The Cost of Conviction: How Our Deepest Values Lead Us Astray

Well-intentioned idealists misstep by making choices based on values alone, according to this thought-provoking study. Sloman (The Knowledge Illusion), a professor of cognitive science at Brown University, argues that those making decisions draw on two different frameworks—the first rooted in acting on one’s values or principles, the other on balancing the rewards or drawbacks their actions might cause. The values framework, he contends, promotes absolutism because it removes the impetus to make trade-offs and reduces critical thinking. Furthermore, he notes that while communities that share the same values work well, more diverse societies, such as the U.S., are less hospitable to values-based frameworks. As an alternative, Sloman envisions a society where policies are rooted in facts, research, and analysis, and where people more willingly engage in critical thinking and admit their ignorance (for which he provides reframing techniques, like considering the roots of the other person’s viewpoint during an argument). Fluidly translating cognitive science and philosophical concepts into accessible prose, Sloman persuasively reveals how a well-meaning yet myopic focus on principles alone oversimplifies discourse and promotes identity politics. Readers will be edified. (May)