This was a disappointment. I am reasonably confident that we can all see (and feel) the social/moral outrage currently dividing much of America and I was really hoping this work my provide some understanding and potentially a way to mitigate it. Yeah … probably not a realistic expectation; however, even worse, significant parts were completely undermined by my own experience and understanding of the human psyche and social mind. After a reasonable start, the author tries to make the case that humans didn’t evolve as apex predators (completely ignoring the actual definition of apex predator) arguing that if we go back in time far enough, we were obviously not predators … news flash … take ANY predatory organism on the planet and go back far enough and you will find an ancestor that was not a predator, so that is a pretty silly hill to die on … but the need here is because his entire premise is based upon the idea that evolution only accretes and never eliminates (a theory of evolution that is not supported). Okay … so ever worse … if humans are not apex predators … we much be prey? Yeah … No … Not really. But it only gets worse … because “as prey” we must have obviously adopted survival strategies common To prey … such as social groups designed to “dilute” the zone so that predators are over whelmed by too many targets … yeah … it doesn’t actually work that way either … 1) that specific strategies requires a rate of reproduction that out-paces predation, which, given human juvenile timeframes, birthrates and survival stats, doesn’t seem like a good argument and 2) social grouping are common even among apex predators … such as orcas … so there are other reasons for this that are likely to be a better fit to our human evolution. This whole line of reasoning completely undermined part 1 and I almost abandoned the book at that point.

It gets a little better with Part 2 and the author’s examination of harm … while I believe this is still too simplistic an answer that would be better described by using the term “threat [or harm]” it was close enough to get the general idea and more or less seems to be a good fit … especially the idea that, in general, our moral mind, or sense of morality, is founded on the perception of [potential] harm against the individual [or group in which the individual is a member]. What is missing is the how and why this is the mechanism, that determines/encourages social conformity (order vs chaos to improve survivability of the social unit) AND “othering” (briefly discussion without any indication or acknowledgment that ejection from the social group means that the moral mind no longer applies). There was elements that were good and useful, but they are generally hidden by imprecise language and/or outright misrepresentations of organizational dynamics.

Part 3 was the best part of the work and could easily stand on its own. The basic premise here is that facts don’t really matter because human nature isn’t really optimized for facts, but for story telling. This is almost an intuitive observation … if still overly simplified. The best way to counter moral outrage is to share stories from both sides … in other words, to re-humanize opponents (because the first step of justification for violence against an opponent is to dehumanize them). This does help turn down the temperature, but if does’t persuade (then again … the whole author continually emphasizes that the purpose here is NOT persuasion.

If you’ve lived through an election season, you understand quite well how people are easily stirred up into outrage. Politicians and their marketers have come to understand how primal and deeply seated outrage and fear can be, and how effectively it motivates people to vote and act in certain ways.

Kurt Gray has done great service in presenting the results of a lot of his psychological and sociological research into people in Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground.

The author’s main thesis, broadly, is that the avoidance of harm is hard-wired as the basic proposition of human morality, and all moral reasoning can be understood in terms of mitigating the prospect and threat of moral harm.

The work is organized in three parts, with a common myth under exploration in each, its refutation, and what it means for us.

The first such myth involves humans as evolved to be apex predators. Using current evolutionary theory, he argues instead how ancestral humans were often preyed upon by larger creatures on the African savanna, and humanity developed its communal nature in part to mitigate this threat. In this way he would explain why we are hard-wired to be constantly on the alert for harm and why we prioritize our safety from harms.

It is understandable how many would consider this to be at variance with the portrayal of humanity in Scripture, but it does go a long way to explain how we behave in comparison to “true” apex predators like lions, tigers, etc.

The second myth is that of the moral mind and “harmless wrongs” as advocated for by Jonathan Haidt and his moral minds theory. I confess I have always been skeptical of Haidt’s thesis because the idea conservatives would have so many more moral domains than liberals seemed more as if there was something missing in the analysis than actual reality. The author well argued how it is really considerations of harm that underlie human moral reasoning: system 1 thought will always see certain things as harmful, even if system 2 thought can be persuaded those possible harms have been thoroughly mitigated. When we understand concern about harm as underneath all moral reasoning, we can understand how our views on political and moral subjects involve which harms we prioritize over other possible harms. The author does well at showing how we naturally sympathize more with those we deem “victims” than “victimizers,” even in contexts in which the “victimizer” is not responsible for what they have suffered (i.e., if both a victim and victimizer both have houses that burn down in a wildfire, people will want to provide more assistance to the former rather than the latter, even though neither are responsible at all for what they have suffered in this particular situation). The author also expresses how DARVO (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) works so well: we all ironically want to see ourselves as the victim so that we can obtain the appropriate moral standing, especially if and when we are accused of being the victimizer (and this kind of thought is very pervasive in political discourse, with white men now somehow feeling as if they are the victims in society).

The final myth involves our almost religious confidence in reason and rationality: facts as bridging divides. Instead, the author does well at showing, through research, how facts don’t really change minds. Stories change minds. One has to tell stories of how one or another has been harmed in order to get people to consider how it is seen by the other side. That is how the other side ceases to look like immoral monsters.

The author also encourages humility in these matters, which is very important. In truth, everyone fears their fears, and a lot of our political issues are profitably understood that way. Abortion? Obsessive concern regarding harm to a child versus harm to the mother. Social services? Concerns regarding the harms suffered by the poor and marginalized versus the harm of wealthy people having their wealth extracted by taxes. Immigration? The harms suffered by immigrants which lead them to immigrate versus the harm to employment prospects or living situations for those already here. Guns? The harm done by guns versus the harm suffered by someone who does not have a gun.

In this way, the people with whom you disagree are not cold-blooded monsters who hate all which is good, right, and holy. Instead, they fear different things than you fear. Their harm calculations are different from yours. That does not mean they should be fearing what they fear to the extent they fear it, or that their harm calculation is more correct than yours. But it provides a starting point for real conversation and hopefully better understanding.

I highly recommended this work; everyone should read it.

It is always interesting to see how others think we can, as a society, finally bridge the moral, political, and sociological issues that seem to divide us. By asking what "harms" others may be frightened of, we can easily see how much more closely aligned we may all be and find the way to build bridges through mutual understanding and respect.