Passion Struck with John R. Miles – EP 715

Sacred Values: How Our Deepest Convictions Lead Us Astray | Dr. Steven Sloman
Date: January 13, 2026

Episode Overview

In this episode, host John R. Miles sits down with Dr. Steven Sloman, professor at Brown University and esteemed cognitive scientist, to dissect the concept of “sacred values.” The conversation centers on how our deepest convictions—intended to anchor meaning and foster belonging—can also harden into destructive forms of certainty. Together, they explore the psychological allure and social costs of sacred values, how these values emerge and polarize groups, and the skill of thinking in trade-offs rather than absolutes. This is part of the show’s “Meaning Makers” series, which explores how humans construct, maintain, and sometimes lose meaning in their lives.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Write About Conviction and Sacred Values?

• [04:49] Sloman: The impetus for the book stemmed from witnessing the rise of fervent convictions in America and his research into the ways people think—both individually and collectively.

  • He distinguishes between two modes of thinking:
    1. Consequentialist—thinking about outcomes
    2. Sacred/Deontological—thinking about what feels right or wrong based on deep-seated community values.
  • The "knowledge illusion" shows people often overestimate their understanding, holding only slogans or shallow justifications for complex issues.

  "People don't understand things as well as they think they do... what's really going on in these situations is that people are actually coming to the policy not with a deep understanding of what the consequences... but with a few slogans that they get from their communities about why the policy is consistent with their values."
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [06:05]

2. Personal Reflections on Sacred Values

• [08:27] Sloman: Writing the book clarified his own boundaries and sacred values, especially around divisive issues like immigration and citizenship, illustrating the difficulty and necessity of self-examination.

  "Despite being a good liberal, I do think that there are limits on the rights people should have to enter this country... Certain things were clarified for me in the process."
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [08:42]

3. Zealotry and the Allure of Sacred Stories

• [10:26] Sloman: Sacred values powerfully bind communities—political, national, or social. The stories we tell (ancient and modern) about conviction captivate us because they are about people’s core motivations.
  • Sacred values sit at the “heart” of the most compelling human narratives.

4. Habits vs. Sacred Values

• [12:12] Sloman: Sacred values and habits are intimately linked. Sacred values become habitual through reinforcement but always remain “habits with symbolic content,” governing how we interpret and frame behavior.

5. Belonging, Identity, and Group Conflict

• [14:05] Sloman: Belonging is fundamentally rooted in shared sacred values.

  • Communities bolster belonging via sacred values; but these same values distinguish ‘us’ from ‘them,’ leading to polarization.

  "We choose values which maximally distinguish us, so our self-definition becomes a sort of anti-definition of the other side."
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [16:30]

• [17:49] Sloman: Citing shifts in values among young men, he emphasizes how threatened groups coalesce around new sacred values to defend against perceived loss or disrespect—sometimes in harmful ways.

6. The Complexity Behind “Sacred” Conflicts

• [21:02] Sloman: Sacred values lead us to treat certain ideas as absolute, immune to trade-offs.

  • Taboo trade-offs: Compromising a sacred value for material gain (e.g., paying money to break a core moral code)
  • Tragic trade-offs: Clashing sacred values that force impossible choices (e.g., killing to save others)
  • People favor sacred values, in part, because they simplify a complex world—sometimes dangerously.

  "The appeal to sacred values is essentially an attempt to simplify a complicated world."
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [22:32]

7. Abortion, Extremism, and the Boundaries of Debate

• [25:19] Sloman: Uses the story of Paul Jennings Hill (anti-abortion extremist) to illustrate how debates about sacred values (like abortion) rarely advance, since “you can't really argue about sacred values”; only by examining consequences can meaningful discussion occur.

8. Social Cohesion, Enforcement, and Risk of Overreach

• [28:30] Sloman: Communities enforce sacred values to foster cohesion—sometimes through exclusion, hazing, or “cancelling.” This sustains group identity but can escalate into harmful excess.

9. The Danger of Simplification

• [30:41] Sloman: Decision-making always requires simplification, but sacred values are an “extreme form” that can justify ignoring consequences altogether. This is cognitively seductive but risky.

  "Sacred values strike me as another form of simplification... they allow you to ignore consequences."
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [32:40]

10. Becoming Aware: Shifting from Slogans to Substance

• [34:20] Sloman: A practical strategy for individuals is to pause and ask: "Why do I believe this? Why is this a good idea?"
  • If the only justifications are “because we’ve always done it” or “it rings true,” you’re likely defaulting to sacred values, not outcome-based reasoning.

11. Climate Change as a Case Study

• [37:28] Sloman: Both political sides treat climate change in sacred value terms, often oversimplifying the debate. True progress comes from weighing specifics, accepting incomplete explanations, respecting expertise, and remaining open to complexity.

12. Systems Change—How Do Values Shift?

• [40:07] Host and Sloman: The real process of change begins in communities willing to engage difference—what Sloman and his student term “adversarial cooperation.”

  • Diverse, opposing perspectives are essential for rigorous, smarter decisions.
  • Many scientific, legal, and philosophical communities thrive via adversarial processes; society should aim to scale these up.
  • The decline of adversarial cooperation is a risk for democracy and group learning.

  "The best way to perfect your own thinking is to describe it to someone who disagrees with you vehemently. And that way you'll construct really good arguments."
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [41:57]

13. Countering Rhetorical “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” Sacred Values

• [45:43] Sloman: When facing someone entrenched in sacred value-based reasoning:
  1. First, acknowledge their value—show you understand.
  2. Then move to discussing the consequences of their position, inviting a richer, evidence-based discussion.
  • Changing minds is rare but possible, especially if mutual respect is established early.

14. Political Debates and the Need for Substance

• [47:05] Sloman: To redesign debates, eliminate slogans and force participants to give reasons, explanations, and evidence—moving beyond mere value statements.

  "...what I would want to do is make sure that people stop sloganizing. Right. There has to be more direct... forcing people to say why and how this thing works."
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [47:28]

15. Book Recommendations

• [49:16] Sloman: Recommends reading Kahneman & Tversky’s original works for foundational insights into the psychology of decision-making. Also praises Annie Duke’s poker book for practical decision-making advice.

Notable Quotes

• “If you really want to make good decisions, you need people with contrasting views to yours... The best way to perfect your own thinking is to describe it to someone who disagrees with you vehemently.”
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [00:02, reprised at 41:57]

• “Meaning doesn't come from being right. It comes from being responsible with what we believe.”
  — John R. Miles [19:26]

• "Sacred values become more and more polarized because they're used to represent our community... our self-definition becomes a sort of anti-definition of the other side."
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [15:56]

• “The appeal to sacred values is essentially an attempt to simplify a complicated world.”
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [22:32]

• “Sacred values strike me as another form of simplification... they allow you to ignore consequences.”
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [32:40]

• “If the only answer you can provide is because I’ve always done it this way or because it rings true, then I would say you’re probably making the decision based on sacred values.”
  — Dr. Steven Sloman [34:37]

Important Timestamps

• 00:02 – Opening insight on adversarial cooperation
• 04:49 – Why Dr. Sloman wrote “The Cost of Conviction”
• 06:05 – Knowledge illusion and the shallowness of understanding
• 08:27 – Personal clarifications of sacred values
• 10:26 – Sacred values at the heart of human stories
• 12:12 – Connection between habits and sacred values
• 14:05–16:30 – How sacred values forge identity and polarization
• 17:49 – Young men’s shifting values and the social cost
• 21:02 – Taboo vs. tragic trade-offs
• 25:19 – Abortion as an example of sacred value deadlock
• 28:30 – Enforcing sacred values: rituals, cancel culture, loyalty tests
• 30:41 – Simplicity and decision-making risks
• 34:20 – Practical test: are you thinking in trade-offs?
• 37:28 – Climate change—reframing, tradeoffs, respecting expertise
• 40:07–41:57 – Systems change and adversarial cooperation
• 45:43 – How to counter sacred value shutdowns
• 47:05 – Ideal political debate formats
• 49:16 – Recommended foundational books on decision-making

Memorable Moments

• The discussion of Rosetto, Pennsylvania and how loss of shared sacred values unraveled a tight-knit community ([16:46])
• The example of Paul Jennings Hill—using extremism to highlight how sacred values can motivate both heroism and horror ([25:19])
• John’s reflection: “Meaning isn’t built by winning at all costs. It’s built by choosing what actually sustains you.” ([52:51])

Key Takeaways

• Sacred values are essential to community and identity, but left unquestioned, they harden thinking and prevent constructive dialogue.
• Deliberate adversarial cooperation—inviting dissent—creates intellectual rigor and is vital for societal progress.
• Good decision-making often starts with pausing to ask not just what feels right, but why—and what the real consequences are.
• Systems change, whether on climate or culture, starts locally in communities willing to challenge and reframe their values together.
• Recognize when beliefs are habitual or deeply ingrained, and remain open to trade-offs, complexity, and the expertise of others.

For more resources and reflection tools, listeners are encouraged to join ‘The Ignited Life’ substack and explore further at Dr. Sloman’s website.