Holding conflicting values in tension drives more complex political thinking

Evidence

Explaining away inconsistent evidence can be challenging and requires a vigilance that may be taxing to social perceivers. An alternative strategy is to accept negative beliefs about outgroup members as valid while simultaneously viewing oneself as egalitarian and fair-minded. Because these views are likely to collide, Allport suggested that people who use this type of strategy would need to alternate between their conflicting views of outgroup members. Indeed, Allport suggested that this was likely the most common strategy used to address the threat of inner conflict because it allowed people to maintain a fair and just self-concept yet still respond in prejudiced ways. Using this strategy, people vacillate between their egalitarian values and their prejudiced beliefs based on situational factors that make one or the other salient. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2096 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Political engagement creates an irresolvable tension for leftist intellectuals seeking critical distance. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 73; Contradictory rationalities can symbiotically combine in one political subjectivity. — Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No…, 125; Political moderates think in more complex terms than extremists (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Prejudiced people mostly manage inner conflict by vacillating between values #complicates (0.78) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2096
• Political discourse dissolves complexity into myth and suppresses causal understanding #complicates (0.74)