Abstract

In recent years, many scholars drew attention to political polarization in academia and attempted to reduce it. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, suggests that his framework of “viewpoint diversity” can reduce polarization. However, this framework contradicts his earlier work, especially the “social intuitionist model.” On the one hand, he argues that reason is not crucial to changing someone’s mind. He uses the metaphor of a dog who makes intuitive decisions and wags its tail (reason) to communicate and justify them. On the other hand, he believes that scholars can change each other’s minds on political issues through reason. This paper seeks to reveal the tension between “viewpoint diversity” and the “social intuitionist model” and to reconcile it. In order to ground these frameworks into social psychological theories, this paper examines the social intuitionist model in relation to cognitive dissonance theory and suggests modifications to Haidt’s “viewpoint diversity” based on cognitive reappraisal.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.