Jessica Tarlov Says Admitting When You Are Wrong Is Key to Better Political Debates
Fox News co-host Jessica Tarlov argues in a new book that acknowledging personal error and understanding the psychology of disagreement can help Americans bridge political divides.
Jessica Tarlov, the Democratic co-host of Fox News Channel's «The Five,» is making the case that admitting when you are wrong is not a weakness but the foundation of better political debate. In a new book titled «I Disagree,» she draws on her own reversals of opinion and on research into how the brain resists contradictory information to argue that Americans can still talk across their deepest divides.
Tarlov writes that with less than two months until election night, she hopes Democrats score big victories across the country. She notes that recent polling suggests the party is on track to flip the House and possibly the Senate, but she adds that she has been disappointed before and will not celebrate until the votes are counted. Even so, she says she is not always a fan of her own team, acknowledging that Democrats sometimes go too far and preach so intensely that others feel left out of the party. She points to far-left Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, saying she does not agree with «an ounce of what he's selling» on Marxism and China.
Two moments stand out to her as times when she changed her mind. The first is the COVID-19 pandemic. Tarlov says she still believes Dr. Anthony Fauci, who retired in 2022 after leading the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for nearly 40 years, did a lot of good for the country. But she now believes mask mandates went too far for too long. She credits an interview with her conservative co-host Greg Gutfeld on her podcast, «Raging Moderates,» with helping her understand his frustration that the government kept telling people what to do instead of leaving them alone.
The second moment dates to 2019, when actor Jussie Smollett falsely claimed he had been the victim of a hate crime in Chicago. Tarlov had defended him amid initial skepticism about his account. In hindsight, she says, her bias clouded her judgment. She argues that people must get better at accepting when they are wrong, because without that admission, deeper conversation and stronger relationships are impossible.
Her book explores what she calls the surprising amount of data and science behind the art of conversation. She describes the glazed look that comes over someone's face when presented with facts that contradict their position. It is not stupidity or stubbornness, she writes, but the brain protecting itself from the psychological pain of having its worldview challenged. People first sort through what evidence they are willing to consider, then screen out anything that threatens it. Scientists call this motivated reasoning, and sociologists describe the result as cognitive armor, a defense system that pre-filters reality. The process is largely unconscious, she notes, and trying to change your mind can actually hurt. Neuroscientists at the University of Southern California found that when high-intensity voters were fed statements challenging their beliefs, the regions of the brain responsible for processing physical pain lit up.
Tarlov argues that the response to COVID made the two Americas so anxious that they stopped listening to each other. She points to Ari Aster's 2025 film «Eddington,» set in New Mexico, which examines a small-town mayoral election. The sheriff, played by Joaquin Phoenix, refuses to wear a mask, while the incumbent, portrayed by Pedro Pascal, tries to enforce a legal mandate during the height of the pandemic. Tarlov says that while the last act veered off course for her, the film effectively shows how communities fracture along ideological lines and how cynicism infects basic civic functions. The sheriff is not merely disagreeing with mask mandates; he is fundamentally skeptical of institutional authority itself. The result is a town hopelessly divided and descending into violence.
The parallel to real life is exaggerated, she acknowledges, but the message is clear: allegiances to one another are not rock solid, and once relationships break down, they are hard to repair. Gutfeld, who convinced her to watch the film before appearing on her podcast, made the case for the skeptics. He said many people feel, after going through that period, «I can't believe I let people do this to me. I can't believe I stood six feet apart from people. I can't believe I washed my Amazon packages.» He added that he keeps thinking it could never happen again, but he is not sure what else could come down the pike. Tarlov uses that exchange to underline her central point: accepting error is the first step toward debates that actually connect people rather than drive them further apart.
