Opinion – Atila Iamarino: Ignore the truth, and morality will set you free

“Whoever is on the right takes chloroquine, whoever is on the left takes tubaína.” That simple sentence contains much of what causes people to remain trapped in a parallel reality.

We have never had elections and electoral debates so factually checked. The last debate between presidential candidates broke the record for views of a journalistic live on YouTube. In real time, while candidates make their arguments — and blatantly lie in some cases — we can follow graphs, trends, news, video clippings and all sorts of information to defend or refute the points being debated. But one question we need to ask is: who cares to hear the truth?

If the undecided will change their minds when they hear about it, great. More fact checking to come. But some staunch groups seem especially resistant to the facts on certain issues. “It’s a lie that we’re deforesting the Amazon so much. And, even if it’s true, they’ve already deforested more in other governments. And even if it were worrying, it’s a lie. And even if it were true, it’s a communist’s concern. .” This line of argument seems ready to refute any given fact. Because this. Because what is at stake is not facts, reality or science. It’s the morals.

One of the discoveries that I find most interesting about how we think is precisely the order of factors. We chose our species name to symbolize our intelligence and rationality (and our machismo, albeit unintentionally). Unlike brute animals, we are the Homo sapiens, the wise men. But our reasoning may be far less rational than it appears.

Often we start from an emotional decision, made based on our values ​​and what we feel. And we use our rational side to create justifications for what we feel. At these times, emotion guides what we think, not the other way around. When values ​​and reality collide, it is often reality that flies out the window.

That’s why the opening sentence is so harmful. “Whoever is on the right takes chloroquine”. She does not place chloroquine as a treatment based on any technical foundation. She poses the decision to take chloroquine as a moral and identity issue. Whoever takes it, doesn’t take it because it works, takes it because it’s on the right. If I answer with the facts, that chloroquine does not work against Covid, I have done nothing to resolve the moral issue. This is the conclusion of a very interesting study on the argumentation of politically charged issues.

Addressing issues important to people using the listener’s moral values ​​was the most effective way to be heard. That is, when beliefs are linked to moral issues, “those who are good do that”, the technical debate is excluded from the possibility of it reaching those who have been converted. The information polarization cycle is very effective for early treatment, in the absence of treatment effectiveness.

And this is a growing movement on social networks made by those who cannot challenge the facts: the constant production of content that links identity and morals to technical issues. Thus, the values ​​of those who interpret that question are questioned, not the facts. Anyone who wants to convince people otherwise needs to bring values ​​beyond the facts.

There is no shortage of people who say that the king is naked. But if he’s wearing a fabric that only right-wingers can see, finding out he’s naked implies saying you’re left-wing. And there will be no shortage of people who say that the fabric is much more beautiful than what they have in Venezuela.