Cultural Truth: The Reality That Stops at the Border

May 27, 2026

Italians believe 26 percent of their population are immigrants. The actual figure is closer to 10 percent. The French think 30 percent of their country is Muslim; the real number is around eight percent. Across 30 countries surveyed by Ipsos in their “Perils of Perception” studies, encompassing more than 200,000 interviews, populations consistently and dramatically misperceive the basic composition of their own societies. Bobby Duffy, who directed this research and later published it as The Perils of Perception: Why We’re Wrong About Nearly Everything, calls this a “system of delusion” produced by the interaction between cognitive biases and distorted information environments. What he describes within countries, I have been observing between them.

Over the past year, I have spoken with policymakers, business executives, researchers, and ordinary citizens across multiple countries and continents, partly through my techplomacy advisory work and partly through independent research on how AI is reshaping persuasion. A pattern has emerged that I did not set out to find. People hold remarkably confident opinions about other countries while remaining almost entirely unaware of how those same countries perceive theirs. A German professional told me Europe is the reasonable middle ground between an erratic America and an opaque China. An American consultant, drawing on reporting from The Wall Street Journal and The Economist, told me that Europe is becoming unpredictable, hobbled by immigration policy failures and an increasingly hostile environment for free speech, citing UK arrests over social media posts as evidence. Neither is lying, and both are drawing on what is, to them, real information. Neither believed me when I told them the other held the same view. Both called the other erratic, and both said the other’s opinion could not be taken seriously for precisely that reason. In other words, they are oblivious to their similarities while being convinced of their opposing differences, and neither has any idea that the other’s view is grounded in equally real reporting.

The people least likely to notice this gap share a common biographical feature: they have never lived outside the country or region where they grew up. This is a cognitive pattern with considerable research behind it. William Maddux and Adam Galinsky demonstrated in a 2009 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that the experience of living abroad (not merely traveling) triggers what they called “cognitive unfreezing,” a measurable reduction in reliance on pre-existing mental categories and an increased openness to integrating new, contradictory information. Subsequent work by Carmit Tadmor and colleagues found that bicultural individuals who maintain orientation toward both home and host cultures develop a capacity called “integrative complexity,” the ability to hold and synthesize multiple perspectives simultaneously. People who have lived in several countries tend to recognize that any single national narrative is incomplete. People who have not tend to experience their own country’s dominant narrative as simply the way things are.

Social psychologist Lee Ross coined a term for this in the 1990s: naïve realism. The concept rests on three interconnected assumptions: that people perceive the world objectively, that reasonable people exposed to the same information will reach the same conclusions, and that those who disagree must be uninformed, irrational, or biased. Ross and Andrew Ward laid this out formally in their 1996 work Naive Realism in Everyday Life: Implications for Social Conflict and Misunderstanding, and Robinson, Keltner, Ward, and Ross tested it empirically in a 1995 study showing that opposing groups consistently overestimate how much their views differ from reality. The concept originated in domestic political contexts, but it maps onto international perception with uncomfortable precision. The person who told me that a particular country was “unhinged,” and who then responded to my observation that significant press in that country described their own country in identical terms, did not ask what I thought. They spent the next several minutes explaining why only one view could be correct. The other country’s perspective was not worth considering, precisely because it came from a place already categorized as unreliable. This is naïve realism operating in real time, at the level of nations.

What makes this something other than a familiar observation about human nature is that the mechanisms once available to counteract it are degrading simultaneously. Foreign correspondent bureaus have contracted sharply over the past two decades. National media increasingly produce content optimized for domestic audiences, with limited incentive to represent how a story plays elsewhere. Social media algorithms, as More in Common’s 2019 Perception Gap study demonstrated, amplify the most extreme voices disproportionately. Their research found that Americans who post political content on social media have an average perception gap of 29, compared to 18 for those who do not, and that roughly 90 percent of the population’s political opinions are represented by fewer than three percent of posts. The people shaping the visible discourse are the ones most distorted in their understanding of the other side. Extend this dynamic across national borders, where the language barrier alone filters out most direct exposure to another country’s information environment, and the distortion compounds.

I have started calling this phenomenon Cultural Truth: what a community accepts as true based on cultural resonance, regardless of factual accuracy. Cultural Truth is not misinformation in the traditional sense, and it is not a lie someone tells. It is a worldview that only works at home, a shared understanding that feels so obviously correct within a particular information ecosystem that questioning it reads not as intellectual curiosity but as disloyalty. When I pointed out to my interlocutors that their country was being described abroad in the same terms they were using about someone else, it registered as disagreement, not observation. I was violating their Cultural Truth. Rather than engaging with the evidence, they tried to convince me that the other country’s perspective could not be taken seriously, precisely because it came from a place they had already categorized as erratic.

Among the most globally mobile people I know, the perception is different but equally pointed. Several have expressed genuine bewilderment that European taxpayers fund developmental aid to China, a country whose infrastructure, digital payment systems, and urban development have in some respects leapt ahead of what exists in donor nations. “Europeans wouldn’t support this if they had ever been to Shenzhen,” one said to me. Whether that specific policy judgment is correct matters less than what it reveals: there are things you cannot learn about your own country without leaving it, and the people who have left see connections that remain invisible to those whose information comes primarily from domestic sources. The Maddux and Galinsky research suggests this is not arrogance but a measurable cognitive difference produced by the experience of navigating more than one cultural reality.

The question that concerns me is what happens when artificial intelligence enters this equation. Generative AI can already produce nationally optimized narratives at scale, in any language, calibrated to confirm whatever a domestic audience already believes about itself and about others. Deepfakes can fabricate evidence of events that never occurred, and recent scandals (the BBC’s manipulated footage of a Trump rally being one example) have demonstrated that even established institutions are not immune to producing or amplifying distorted accounts. If the corrective mechanisms were functioning, this would be worrying enough. In a world where foreign correspondents are vanishing, where algorithmic curation replaces editorial judgment, and where AI can generate persuasive content indistinguishable from authentic journalism, the gap between how countries see themselves and how they are seen by others is likely to widen in ways that have direct consequences for diplomacy, trade, and security. If the voters shaping decisions about foreign policy and alliances are operating inside a Cultural Truth that has never been tested against how their country is actually perceived abroad, the question is not whether democracies will make miscalculations. It is how large those miscalculations can grow before the consequences become visible.

López-Rodríguez, Halperin, and colleagues published experimental findings in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin in 2022 showing that making people aware of the naïve realism bias, without any reference to culture and free of emotional involvement, increased their acceptance of cultural differences. The effect was strongest among participants who were highest in prejudice. This suggests that awareness itself is an intervention, and that the people who seem hardest to reach may in fact be the most responsive to having the bias named. But awareness requires a delivery mechanism. In an era where the information environment is fragmenting along national lines and synthetic content is beginning to fill the gaps, the question is whether any institution retains the credibility and reach to hold up that mirror. If governments and press are no longer trusted to do it, and AI is making it easier than ever to produce locally flattering distortions, the perceptual isolation of nations from one another may become the defining epistemic challenge of the next decade.

Quietly Consequential

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?