Episode Details

In this episode of Based Camp, Malcolm and Simone Collins dig into a recent study on political meta-dehumanization and the striking asymmetry in how liberals and conservatives mentally represent (and dehumanize) each other.

Drawing on research published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (“Political Meta-Dehumanization in Mental Representations”), posts from Cremieux and Arctotherium, and the composite face images the study produced, they unpack why liberals tend to see conservatives as savage, aggressive, and barely human, while conservatives tend to see liberals as immature, irrational, and naive. They also examine how each side misjudges the intensity of the other’s hostility—and what that means for political strategy.

The conversation covers:

* Why the right’s greater empathy and openness has been a long-term cultural advantage (and how it has converted figures from JK Rowling to Elon Musk to RFK Jr.)

* The dangers of treating the other side as merely misguided when they view you as an existential threat

* Why kindness and inclusivity remain powerful conversion tools—while still refusing to hand over institutional or administrative power

* Related findings on empathy asymmetries, institutional capture, and the limits of democratic norms when one side stops playing fair

* Practical implications for coalitions, tech/AI companies, and long-term power

A candid, research-grounded discussion on dehumanization, strategy, and how the right should (and shouldn’t) respond.

Show Notes

Cremieux: There’s an asymmetry in how liberals and conservatives evaluate one another.

Liberals dehumanize conservatives more than conservatives suspect. Conservatives dehumanize liberals less than liberals suspect.

Arctotherium: In the US, liberals think conservatives hate them much more than conservatives actually do, while conservatives don’t realize liberals hate them as much as liberals actually do. The hatred asymmetry is one reason liberals tend to win over time.

The research: Political (Meta-)Dehumanization in Mental Representations: Divergent Emphases in the Minds of Liberals Versus Conservatives

Published July 7th in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

The Gist:

The researchers found that liberals and conservatives dehumanize each other in different ways, and that each side has a surprisingly accurate sense of the type of dehumanization they receive, even while misjudging its overall intensity.

The Experiment

* They had participants choose faces that “look like a liberal” or “look like a conservative” hundreds of times; these are averaged into composite faces that approximate mental representations.

* Then, a new group of people—who didn’t know where the images came from—rated each composite face on:

* “Savage/aggressive, lacking morals, barbaric/cold‑hearted” (savagery)

* “Immature/irresponsible, irrational/illogical, naïve/gullible” (immaturity)

* Plus general warmth and “evolved‑ness.”

* Study 2 asks: “How do you think the other side sees your side?”

* Again using liberals and conservatives, they changed the prompt in the 300‑trial face task.

* Conservatives were asked: “Who would a liberal think looks more like a conservative?”

* Liberals were asked: “Who would a conservative think looks more like a liberal?”

* From these choices they built two meta‑representation composites:

* Conservatives’ guess about how liberals picture conservatives

* Liberals’ guess about how conservatives picture liberals

* In Phase 2, a new group of raters evaluated these meta‑representation