than I do. And, like most people, I don’t always fully understand why these differences exist or how to best navigate them. Do I try to avoid the tension and stick to safer topics? Do I just hit the gas and share all of my frustrations and grievances? When I’m being honest with myself (though I can be good at avoiding that as well!), my higher values remind me that I want to try to stay in conversation and relationship with those of differing opinions, even when those differences sometimes seem to be miles apart.
In the midst of this wondering and pondering, and in trying to stay true to my values, I’ve been trying to better educate myself and find suggestions on how to handle these tricky dynamics, which led me to Keith Payne’s book Good Reasonable People: The Psychology Behind America’s Dangerous Divide. Below are just a few of my key takeaways from his book and a bit about how some of these takeaways can relate to our work in relationship therapy.
Key takeaway #1: We all come from a context that influences our group identities.
The book talks about a number of different factors that contribute to the formation of our political identities. Race, geographic location, religious background, education, and socioeconomic status, to name a few, all contribute to how we view ourselves and who we view as other. It can be difficult to recognize just how much our backgrounds shape our political identities—especially because, as takeaway #2 explains, we often don’t see our own biases. In response to this the author offers the following questions for our own self-reflection:
“How would I see the world if I was in this person’s shoes, making sense of the world from their combination of identity groups? And how is my social identity leading me to different paths of thought than theirs?’”
Key takeaway #2: We all have biases that are generally easier to see in others and hard to see in ourselves.
“Mental gymnastics often lead us to take positions that are at odds with reason and evidence. But that’s not because they are flaws in rationality. Rather, it is because our cognitive systems value self-protection, sometimes more than reason. Like the biological immune system, the psychological immune system is constantly humming away in the background whether we notice it or not, ready to pounce at the first sign of a threat”
The author speaks extensively of our “psychological immune system” that filters the information we receive to help us increase confidence in our sense of identity and decrease instances of psychological pain. He contends that, when our identities are at stake, our minds have a powerful ability to fit new information received into the boxes that absolve us from an uncomfortable reformulating of self and the world. In other words, our brains help us to start from the conclusion and then work our way backwards to create reasons and arguments that help justify those ends. While hard to see these biases in ourselves, it doesn’t take too much searching in the comments section of a social media post to see just how easy it is to point out someone else’s self-protective biases. It also doesn’t take long to see the lengths to which people will go to defend their rationalizations. According to the book, this is all part of our psychological immunity’s efforts to allow us to continue believing that we are good reasonable people.
Key takeaway #3: There are practical steps we can take to reduce the temperature, increase our empathy, and more effectively engage with one another.
While our biases are hard at work inflating our own positions and poking holes in opposing positions, the author does provide some approaches that we can use for beginning to bridge the divide with the people in our lives. For one, the author suggests
“When someone espouses a view that seems inconsistent with logic and evidence, our immediate reaction is usually to think ‘How can they believe that?’ But a better question is ‘What function is this belief serving for them at this moment?”
Another suggestion offered is to recognize our intentions of engaging with someone around a political topic. To engage with someone deeply, it can be helpful to remind ourselves that the goal is not to change someone, but to connect with and try to understand them. Finally, the author reminds us that engaging in good faith conversations and recognizing the biases we all carry is not about giving up on political opinions or giving up on helping with movements that are important to us. Rather, he reminds us that getting into political arguments with friends and family is generally different than doing the work that brings about change. Being engaged in causes that matter to us can help us reduce the need to engage in fruitless debates.
Conclusion and How These Points Relate to Relationship Therapy
It’s no secret that relationships can be hard! Especially when we are all busy, often unknowingly, protecting our own sense of identity and worldview. While it can be much easier to see the biases in others, we can put in the work to more readily see and shift our own biases. Much of our work in relationship therapy is focused on better seeing and understanding ourselves, so that we can then in turn show up in our relationships in ways that are most in line with our highest values.
Navigating political and ideological differences isn’t just about being right—it’s about staying connected in a way that aligns with our deepest values. By recognizing our biases, approaching conversations with curiosity, and focusing on understanding rather than winning, we can foster stronger, more resilient relationships—even in a deeply divided world.
If you’d like to talk more about how we can work together on any of these topics in relationship therapy, feel free to reach out and schedule a consultation.