In this conversation, we explore the psychology of conviction with Steve Sloman, Professor of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences at Brown University and advisor to the Artificiality Institute. Returning to the podcast for a third time, Steve discusses his new book "The Cost of Conviction," which examines a fundamental tension in how humans make decisions—between carefully weighing consequences versus following deeply held sacred values that demand certain actions regardless of outcomes.
Steve's work challenges the dominant assumption in decision research that people primarily act as consequentialists, calculating costs and benefits to maximize utility. Instead, he reveals how many of our most important decisions bypass consequence entirely, guided by sacred values—rules about appropriate action handed down through families and communities that define who we are and signal membership in our social groups. These aren't carefully derived from first principles like philosophical deontology suggests, but rather adopted beliefs about right and wrong that make us members in good standing of our communities.
Key themes we explore:
- Sacred Values as Uber Heuristics: Why treating certain actions as absolutely right or wrong, independent of consequences, represents perhaps the most powerful shortcut for decision-making—simpler even than most heuristics because it allows us to ignore outcomes entirely
- Conviction Without Compromise: How framing issues through sacred values makes them feel less tractable, generates more outrage when violated, and increases willingness to take action—producing the absolutist convictions that drive both heroic stands and intractable conflicts
- Dynamic Sacred Values: How values that define communities aren't fixed but emerge and shift based on what distinguishes groups from each other—explaining why tariffs or transgender rights suddenly become hotly contested "sacred" issues that weren't previously central
- AI's Polarization Problem: The observation that attitudes toward AI have taken on sacred value characteristics, with absolutist believers that it will save the world racing against those convinced it represents fundamental evil—both positions simpler than engaging with genuine complexity and uncertainty
The conversation reveals Steve's core thesis: we rely on sacred values too much when we should be more consequentialist. Sacred values simplify decisions in ways that produce conviction and community cohesion, but at the cost of making us intransigent, uncompromising, and absolutist. When we shift to genuinely considering consequences, we become more humble about our knowledge limitations and hopefully more open to alternative perspectives.
Yet the discussion also surfaces important nuances. Sacred values serve crucial functions—they may have consequentialist origins in cultural experience even if individuals apply them without consequence calculation. They provide the kind of universal moral stance that makes someone trustworthy in ways that preferences over specific outcomes cannot. And expressing certainty about complex issues where genuine experts admit uncertainty often signals ignorance rather than knowledge.
About Steve Sloman: Steve Sloman is Professor of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences at Brown University, where his research examines reasoning, decision-making, and the cognitive foundations of community. Author of "The Knowledge Illusion" (with Philip Fernbach) and now "The Cost of Conviction," Steve's work explores how our reliance on others' knowledge shapes everything from individual decisions to political polarization. As an advisor to the Artificiality Institute, he helps bridge cognitive science insights with questions about human-AI collaboration and co-evolution.
