Summary of The Tribalism of Truth

Looking for the article?
We have the summary! Get the key insights in just 5 minutes.

The Tribalism of Truth summary
Start getting smarter:
or see our plans




  • Innovative
  • Scientific
  • Engaging


When it comes to political and moral issues, what is right can be blurry. While some believe only one stance can be right, others believe many can have merit. Past studies suggest this difference can affect how people see and debate with each other. But can the way people debate also impact how they perceive an issue? Researchers Matthew Fisher and Brent Strickland join professors Joshua Knobe and Frank C. Keil to take readers through their recent study of this question. getAbstract recommends this article to anyone interested in cognitive and behavioral science.

About the Authors

Matthew Fisher is a postdoctoral researcher in social and decision science at Carnegie Mellon University. Joshua Knobe is a professor in the departments of cognitive science and philosophy at Yale University. Brent Strickland is a cognitive researcher at the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris. Frank C. Keil is a professor of psychology and linguistics and cognitive science at Yale University.



Public debate in America is becoming increasingly hostile.

With increasing partisanship in American politics, public debate has become more hostile. Politicians “argue to win,” aiming not to understand the opposing viewpoint but only to defeat the opponent. Social media has also become a platform for hostile debates. The tailored experience of social media limits alternative views, creating an echo chamber for its users. By contrast, when you “argue to learn,” which is more common in everyday life, opposing viewpoints are shared and considered before a mutual...

More on this topic

Customers who read this summary also read

Child’s Play
The Knowledge Illusion
The Ethical Algorithm
Know This
Bad Advice

Related Channels

Comment on this summary