Issue 3
March 2025
Welcome to the 3rd Issue of A Reasoned Voice . The previous issue discussed polarization and how and why it can occur in nature. VIEW THE PREVIOUS ISSUE
Building on the previous issue on polarization, this issue discusses how emotion and our biology can contribute to polarization in human thought.
Fear and Anger
The human brain is an intricate and adaptive organ, capable of shifting gears to navigate different situations—just as a car changes gears to handle different terrains. In times of calm, our brains allow for deep, rational thought. But when faced with stress or threats, we shift into a different mode, triggering survival instincts.
When we are "cruising" we can engage in deep rational thinking. We can step back and think more critically. We can see things more objectively. When we encounter stress, fear, or threats, our bodies react instinctively. Blood is redirected from our brains to our muscles, preparing us for action—often making us angry. This heightened state makes us stronger and faster but comes at the cost of clear, rational thinking. Fear changes our priorities and heightens our focus on self-preservation. The parts of the brain responsible for reason and long-term thinking give way to more primitive instincts focused on the present.
This evolutionary ability to shift quickly has helped humans survive in a world full of threats. There is safety in numbers by working together as a group to defend ourselves. When threatened, we choose sides, teaming up with those we feel will give us the most protection. We rally the wagons and "herd up." It becomes "us" vs. "them." Mob mentality" creeps in. Subtlety gets lost.
Fear does not only come from actual threats, it comes equally from perceived threats. It doesn't matter if a person is actually in danger, only that they believe they are in danger. Fear and anger generate hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol that "shift the gears" in our brains. Small threats can quickly snowball into overwhelming anxieties, making small threats seem more imminent or likely than they actually are. Fear-driven headlines and anger-inducing stories are more likely to capture our attention—a fact well understood by politicians and media outlets.
| "Fear is pain arising from the anticipation of evil." - Aristotle |
|---|
It has long been recognized that reason isn't at its best when we are angry. As early as the 5th century BCE, Sun-Tzu in "The Art of War" discussed how an angry general would make bad decisions. There are numerous mantras that we try to follow based on this, e.g. "let cooler heads prevail" and the value of "sleeping on it." I think most of us have later regretted decisions we have made in anger, recognizing that we "let our anger get the best of us." And yet, increasingly public debate occurs during anger. Talk shows and debates seem to encourage those on both sides to get angry at each other. Those are often the "sound-bites" we see.
Fight rhetoric has creeped into our day-to-day lives. Candidates on both sides tell their supporters that they will "fight for them" and now often demonize those who disagree, sometimes even calling them "the enemy". Those who do so rile up both sides. It encourages their supporters to stand with them, BUT it also encourages those who oppose them to fight back, creating more polarization. Instead of democracy being an opportunity for a win-win synergy that builds on the best of competing ideas, it often seen as a war between Democrat and Republican, conservative and liberal, rural and urban, immigrant and native-born.
Polarization tends to emphasize/exaggerate the wrongness of the other side and the rightness of our side. We see the other side as all sharing the same extreme ideology. It is important to recognize that these are universal human traits, not flaws. Evolution favored these traits because they give us the best chance of survival. In survival mode, empathy takes a backseat. But in a functioning society, recognizing our shared humanity is crucial to bridging divides before they escalate into irreconcilable conflicts. When polarization reaches a breaking point, the result is war.
| "Fear makes strangers of people who would be friends." - Shirley MacLaine |
|---|
How Perceptions of Fairness Contribute to Anger
Humans are what sociologists call "prosocial." Although we are independent, self-oriented beings, we also care about the well-being of others. We live in, and rely on, social groups for our welfare. Daily life can be a delicate balance between our own wants and needs, and concern/empathy for others. Fairness is a driving principle. Fairness is the essence of the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Fairness in primates.
Watch on YouTube
Perceptions of fairness are hugely important in keeping order in a prosocial society, so much so that evolution has "hard-wired" this into us. When we feel we are being treated fairly, humans will cooperate in a group, even sacrifice personal wellbeing. But perceptions of unfairness trigger anger. So, for example, on a lifeboat, we are willing to share the remaining food equally, even if it means we are still hungry. However, we would get upset if another person ate more than their fair share. This tendency to react strongly to perceived unfairness is not unique to humans—it’s seen in other social animals as well. A well-known experiment by primatologist Frans de Waal illustrates this powerfully. I am not a fan of studies using primates, but this one is so illustrative, I think it is worth making an exception. In this study, two monkeys are trained to do a task, and are rewarded with a cucumber slice for completing the task. Later, the second monkey begins getting rewarded with a grape (which has a higher value in monkey currency than the cucumber slice). The first monkey begins to notice this and becomes irate as the disparity continues. It is worth watching this YouTube excerpt from a TED Talk if you have the time.
Like a balance scale, fairness is determined by comparison, not an absolute standard. A balance scale doesn't measure absolute weight (e.g. how many pounds it weighs) it can only tell which weighs more than the other, or that they weigh the same. In de Waal's experiment, the first monkey was content UNTIL he saw another monkey getting a better reward. Likewise, humans also judge fairness relative to what others receive.
Perceptions of fairness will vary, depending on what different people are comparing it to. Ask two people which is heavier a cucumber or a bunch of grapes and you might get different answers based on what they are imagining as reference. If I am at dinner and we each get a slice of pepperoni pizza, that may seem like we are all being treated fairly. But a vegetarian lactose-intolerant tablemate would not likely feel the same way. There are many other measures of value other than weight.
This simple example illustrates the difficulty of judging fairness in the real world. Real world problems are complex. But our subconscious brains are wired to simplify complex problems, and to use our own beliefs/experiences as reference points. Since unfairness triggers anger and a fight response, it becomes even harder for people to agree on what is fair.
Double Standards
double standard - a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another - Merriam Webster
Double standards trigger anger because they feel inherently unfair. De Waal's monkey experiment is a clear example of this. But in real-world situations, identifying a double standard is far more complex—context and circumstances matter. Here's an example:
Person A steals a loaf of bread to feed a starving child.
Person B steals a loaf of bread from a starving child and sells to buy cigarettes.
A judge gives Person A a suspended sentence, Person B gets fined and is jailed. Was a double standard being applied? Like the balance scale, it depends on what you are putting on the other side of the scale, what weight you are giving to context.
Agreeing on double standards is surprisingly difficult. For example, friends of Person A may feel the judge was wise, but friends of person B might get angry at the perceived injustice. Each is using different criteria, which contributes to polarization.
Justification
When we perceive unfairness—especially against ourselves—our instinct is to defend and justify. In moments of threat, we naturally seek explanations that protect our position. When we are party to perceived unfairness, our instincts try to protect us by finding justification. And for most complex problems, we can usually find a perspective or hypothetical extenuating circumstances that can justify our actions.
People justify unfairness in several ways:
- Reframing - Convincing ourselves that what may look unfair is actually fair. (E.g. the second monkey in de Waal's experiment might believe he worked harder and thus deserved the extra reward.) We can always find a different measure of value after the fact to convince ourselves that the two sides of the scale are equal.
- "What Aboutism" - Instead of addressing an unfair act, focus is shifted to others who did the same and weren't punished. (They got away with it, so we should too.) Essentially this argues that two wrongs make a right.
- False-equivalence - Treating two different actions as if they were equally wrong. (Person A wasn't jailed for stealing bread, so I shouldn't be jailed for stealing a car.) In polarized situations, where there are only two options, this becomes common. We only know that one side of the scale is heavier than the other, we don't know (or care) how much heavier it is.
Snowball Effect
Unfairness fuels a cycle of retaliation. "They did it first" becomes an excuse to justify further unfairness. Ironically, a sense of fairness itself is used to defend unfair actions —escalating the conflict. Each side becomes angrier, convinced the other is to blame. Which only angers the other side more, as both justify their actions.
The Role of Scarcity
The struggle for limited resources has been a key aspect of evolution. In nature, survival often depends on outcompeting others for food, territory, or shelter. Competition over resources occurs both between species and within them. Throughout human history, wars have been fought over land, water, and other vital resources. Modern wars may be fought over resources such as energy and oil. Current disputes over immigration are often fueled by perceptions of economic scarcity. Scarcity remains a defining global issue—44% of the world's population lives below the poverty line[1]. 80% of the world's population lacks political freedom[2]. These conditions activate evolutionary instincts that assume scarcity—those without resources fight for their fair share, while those with resources defend what they have.
Fear of Being Wrong
Our knowledge and beliefs form over time, each new idea built upon the foundation of what we already know—just like a house, expanded and modified over the years. When flaws appear—cracks in the walls, a leaky roof—we patch them up rather than demolishing the house. We reinforce weak spots, shielding it from storms and earthquakes that threaten its stability. Most structures, even flawed ones, are reinforced rather than rebuilt from scratch.
We defend our beliefs just as fiercely. When something threatens their foundation, we resist—reinforcing them rather than reconsidering. Just as we fortify a house against storms, we fortify our worldview against ideas that could shake it. It’s no surprise, then, that people go to great lengths to defend their beliefs—often not to seek truth, but to avoid being wrong. Even the most well-reasoned evidence is met with resistance if it threatens the foundation they have built.
Moving Forward
Fear and anger have played an important role in human evolution. Chemical changes in our brains help us better defend ourselves when threatened. But this focus on survival comes at a cost—our ability to think critically and objectively is weakened. Because fairness is relative, not absolute—our disagreements are inevitable, making objectivity even harder to achieve.
In today's world, news outlets, political groups, and social media platforms compete fiercely for our attention. One of the most effective ways to do this is by provoking fear and anger. Try this experiment: Spend a few minutes scanning the headlines of different news sources, particularly online. Who is their target audience? What emotions are they trying to stir up? Are you more likely to click on an article if it sparks outrage? How often do these headlines reinforce an 'us vs. them' mentality?
Anger has a place. But we also need to be aware that we are not at our best when we are angry. When directed at others, anger triggers defensiveness, making people less open to evidence or reason. In a polarized world, this reaction only deepens divisions, making real understanding even harder to achieve.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE PREVIOUS ISSUE (Polarization)
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FIRST ISSUE
References
- ↑ Poverty overview from the World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
- ↑ Freedom House report on global trends in civil liberties. https://libertascouncil.org/only-20-percent-of-people-live-in-free-countries/
