This week Mike and Elizabeth discuss how we interpret others' decision-making motives and whether our assumptions make it more difficult to have liberal conversations. As a starting point, we reference research in which participants reasoned about their own and others' choices in different contexts. One study examined motives attributed to Trump and Clinton voters just days before the 2016 election. In all cases, others' decisions were assumed to reflect superficial motives.
Podcast Notes:
Barasz, K., Kim, T., & Evangelidis, I. (2019). I know why you voted for Trump: (Over)inferring motives based on choice. Cognition, 188, 85–97.
How has critical social justice advocacy changed our education system? How can we promote social justice and diversity in a way that empowers students instead of adhering to dogmatic ideologies that teach hopelessness and division? Join our June Liberalism in Practice panel discussion with Dr. Tabia Lee, Nicole Neilly and Jason Littlefield to gain insight and resources on empowered humanity theory & how to apply it.
Interested in pedagogies and methodologies for teaching Social Justice topics and disciplines (e.g., U.S. history, civics, social studies, interdisciplinary studies, ethnic studies) in ways that elevate Classical Social Justice and liberal democratic values? Join us for our Liberal Values Lab as Dr. Lee shares the resources she’s developed that provide a new blueprint for parents, educators and students that underlines the liberal value of social justice.
