Understand how other people think: a theory of worldviews.

A libertarian, a socialist, an environmentalist, and a pro-development YIMBY watch an apartment complex being built. The libertarian is pleased - ‘the hand of the market at work!’ - whereas the socialist worries that the building is a harbinger of gentrification; the YIMBY sees progress, but the environmentalist is concerned about the building’s carbon footprint. They’re all seeing the same thing, but they understand it differently, because they inhabit different worldviews.

We can think of worldviews as snow globes. We each occupy our own snow globe and, when we’re inside it, it can seem like the whole world. If it’s snowing in our snow globe, we think it’s snowing everywhere; if our snow globe is made of green glass, everything looks green to us. We might not even realize that there’s anything beyond our snow globe! But if we can step outside, we see that our view from inside was only part of a much larger picture. If you can step outside your snow globe - and visit other people’s - you’ll be able to see a more accurate representation of the world and communicate better with others. For every snow globe you master, you’ll gain a powerful new lens through which to see the world - and you’ll see that no single snow globe has all the answers.

Image generated using the AI DALL•E 2

Worldviews are a type of story we learn about how the world works and about what things matter and why. In this post, we put forward a theory of worldviews that will help you understand how different worldviews work. We call this "Snow Globe Theory."
 
 Every worldview includes many beliefs, but after reflecting on a wide variety of worldviews, we believe that almost every one has four central components. There are other common elements that some worldviews have but others don’t - for example, a strong culture, or a theory about trustworthy sources of knowledge – but this article will focus on these four central elements:

You can understand a worldview quite well if you know what thoughtful people with that worldview would all answer in response to these four questions.
 
 While each individual member of a group will have somewhat different answers to the questions above, it is the portions of their answers that most members of that group share with each other that compose the group's worldview.
 
 Let's explore Snow Globe Theory, and the four components it assigns to worldviews.

If you've found this article valuable so far, you may also like our free tool

Different worldviews come with different primary intrinsic values. Intrinsic values (as opposed to "instrumental values") are things that people care about as an end in and of themselves, not merely as a means to other ends. They are the traits and states of the world that people who share the worldview treasure and want to promote. People who hold the worldview don’t just think that these things are good - they care about them deeply and feel strongly motivated to pursue them.
 
 Examples:

Here is our categorization of intrinsic values. You can find out your own with our Intrinsic Values Test.
 

Worldviews usually have a simple causal explanation for the origin of good and bad things.
 
 Examples:

Worldviews tend to include beliefs about who deserves good things (or who most deserves them).
 
 Examples:

Worldviews often include beliefs about what people should do to be good, or to cause good things to happen.
 
 Examples:

There are other elements that worldviews commonly have, but that are not near-universal like the four components described above are.
 

Worldviews don’t exist in a vacuum. People who share a worldview cluster together, either because the worldview spreads within existing communities, or because believers in the worldview seek each other out. This means that worldviews develop their own unique cultures.
 
 Some parts of a worldview’s culture are related to its intrinsic values and stories about where good and bad come from. For example, libertarians are more likely than socialists to work in finance, at least in part because they believe that the financial sector is a force for good. However, some aspects of these cultures are more arbitrary, and arise due to coincidences about where a worldview happened to take root. For example, Christian conservatives in the U.S. often live in the countryside and own guns. These aspects of Christian conservative culture aren’t directly related to the Christian conservative worldview - the Bible doesn’t forbid people from living in cities and, based on the pacifist content of the New Testament, you wouldn't necessarily expect that Christians would own weapons. But for historical reasons, there is a demographic link between Christian conservatism in the U.S. and gun ownership.
 

Some worldviews also have an outgroup. This doesn’t just mean “everyone who doesn’t share the worldview” - rather, the outgroup is a specific group (or sometimes groups) of people who are seen as the particular enemies or adversaries of a worldview. For example, the outgroup for social justice advocates might be the alt-right.
 
 

Worldviews often privilege certain sources of information over others. It’s intuitive that people who hold a certain worldview seek out media produced by those who share that worldview - we’re familiar with the fact that liberals prefer liberal media while conservatives favor conservative media. Some worldviews also involve the belief that certain kinds of information or sources of knowledge have a stronger connection to the truth than others.
 
 For example:

Worldviews are often associated with specific historical narratives (narratives about what the past was like and what future may have in store). Other important elements of a worldview can be linked to these historical narratives. For example, as many American social justice advocates see it, current racial inequalities in the US are intimately related to slavery and other atrocities committed by white Americans in the past. Other worldviews foresee humanity’s future trajectory by extrapolating from the past: for example, techno-optimists look at past rapid technological progress and envisage similar progress continuing into the future. Or, consider communists and libertarians: both see the advent of capitalism as incredibly historically significant, but communists see it as a suboptimal step on the path towards utopia, whereas libertarians view it as a source of great human flourishing.

Worldviews exist at many levels. Many worldviews contain smaller, more granular worldviews within them - for example, American Christian conservatives share a broad worldview, but you could also sketch the worldviews of individual denominations with Christianity. Similarly, there are broad overarching worldviews that unify some of the different worldviews we’ve listed below - for example, democratic socialists, communists and social justice advocates all share a broad ‘progressive’ or ‘left-wing’ worldview. The broader you get, the less specific a worldview tends to be.
 
 

Most of us are taught a worldview growing up, or we pick up one in college or from media that we consume. It can be tempting to stay in that snow globe forever. However, being stuck in just one worldview limits our ability to see the world as it truly is.
 
 Worldviews tend to be simplistic, which has some advantages - it’s easier to understand the world and relate to other people if you share simple stories about good and bad, right and wrong. But because worldviews are simple, and the world is complex, any one worldview necessarily misses a lot of nuance. Just about every worldview has some truths that it is good at seeing accurately, and some truths that it is systematically blind to. But you don't have to be stuck in just one worldview. The more worldviews you understand, the more accurately you'll see the world.
 
 

You might think, ‘Ok, but I know that my worldview is correct - otherwise, it wouldn’t be my worldview! Why should I waste my time understanding people whose beliefs are flawed or toxic?’ For instance, if you’re strongly committed to one of the progressive worldviews, you might not see the value in understanding the point of view of one of the conservative worldviews, and vice versa.
 
 However, it’s useful to know how other people think even if you believe that their worldview is deeply wrong. Governments, corporations, non-profits, religions, political parties, and other powerful groups are often guided by a particular worldview. If you don’t understand that worldview, then you’ll be unable to predict what these groups will do. You will also struggle to communicate with them in a way that they care about, or persuade them to do things differently.
 
 When people engage with others who have a different worldview, they frequently make the mistake of relying too much on the stories and assumptions of their own worldview. But this is unlikely to work well, because the person they are talking to does not share these assumptions. To be really convincing to one another, you have to be able to see things from their perspective.
 
 To give a topical example: in abortion debates, pro-choice progressives often misunderstand the worldview of pro-life conservatives. We’re publishing this article only a few days after Roe v Wade was overturned; since then, abortion has been banned or restricted in several U.S. states.

We originally drafted this section before the overturning, and know that some of our readers will be feeling immense grief or distress at this ruling, and that abortion is an exceptionally fraught and emotionally-charged issue at the best of times. No matter how much you believe that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was harmful and wrong, and even if your only goal is to win a political victory, we believe it’s still going to be useful to understand what pro-lifers really think: that way, you’ll be better placed to predict what they’ll do, or persuade them of your own point of view.

When talking about abortion, progressives sometimes say things like this tweet by @leilacohan which has been retweeted more than one hundred thousand times:

"If it was about babies, we’d have excellent and free universal maternal care. You wouldn’t be charged a cent to give birth, no matter how complicated your delivery was. If it was about babies, we’d have months and months of parental leave, for everyone.

If it was about babies, we’d have free lactation consultants, free diapers, free formula. If it was about babies, we’d have free and excellent childcare from newborns on. If it was about babies, we’d have universal preschool and pre-k and guaranteed after school placements."

From a progressive worldview, this tweet is powerful and persuasive; but it’s unlikely to be persuasive to U.S.-based Christian conservative pro-lifers - the group that it’s apparently discussing - because it misunderstands their worldview.
 
 The argument is that if conservatives cared about babies, they would support babies and children through funding and social programs. The subtext is that since conservatives don’t support those things, they are being dishonest about what they care about, and just pretending that they care about not letting fetuses die. But the idea that we should try to make good things happen through government intervention is itself a progressive belief. Conservatives tend to think that individual responsibility is more important, and to be skeptical that large government-run social programs produce good outcomes.
 
 While modern Christians have a variety of views on abortion (depending on factors such as their denomination), and the Bible doesn't address the topic directly, within the first few hundred years of Christianity there were Christian scholars arguing that life begins at conception (rather than birth). In the U.S., many Christian conservatives who oppose abortion believe that fetuses should have the same rights as born babies: we polled 49 people in the US who say that they’re “very happy” that Roe v Wade has been overturned. Of these, 90% said that they think abortion is wrong because it’s murder (i.e., similar to killing an adult human).

From within a U.S. Christian conservative worldview, there is no tension between (1) thinking that abortion is murder and (2) not supporting free diapers and childcare. If you momentarily step inside the snowglobe of this worldview, it becomes clear that you can oppose what you see as murder without believing that the government should fund large programs aimed at improving people’s quality of life.
 
 Another common misunderstanding (from the other side of the political spectrum) is that conservatives sometimes label anyone left-of-center as a “socialist”, and believe that liberals oppose capitalism (see the chart below which demonstrates the misunderstanding). But this is a misunderstanding of the average liberal’s worldview: in the U.S., most self-identified liberals (for example, Democrat voters) aren’t ‘socialists’ in the sense of ‘people who want to abolish capitalism and private ownership’. Most support capitalism, but they differ from conservatives in that they support an expanded social safety net and favor moderate wealth redistribution through progressive tax policies.
 

Image Source

When you read an argument that you know is popular but it seems clearly wrong to you, check with yourself: do you understand the worldview motivating it? Here are some questions you can ask to understand another person’s worldview:

 If your answers would be insulting to the person holding that worldview, you probably haven’t understood your interlocutor’s worldview deeply. For example, if you think ‘this person’s intrinsic value is to oppress people’, it’s likely that you haven’t found what truly motivates them. All worldviews feel right from within their own snow globe. While some worldviews do lead people to do great harm, reality has few cartoon villains; worldviews make sense internally and are aimed at making things better, even if (from an outsider’s perspective) they can seem deeply misguided.
 
 If you want to understand how other people work, or even just persuade them more effectively, try leaving your snow globe and visiting theirs for a while.
 
 

Every identity group label is somewhat ambiguous, and within each worldview there will be people with differing beliefs. But that being said, identity groups tend to have specific worldviews attached.
 
 As we've discussed, different worldviews have different causal theories of how good or bad things come about. Rarely are any of these causal theories totally correct or totally false. There are things to be learned from each worldview about why people behave the way they do, and how the world functions. We recommend trying to understand worldviews that are very different from your own - the more snow globes you master, the more clearly you'll see the world, and the more you'll understand others (even if you still think your snow globe is the best).
 
 Below we list what we think are the critical elements of various worldviews. If you notice any mistakes, please let us know so that we can correct them.

✟ American Christian Conservatives

✞ American Christian Leftists

☭ American Communists

🧠+❤ Effective Altruists

🇺🇸 'Family Values' American Conservatives

🪙 Libertarians

🔭 New Atheists

🤖 Silicon Valley Techno-Optimists

⚖️ Social Justice Advocates

💪 Trumpers (fervent Donald Trump supporters)

See this article and spreadsheet for the idea of "memetic tribes" - a slightly different framing that partially overlaps with ours.

We also have a full podcast episode about Liberalism and Conservatism that you may like:

Click here to access other streaming options and show notes.

Thanks to Elizabeth Kim for helping Spencer develop the ‘snow globes’ metaphor for worldviews. You can listen to their conversation on this topic here.

Thanks to Lovkush Agarwal, Corinne Clinch Gray and Lisa Greer for helping us write our infoboxes on (respectively) New Atheists, American Christian Conservatives, and American Christian Leftists.

And thanks to Richard Ngo for suggesting that we add a "view of history" to our article for each worldview.

Thanks to Holly Muir and Adam Binks for helpful edits and comments.