Key Insight
Kahan critiques Paul Krugman's use of 'motivated reasoning' as an asymmetric accusation — applied to the other side but not subject to the same scrutiny when applied to one's own reasoning.
When Paul Krugman — or any commentator — invokes motivated reasoning to explain why those who disagree have reached wrong conclusions, there is an implicit assumption that the invoker is not themselves subject to the same cognitive dynamics they are diagnosing in others. This is the magic motivated reasoning mirror: it shows the biases of others with perfect clarity while reflecting back one's own views as pure rational analysis.
Research consistently shows that both sides of politically polarized debates engage in motivated reasoning. Invoking motivated reasoning as an asymmetric accusation — aimed only at opponents — is itself a symptom of the phenomenon being diagnosed.
Cultural cognition research has value precisely because it provides a symmetrical framework for understanding how cultural values shape belief formation across ideological lines. But when this framework is selectively deployed as a weapon against one side, it loses that symmetrical character and becomes just another instrument of cultural conflict. This explains why Kahan has largely stopped engaging with asymmetric deployments of motivated reasoning accusations.