The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt

Jun 05, 2012 Michael Burnam-Fink rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: academic, 2012

Haidt is much better psychologist than political philosopher, and this book is both monumental and dangerously flawed.

On the good side: Haidt draws broadly from research in psychology, anthropology, and biology to develop a six-factor basis for morality (Care/Harm, Liberty/Oppression, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation), and show that moral judgement is an innate intuitive ability accompanied by post-hoc justifications. Morality serves to bind Haidt is much better psychologist than political philosopher, and this book is both monumental and dangerously flawed.

On the good side: Haidt draws broadly from research in psychology, anthropology, and biology to develop a six-factor basis for morality (Care/Harm, Liberty/Oppression, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation), and show that moral judgement is an innate intuitive ability accompanied by post-hoc justifications. Morality serves to bind non-related groups, i.e. society, together, and moral skills have been favored by various evolutionary mechanisms over human history. This theory is, frankly, really good and really well developed.

Haidt then goes on to show that Liberalism draws from only the first three moral factors while Conservatism draws from all six. This explains both the differences between liberals and conservatives, and why conservatives beat the stuffing out of liberals at the polls. This is also incontrovertible.

But Haidt is unwilling to follow his theory to its ultimate question: Can a democratic political system that privileged the rights of the minority procedurally sustain decision-making based on all six moral factors? Care/Harm, Liberty/Oppression, and Fairness/Cheating are universal factors; everybody uses them, and we mostly agree on when they are upheld or violated. Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation are intrinsically provincial factors; they're different for every culture, and every individual.

A moral order for a pluralistic society which takes the latter three factors seriously must either force people to uphold a morality they do not believe in, or segregate people based on their different interpretations of morality. Perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to such concerns because I'm a liberal Jew, but forcing false beliefs on and/or ghettoizing people seems profoundly wrong. Conversely, giving a Moral Minority the ability to gum up the works whenever they feel their rights are under attack is killing good governance.

Where conservatism fails is that we are no longer living in separate communities. It's one global economy, one atmosphere, one water cycle, one oil supply, etc. Haidt faults liberalism for damaging American moral capital in the 60s and 70s, but he doesn't explain how conservatism can become big enough rule the globe. ...more

flag 348 likes · Like · see review

Oct 06, 2013 Sean Chick rated it did not like it · review of another edition

If you are a Republican this book will make you feel very good about yourself. According to Haidt you have a more balanced morality, a realistic view of "human nature" (beware anyone who says they understand human nature), and some other good stuff I forgot about. He points the finger at liberals but seems unaware about the political dangers of conservatism. He discusses liberals with disdain. With conservatives there is a kind of awe and he rarely discusses their hypocrisies. Of course he If you are a Republican this book will make you feel very good about yourself. According to Haidt you have a more balanced morality, a realistic view of "human nature" (beware anyone who says they understand human nature), and some other good stuff I forgot about. He points the finger at liberals but seems unaware about the political dangers of conservatism. He discusses liberals with disdain. With conservatives there is a kind of awe and he rarely discusses their hypocrisies. Of course he conveniently says we are all hypocrites and should not worry with it. There lies the reason why he is so kind to the contemporary right, which is a clan of hypocrites without equal. Haidt believes we do not reason so much as we rationalize, which really makes one wonder how we managed to even invent the wheel or start using fire. It also explains why he never includes "truth" in his limited moral universe. The Persians made it the center of their morality. I guess it would just complicate things, so like any hack, he ignores it, much the same way evolutionary psychologists often dodge the issue of suicide. It also makes it easier to accept contemporary conservatism, which has grown alongside tepid moral relativism.

The above thoughts make him seem like a man at home in the world before the English Civil War administered the first blows for egalitarianism. In other words, this is perfect neo-liberal dreck for our vapid post-modern world. A fashionable book that in time will be mocked and at best studied as a curiosity, the main curiosity being why this man is taken so seriously. I suppose he just went to the right schools, just like the guys who sent us to Iraq, deregulated the banks, etc.

Most of all, Haidt simply does not understand either side of the political fight. If Republicans love authority, why do they disdain the government? On the flip side the same holds true for government loving liberals. That is because the question is not how much government we shall have. The question is over who shall rule. Conservatives throughout history are defined by their acceptance of gross inequality, which is why any authority that approaches fairness is opposed by them. Haidt grasps this somewhat when discussing fairness and equality but not with the same success as Corey Robin.

UPDATE: Years later and still ticking as my most popular review. It is not my best written or most nuanced. As such it requires an update, since it was very much a product of 2013. Has my opinion changed? I can make my case against the book with less vitriol, and a few lines do not really work so well. For instance, my point about rationality is a stretch. I saw Haidt as part of a gradual process, aided on the left and right, to debase the value of rationality. I could go on, but I think our declining faith in reason as an ideal, if not a full blown reality, is in part why you get FOX News and campus protests. My point though could have been better made, but I won't change the review. The old dog has been around for too long now.

More to the point, the book still suffers from some flaws in research. It has a bias and more to the point has a limited understanding of morality. Haidt dodges questions of truth and hypocrisy because they would undermine his argument. I have no time anymore for arguments, left or right, that ignore their internal contradictions or other view points that would question their basic premises. Haidt's work is not without merit, but it is already showing its age.

Yet, this review of Haidt shows its age. It was written when I was firmly on the left. I am not any longer, having seen the rise of anarchist views and resurgent critical theory. In 2013 I had seen years of right-wing hypocrisy, arrogance, and idiocy (Bush years, Tea Party). The left has responded in kind with its own blend. As such, the nation cannot hold together since both sides utterly hate and distrust each other. Our government system cannot handle such discord. It could not in 1861 and it will not today. In 2013 I may have appeared to be on the left, but since then much has changed, and I find myself being cast out by those in my camp for disagreeing with tactics and goals. I am a man without a party or a tribe and soon the wolf and the lion will be at each other's throats.

Gone are the days online or in person when debate could be heated, but without hate. Just read the comments. Conservatives came to attack this review, and they almost always do so by using some ad hominem attacks. I was called a liar, told I was unreasonable with a "bloated sense of compassion." One person wrote "I'm only enraging the situation by disagreeing with your obnoxious liberal elephant and will only make it more combative." My answer? "Not at all. Unlike what we see today on campus, I am all about debate." This is where we are today. We no longer trade ideas online. Instead we look to score points, certain of how "the other" will react.

The war starts among the people before it ever gets formalized. Bleeding Kansas and the Boston Massacre were preludes. We are seeing our own preludes in 2017. ...more

flag 185 likes · Like · see review

Nov 02, 2013 Clif Hostetler rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: current-events

I was hopeful this book might provide me with some sociological tools and rhetorical tricks to clear away the views of those who disagree with my positions on politics and religion. Of course this book does not deliver on this unrealistic hope. What the book does provide instead is an explanation why not everybody agrees with my definition of morality. This knowledge does not make disagreements go away, so the best I can hope for after reading this book is to comprehend the intuitive motivations ...more

flag 99 likes · Like · see review

Apr 18, 2013 Jay Kamaladasa rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction

I had great expectations for this book after watching the author give an introduction in the Colbert report. However, the book didn't hold up to it's name. These are some of grudges I have against this book:

1.) The author doesn't tackle conservative vs. progressive morals. He tackles left wing vs. right wing morals.

This is a typical blunder made by the average American. And I would've overlooked it, as the book is geared towards an American audience. But the author is a professor in moral ...more

flag 92 likes · Like · see review

Sep 04, 2012 Eric_W rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: current-affairs, science

"This book is about why it’s so hard for us to get along. We are indeed all stuck here for a while, so let’s at least do what we can to understand why we are so easily divided into hostile groups, . . Politics and religion are both expressions of our underlying moral psychology, and an understanding of that psychology can help to bring people together. My goal in this book is to drain some of the heat, anger, and divisiveness out of these topics and replace them with awe, wonder, and curiosity. "This book is about why it’s so hard for us to get along. We are indeed all stuck here for a while, so let’s at least do what we can to understand why we are so easily divided into hostile groups, . . Politics and religion are both expressions of our underlying moral psychology, and an understanding of that psychology can help to bring people together. My goal in this book is to drain some of the heat, anger, and divisiveness out of these topics and replace them with awe, wonder, and curiosity. We are downright lucky that we evolved this complex moral psychology that allowed our species to burst out of the forests and savannas and into the delights, comforts, and extraordinary peacefulness of modern societies in just a few thousand years. . . I want to show you that an obsession with righteousness (leading inevitably to self-righteousness) is the normal human condition. It is a feature of our evolutionary design, not a bug or error that crept into minds that would otherwise be objective and rational."

I hardly feel qualified to make any kind of judgments on this book having little background in philosophy, especially moral philosophy, so I especially appreciate Haidt's lucid summary of the development of moral philosophy through examples and hypotheticals.

I remember several years ago having a visit from the local anti-abortion denizens, nice people, very concerned about youth, etc. They steered the conversation to abortion, their favorite topic. Being of a liberal and hopefully rational and reasoned mindset myself, I described a book I had recently read,The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy by Harold J. Morowitz, James Trefil, a small, excellent analysis of the abortion debate that contains a plea for looking at the issue rationally. I described their suggestion that we need to decide what constitutes "human" and then see when the fetus acquires the capability (cerebral cortex) to be human, etc. etc. To which the response was, "well, I don't believe that." All debate and discussions ceases when that statement arrives. Now, I could have said, well, you old biddy, I don't give a fuck what you believe, I'm trying to find some common ground here." But, my mother having raised me as a good little boy who is always polite to old people, I merely sat there rather stunned. That's the problem. How do you create a discussion of issues when either side can just say, well, I don't believe that.

This is not just a conservative or right-wing problem. Try having a rational or reasonable discussion about the merits of circumcision, climate. autism, raw milk or veganism. I guarantee the true believers will immediately assemble with truckloads of vitriol. We all suffer from what Haidt calls "confirmation bias," that is, our gut tells us what to believe first and then we seek out justifications for that belief.

Haidt's book reaffirms what has become fairly obvious: we divide ourselves into tribes and those tribes consist of like-minded people which we use to validate our intuitive predispositions. His stated goal is to attempt to find a way to bridge the divide between two different moral world views., and to find a way for each side to at least understand the other's perspective.

Both left and right are motivated by the moral foundations of care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity. But they differ qualitatively: liberals tend to care more about suffering and violence; conservatives care about harm done to others but not as intensely. Conservatives, on the other hand, place more emphasis on fairness, i.e. getting what you deserve. Both sides value liberty but have differing definition as to what constitutes the oppressor. Similarly, with fairness, each side values it but define it differently: liberals view it from the standpoint of equality while conservatives look to proportionality, i.e. fairness is being rewarded for your accomplishments and if you work harder you should be rewarded proportionally.

The biggest divisions relate to sanctity, authority and loyalty. You can easily guess where the preferences of conservatives and liberals lie. Haidt suggests that liberals will fail to gain wider acceptance until they come to terms with those three moral values and find someway to create their own vocabulary validating them. I would add that liberals will have to be more accepting of groups, particularly religious ones (as much as I despise them,) which serve an evolutionary need to discount selfishness and promote group adherence and benefits.

To some extent that's why I am so puzzled by the right's celebration of Ayn Rand who promoted the antithesis of group-think by celebrating independence and selfishness, i.e. think of yourself first and what benefits accrue to yourself through your actions. She hated coercion both governmental and religious, in particular, yet both encourage group adherence and loyalty.

I just wonder how much of what Haidt says come from his intuitive side (the elephant) and how much from the rational or reasoning part (the rider.)

Here's a quote that struck me: "And why do so many Westerners, even secular ones, continue to see choices about food and sex as being heavily loaded with moral significance? Liberals sometimes say that religious conservatives are sexual prudes for whom anything other than missionary-position intercourse within marriage is a sin. But conservatives can just as well make fun of liberal struggles to choose a balanced breakfast—balanced among moral concerns about free-range eggs, fair-trade coffee, naturalness, and a variety of toxins, some of which (such as genetically modified corn and soybeans) pose a greater threat spiritually than biologically." ...more

flag 76 likes · Like · see review

Feb 14, 2018 Trevor rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: psychology, social-theory

For a long time now I have been coming to the conclusion that if one is to believe capitalism is essentially a meritocracy - and if one is also to acknowledge that the inequities of capitalist societies mean that social mobility (particularly in the United States, for instance) is virtually non-existent, then one also needs some way of explaining how something that looks like it is without merit actually is the embodiment of merit.

And often this is where 'biology' comes to the rescue. Genes ...more

flag 67 likes · Like · see review

Feb 15, 2015 Darwin8u rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: 2015

“[W]hen a group of people make something sacred, the members of the cult lose the ability to think clearly about it. Morality binds and blinds.”
― Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind

chimps

Jonathan Haidt give a nice social science explanation for how we align politically and how we are built to disagree. This is one of those books that seems to fit in the same evolutionary psychology space as Bob Wright's The Moral Animal. It is a combination of ethnography + evolutionary psychology + experimental ...more

flag 65 likes · Like · see review

May 17, 2017 Roy Lotz rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: religion-mysticism-theology, ignorance-of-experts, misanthropology, footnotes-to-plato

I expected this book to be good, but I did not expect it to be so rich in ideas and dense with information. Haidt covers far more territory than the subtitle of the book implies. Not only is he attempting to explain why people are morally tribal, but also the way morality works in the human brain, the evolutionary origins of moral feelings, the role of moral psychology in the history of civilization, the origin and function of religion, and how we can apply all this information to the modern ...more

flag 60 likes · Like · see review

Jan 22, 2013 Marvin chester rated it did not like it · review of another edition

On page 88 the author writes: "As an intuitionist , I'd say that the worship of reason is itself an illustration of one of the most long-lived delusions in Western history: the rationalist delusion."

Apparently he hasn't noticed that reason has taken us to the moon, given us longer and healthier lives, allowed us to travel the world, to communicate with loved ones over vaste distances, even allowed his book to exist ...

The author is a dim witted charlatan and spends the rest of the book making a On page 88 the author writes: "As an intuitionist , I'd say that the worship of reason is itself an illustration of one of the most long-lived delusions in Western history: the rationalist delusion."

Apparently he hasn't noticed that reason has taken us to the moon, given us longer and healthier lives, allowed us to travel the world, to communicate with loved ones over vaste distances, even allowed his book to exist ...

The author is a dim witted charlatan and spends the rest of the book making a convincing case of it. Calling his subject moral psychology he pretends to offer us universal truths when, in fact, he is dealing only with parochial matters; currently fashionable political concerns in the U.S. As if he discovered it, he dwells repeatedly on the well recognized phenomenon that opinions are rarely reached through reason but rather the reverse; once held, reasons are found to justify and defend opinions.

In the matter of moral prejudices emotion governs reason. More accurately, it governs rationalization rather than reason. The author confuses the two. But, since emotions dominate, he concludes - as many before him did - that to change opinion you must make your appeal emotionally; giving credence to the moral standing of opposing opinion. To change opinion you must perceive and appreciate the moral stance behind opposing opinion. Good advice but hardly original. To demonize your opponent cannot bring about peace and compromise. For political liberals that means recognizing that conservatives are not without morality.

To unveil conservative morality he parces morals into five, later morphing into six, categories. This strikes me as a scheme as good as any other. I can imagine parsing it otherwise, though. As to his demonstrating his thesis with graphs I am highly suspicious of his results. No error bars are given. No details on the data. Nor on the randomness of his sampling nor even does he list the questions he used. (He does mention some of them.) Considering that close to a third of his 420 pages is devoted to addenda - mostly chapter notes - a few details of his investigations could have been included. Such a mountain of notes often reveals, not scholarship, but rather a desire to impress untutored readers. So I discount his research. The essential thing that it does is to grant morality to conservative thinking. A good gesture towards peaceful accord.

There. I've spared you the pain of reading 318 confused and poorly written pages with over 100 of addenda. Lucky you.
...more

flag 58 likes · Like · see review

Feb 12, 2014 Charlene rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, neuroscience

At first I gave this book 3 stars because I felt like I might have been too critical. After thinking about it a while, I decided I was not merely critical enough. This book should be renamed "How to Justify the Action of Oppressing Human Beings In the Name of Getting Along." You can take any of Haidt's current examples of what to him "seems" like an oppressive act, as he assures you there is some merit to the thinking of oppressive individuals, and replace it with any of the most embarrassing ...more

flag 57 likes · Like · see review

Jun 29, 2012 David rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: read-in-2012

Despite some painful infelicities of style, this book is compelling and generally well-argued. Two aspects irritated me -- I thought several of the author's chosen analogies were dreadful -- clunky and not particularly apt. The silliness of the metaphor that humans are Homo Duplex -- "90% chimp, 10% bee" -- is just so jarring that it distracts the reader from the argument. Similarly, I found his other recurrent metaphor, that for our rational and intuitive mental processes -- "The mind is

Despite some painful infelicities of style, this book is compelling and generally well-argued. Two aspects irritated me -- I thought several of the author's chosen analogies were dreadful -- clunky and not particularly apt. The silliness of the metaphor that humans are Homo Duplex -- "90% chimp, 10% bee" -- is just so jarring that it distracts the reader from the argument. Similarly, I found his other recurrent metaphor, that for our rational and intuitive mental processes -- "The mind is divided like a rider on an elephant, and the rider's job is to serve the elephant" -- to be severely deficient. And the less said about the unfortunate phrase "taste buds of the righteous mind" the better. Not to mention crimes against the language like "groupishness", "Durkheimogens", or the "hive switch".

However, though I did find these stylistic tics annoying, in the end they are minor flaws in a book which was fascinating, highly readable, and thought-provoking. I found it considerably more interesting than I did "The Happiness Hypothesis". The first third of the book, about the origins and dimensions of moral intuition, is very much the author's home turf, and he writes about it lucidly and authoritatively. The second section, which attempts to explain the development of human moral sense in evolutionary terms, was not fully convincing (to me). But it was thought-provoking and well-written -- the arguments are laid out clearly, so the reader can judge them on their merits. On the topic of religion, Haidt's arguments are considerably more interesting, and expressed with far greater civility, than the shrill invective doled out by the anti-God group of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris.

The last couple of chapters in the book, in which the author examines the polarization and loss of civility that has crept in to American political life in the last decades, are fascinating. In particular, his explanation for the difference in moral priorities between liberals and conservatives rings true. Both sides battle it out, on a variety of social and political issues, each convinced they occupy the moral high ground, increasingly dismissive of their opponents. Whether or not you believe Haidt's claim that this very human trait of moral superiority is a logical result of evolutionary pressure, its potential to be destructive in the political sphere is obvious.

The author (wisely) offers no magic solution to the ever-more bitter polarization of the American electorate, concluding instead with what is essentially a call to the better angels of our nature. The question posed by Rodney King, back in 1992, has never been more relevant - "Can we all get along?"

I highly recommend this book.
...more

flag 42 likes · Like · see review

Jun 18, 2012 Brad Foley rated it really liked it · review of another edition

It's maybe not a stretch to say this book blew my mind, and in the best possible way. Some context: I'm a liberal far to the left of Obama, and I religiously read the New York Times and the Guardian - so I'm true blue pink. However, 30% of the country in which I live, including many well educated and erudite people hold views that I find completely incomprehensible, if not reprehensible. But, I think it's fair to say that they actually honestly believe they are right. Haidt promises to explain It's maybe not a stretch to say this book blew my mind, and in the best possible way. Some context: I'm a liberal far to the left of Obama, and I religiously read the New York Times and the Guardian - so I'm true blue pink. However, 30% of the country in which I live, including many well educated and erudite people hold views that I find completely incomprehensible, if not reprehensible. But, I think it's fair to say that they actually honestly believe they are right. Haidt promises to explain how this paradoxical state of affairs could be - and I think he delivers, drawing on his own extensive research, and the research of others. And at this point I think I should say, while my instincts are Far Left, I think I value evidence more than ideology; and thus this book, with it's page-after-page of experiments and results was overwhelmingly convincing to me. This isn't to say that the terrain Haidt describes won't change (and possibly change a lot over the next 20 or 30 years) but it feels like moral psychology is well on its way to being biologised (a good thing to my mind) and is approaching fully scientific status.

And this is where the conundrum hits. Haidt describes the innate variation in the moral "tastes" of individuals in a population. These dimensions are emphatically not ad hoc entities. Much of the book (past the first fluffy chapter) is devoted to describing how Haidt and others came to construct and validate these moral "tastes", through extensive ongoing questionnaires and experiments. I won't spoil it, but the experimental sections were a whole lot of fun to read. Some (lefties) base moral judgments on only 2 dimensions - liberty and care. Others (most conservatives) use an additional 3 or even 4 dimensions of morality - in-group loyalty, authority, sanctity, and fairness. Others (say Libertarians) emphasize a different subset of these values (fairness and liberty).

When we argue morally, many times we argue past each other, because we assume things about what is right or wrong, and take for granted some kind of shared logic. But when someone makes an argument to me that appeals to (for instance) the sacred status of the priesthood, or the divine right of kings, my response is normally incredulity. Because to my mind these things have no moral status (or even a negative moral status).

Where I think the book becomes challenging, then for me personally, is that if I believe all the former (and I do) it becomes imperative to actually exercise my understanding of others' arguments. Partly, this is so that I can formulate better counterarguments. Partly, this is because (as Haidt suggests) I might find that other people see things that I miss. For instance, many rituals that I find, well stupid, and maybe harmful, serve purposes of group cohesion that I simply don't understand - to my detriment. Other rules concerning purity and sanctity likewise serve social functions that we tinker unawares with to our detriment.

A good example here is probably the idea of gay marriage. I think I have come to see that the conservative horror at the idea has more grounds than I would have believed. Gay marriage isn't simply extending a right, in fairness, to a group that deserves it (though it's that, too). It really does change the whole meaning of marriage quite a lot. For most people marriage is a sacred institution. It might be that we need to argue that accepting gay marriage actually changes marriage, *as a sacred institution*, for the better. (My use of "sacred" here is theologically content free).

This is all very interesting, but tricky. And frankly I think Haidt gives too much away sometimes. I especially took exception to his chapter on Libertarians and health care. But, I think (I hope) I do so on narrow points of economic feasibility (health care is arguably different from other commodities.) But this is the point. Hopefully if we learn to really see things from other points of view, we can be respectful, and move the dialogue to a point where we're arguing based on evidence and not mutually incompatible (and blind) biological instinct. ...more

flag 36 likes · Like · see review

Jun 18, 2012 David rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: psychology, politics, philosophy, religion, sociology

This book is well-written, edited, and well-organized. Each chapter explores a concept, followed by a nice summary. The book is a mixed bag for me. Some parts are fascinating, while other parts are a bit technical and dry. But so much of it is original and fresh, that I give the book five stars.

Haidt proposes six foundations of morality; care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Haidt claims that liberals (Democrats) are This book is well-written, edited, and well-organized. Each chapter explores a concept, followed by a nice summary. The book is a mixed bag for me. Some parts are fascinating, while other parts are a bit technical and dry. But so much of it is original and fresh, that I give the book five stars.

Haidt proposes six foundations of morality; care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Haidt claims that liberals (Democrats) are interested in the first three of these foundations, and don't bother with the latter three. Conservatives (Republicans) care about all six of these foundations, almost equally. As a result, conservatives have a more sure footing in morality, and understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives. Again, neither liberals nor conservatives are "better"--but care about different things because their moral thinking is different.

A few days ago I finished the book How We Decide, which describes how the emotional/intuitive mind plays the lion's share in making decisions, while the rational mind forms reasons for our decisions. Jonathan Haidt agrees with this idea, and develops a metaphor throughout his book; an elephant and a driver, in which the elephant plays the role of intuition, and the driver, symbolizing reason, tries to keep the elephant in line.

I thought that the most interesting part of the book is Haidt's explanation for why people practice religion. Religion is such a universal phenomenon, that it practically begs for an explanation using adaptation through natural selection. Religion evolved--both as a biological adaptation and as a cultural meme--in order to cement the sense of belonging and trust among groups. People within these groups are more likely to care about each other, to help each other to survive, and to combat other, alien groups.

Jonathan Haidt interleaves the story of his political tendencies; he started out as a pure liberal, but experiences in his life--and thinking about politics and psychology--led him toward a conservative vein. But Haidt does not say that he favors liberal or conservative thinking. What he does favor, is trying to understand other people's ways of thinking. The most important part of the book lies in the idea that one cannot hope to persuade someone to change his mind, without first understanding his way of thinking. Dale Carnegie used a quote from Henry Ford, "If there is any one secret of success it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from their angle as well as your own." To illustrate the point, the last page of the book has a wonderful cartoon:

...more

flag 33 likes · Like · see review

Aug 13, 2013 Andy rated it did not like it · review of another edition

The main selling point of the book is the controversial thesis that conservatives have a more sophisticated and complete "moral matrix" than liberals. Haidt says conservatives have a complete sense of taste whereas liberals can only taste sweet. This implies that liberals have a dangerously inaccurate version of reality that they are using when deciding what ideas to swallow and what to spit out.

Such a bold claim should be backed up with solid proof. Haidt needs to show where the "complete" ...more

flag 33 likes · Like · see review

Apr 06, 2017 Håkon rated it really liked it · review of another edition

As a liberal westerner, I think it is a natural reaction to perceive hierarchical systems, ideas of loyality, and ideas of sanctity as intellectually flawed and oppressive concepts. Jonathan Haidt tells us how such reactions are generally much more intuitive than they are rational. Most rationalization is often post hoc, and is also often used as a tool to intellectualize intuitive beliefs. Therefore, it would be erroneous to assume that people of conservative views are wrong and perhaps stupid As a liberal westerner, I think it is a natural reaction to perceive hierarchical systems, ideas of loyality, and ideas of sanctity as intellectually flawed and oppressive concepts. Jonathan Haidt tells us how such reactions are generally much more intuitive than they are rational. Most rationalization is often post hoc, and is also often used as a tool to intellectualize intuitive beliefs. Therefore, it would be erroneous to assume that people of conservative views are wrong and perhaps stupid for holding their beliefs. If it is true that our views are intuitive and are often backed up through post hoc rationalization, then we could safely assume that the disparity between liberals and conservatives is often not logical, but rather entirely built on moral presuppositions.

This is what Haidt describes as the moral Matrix. The moral Matrix consists of 6 values that are inherent in mankind, through evolution: care/harm, liberty/oppression, fariness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degredation. Haidt concludes that liberals only show interest in the 3 first sets of values, and view the 3 latter as "backwards", whilst conservatives show intererst in all 6. This would explain why, through the lens of a liberal, ideas of loyalty, authority and sanctity seem so primitive. They are simply not part of our moral code, therefore, understanding the other sides' arguments, especially if you are a liberal, is nearly impossible.

Haidt explains to us why both liberalism and conservatism is necessary in a functioning society, and why one cannot have a society based on one but not the other. Look at Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. Liberalism and conservatism functions as forces of yin and yang (chaos and order).Therefore, ideas of equality, progress, social justice and rejection of social norms, are incredibly dangerous if not governed by opposing ideas that can put order into these progressive ideas and make them function in society as best as possible. Just as conservatism, if not governed by forces of equality, progress, social justice and a rejection of social norms, can result in oppression of its people.

Fundamentally, liberals are very good at noticing when a hierarchical system is being oppressive and needs change, and conservatives are very good at noticing the chaos that might arise from such forces of change. They are both necessary and often compliment eachother. ...more

flag 32 likes · Like · see review

Jul 14, 2018 Catherine rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction

I feel like one of the most valuable things you can strive to attain in this lifetime is a well rounded, informed mindset that expands your ability to see other points of view. With this, I gained just that :)

flag 33 likes · Like · see review

Aug 05, 2017 Trish rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Recommended to Trish by: Bruce Katz

Shelves: nonfiction, something-completely-new, political-science, social-science, america, psychology

Ordinary people like myself occasionally glimpse pieces of truths we believe are important to explain how we live and understand the world but we never seem to get enough distance, or time, or examples to really state definitively what it is that makes us happy, or contentious, or willing to put ourselves out for another. Jonathan Haidt, fortunately, knows how to excavate the origins of our value systems, and has worked with colleagues to theorize and test what we believe and why and to discover ...more

flag 29 likes · Like · see review

Aug 25, 2012 Thomas rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction, psychology

From a psychological standpoint, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion earns five stars. The book loses some of its appeal when Jonathan Haidt veers into political philosophy, however - especially when he raises the biased question "why are religious people better neighbors and citizens?"

Let me backtrack. The Righteous Mind is split into three sections. The first focuses on how intuitions come first and are followed by strategic reasoning, the second shows that From a psychological standpoint, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion earns five stars. The book loses some of its appeal when Jonathan Haidt veers into political philosophy, however - especially when he raises the biased question "why are religious people better neighbors and citizens?"

Let me backtrack. The Righteous Mind is split into three sections. The first focuses on how intuitions come first and are followed by strategic reasoning, the second shows that there are six moral foundations (Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Liberty/Oppression, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation), and the third hones in on the belief that morality binds and blinds. By the end each part made sense in relation to one another and came together to pack a strong moral philosophy punch. Though the book had some dense sections - like the history and biology of moral philosophy - Haidt included interesting scenarios, research, and anecdotes to alleviate the doldrums.

My favorite aspect of the book was how Haidt looked at morality in many different ways; by the end, he writes that one thing he hopes readers will take away from his book is that there is not just one form of morality that applies to everyone. While I learned about some of the subject matter in my AP Psychology class last year, I had never heard of the six moral foundations before. The 100 pages of notes at the back of the book reveals how much work he put into his research.

But I didn't particularly agree with or admire how he framed conservatism as the better ideology in terms of incorporating all six moral foundations. Liberals also understand that if "you destroy all groups and dissolve all internal structure, you destroy your moral capital." Though he does a good job of stating that we need the opinions of both sides to form a more cohesive nation, he fails to elaborate on whether it's really possible to operate on a perfectly equal blend of every moral foundation. If we force people to obey authority and to submit to whatever is deemed sacred in that particular society, are we not therefore harming certain individuals and cheating others out of their rights? He praises religion and refutes New Atheism, but doesn't present the chaos religion can cause. What if we have a religion that operates to some extent on all six moral foundations, but endorses the extermination of Jews and prejudice against gays? Then what?

Overall, I recommend The Righteous Mind for anyone searching for a thought-provoking book regarding psychology, politics, philosophy, and religion. Jonathan Haidt did a great job of remaining almost absolutely neutral, though with a book like this I can't blame him for leaning toward one side instead of the other.

*review cross-posted on my blog, the quiet voice. ...more

flag 29 likes · Like · see review

Jul 13, 2012 Sylvie rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

This book has many qualities, but ultimately its negatives outweighed its positives for me. First of all, I must give poor marks to his driving metaphor of the elephant and rider. It seemed counterintuitive as an example and wasn’t helpful to me at all in illustrating or clarifying his main point (which I actually understood just fine) that “intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.”

Secondly, early on in the book Haidt tells an anecdote about his time in the field where he displays This book has many qualities, but ultimately its negatives outweighed its positives for me. First of all, I must give poor marks to his driving metaphor of the elephant and rider. It seemed counterintuitive as an example and wasn’t helpful to me at all in illustrating or clarifying his main point (which I actually understood just fine) that “intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.”

Secondly, early on in the book Haidt tells an anecdote about his time in the field where he displays such an extraordinary amount of white male privilege that he had me suspicious about his conclusions the rest of the time. After spending some time in a male-dominated, strictly hierarchical world, Haidt began to see “the beauty in a moral code that emphasizes duty, respect for one’s elders, service to the group, and negation of the self’s desires.” Hmm, I wonder if he would have felt that way had he been a woman and unable to do his research.

At first, I thought that that initial tone was why something seemed to nag at me throughout. I mean, sure, it was weird to present a theory about the six innate foundations of morality, but say that liberals only used three and conservatives six, but he’s a scientist, right? And one that was loudly trumpeting his liberal viewpoint. Yet, he never seems to fully explore how people might be interpreting the questions in his surveys or consider other ways for interpreting the three foundations that liberals are supposedly “deficient” in (loyalty, authority, sanctity). I understand there may be more to morality than harm and fairness, but he gives these additional factors equal weight and I didn’t really see the rationale why.

So I guess I wasn’t really surprised when he reveals at the end of the book that at some point he became a conservative. Wow, that could have been a great illustration of his point about political divisions and understanding the other side had it not been buried in the concluding section. Instead, it just came off as intellectually dishonest and had me doubting all his research.

Which is a shame because there are definitely parts of the framework that he presents that got me thinking and that I will use going forward. But I had hoped this would be more of a road map for understanding and compromising with those of opposing viewpoints and it wasn’t. You’re left sort of thinking there isn’t any hope to meet in the middle or be able to reason with people you consider to be wrong. ...more

flag 26 likes · Like · see review

Nov 20, 2012 Jan Rice rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: psychology, science-math

First of all, some people get annoyed with Jonathan Haidt. I didn't have that reaction to The Righteous Mind. I guess I got rid of it with The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. It just seemed like he was selling something or trying to convert me to his point of view. He can rub people that way. If you have tried to read Haidt and have had that reaction, I suggest reading Thinking, Fast and Slow first. Daniel Kahneman has the ability to teach similar topics, in the First of all, some people get annoyed with Jonathan Haidt. I didn't have that reaction to The Righteous Mind. I guess I got rid of it with The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. It just seemed like he was selling something or trying to convert me to his point of view. He can rub people that way. If you have tried to read Haidt and have had that reaction, I suggest reading Thinking, Fast and Slow first. Daniel Kahneman has the ability to teach similar topics, in the field of cognitive science, that is, without raising the reader's defenses. Since I had already read Kahneman when I read Haidt for the first time, I could see similarities and keep my defenses low.

It's worth doing so because this is a good book. In fact, in much the same way that there is evolution even though some people don't believe in it, this book points to some likely facts about the way the world is (i.e., the world of people and opinions and social systems) that will be the case even if you or others "disagree."

This new book by Haidt is offering support for the view that human beings' rationality is not the ultimate pinnacle of development. He is not a rationalist. He is an evolutionary psychologist, and, as such, he thinks rationality is a relatively late development. Moreover, rationality isn't the single most reliable way we can decide what's right and wrong, at least not without a lot of hard work. In fact given its head (er--no pun intended) rationality will simply come up with justification for what the individual already wants, or wants to believe. That is an important point in a book on moral psychology.

Most of the time people who think and who claim to be searching for truth are only searching for justification for what they already believe. People will only search for truth under three circumstances: (1) If, before deciding on their opinions they learn they will be accountable to an audience. (2) They don't know the audience's view(s). (3) They believe the audience is well-informed and interested in accuracy. Isn't that amazing!

The upshot of Haidt's not being a rationalist is that he concludes morality originates from human nature--evolved from it, in fact. In his view, then, one cannot reason oneself into morality. Haidt gives some attention to philosophy, showing that Hume's views, for example, are those that current findings support, as opposed to Kant's rationalist views.

Haidt thinks liberals (using that term the way Americans do) limit their views of morality only to issues of compassion and fairness, while the views of cultural conservatives, on the other hand, also include such values as respect for authority, group loyalty, and sanctity versus degradation. It's not that liberals don't have those other values, they just don't articulate them, and don't usually give them official value. He shows by bringing anthropology into the discussion that those other values are real. Therefore he thinks conservatives are better able to understand liberals than vice versa.

A sizable reason for this book is the hope that liberals will stop looking at conservative values--and at conservatives--as deranged and sick. He has had the experience of broadening his world view and hopes others can, too. He'd like us to be able to look at ourselves. I'm afraid, though, that conservatives look at liberals as sick, too, judging from my opportunities to interact with them via social media.

His book is researched-based. He doesn't just give us his views; he supports them with findings.

I particularly liked learning about the speed with which evolution can occur. In breeding fox cubs, it took only nine generations for physical signs of domestication to appear--including changes in fur color! He also gave a picture of how combination genetic/cultural evolution happens with humans. We do something to change our environment, for example, raising dairy herds in cold sections of Europe, followed by the adaptive breeding of lactose tolerance in the community. He doesn't believe human evolution came to a screeching halt 50,000 years ago but that it is still happening.

He explains how we interact within groups, how we evolve as individuals within groups, and gives the theory for between-group evolution. In essence when becoming civilized we domesticate ourselves, and he has some interesting things to say about that.

As I sit here writing this review and also thinking about these school shootings and other gun massacres we have been troubled with, it occurs to me that it is a failure in that process of civilization. The result is "lone wolves." ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

Mar 21, 2012 Brian Clegg rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Don't be put off by the title of this book (or the subtitle 'why good people are divided by politics and religion'). Although they are technically correct they don't give a full sense of the glory of what is certainly the best popular science book I have read this year, and comes easily into my top ten ever.

Jonathan Haidt is a psychologist who specializes in morality. We are inundated with books about human behaviours and traits - and many of them are rather tedious - but this is a totally Don't be put off by the title of this book (or the subtitle 'why good people are divided by politics and religion'). Although they are technically correct they don't give a full sense of the glory of what is certainly the best popular science book I have read this year, and comes easily into my top ten ever.

Jonathan Haidt is a psychologist who specializes in morality. We are inundated with books about human behaviours and traits - and many of them are rather tedious - but this is a totally different beast. Not only is it a real page turner but it is full of 'Oh! Is that why?!' moments when the reader gets an explanation for some strange behaviour of human beings that they have never fully understood.

I ought to say that this isn't like a book about general relativity, say, where even though there are alternative theories, the core has been vastly tried and tested over the years. What is presented here is the work of Haidt and his team and there may well be psychologists who disagree with his model in its entirety. But the great thing is that, if there are, his model explains why they do.

I don't want to over-inflate the importance of this, but I felt a bit like I did as a teenager when reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy. The idea that the Foundation's mathematics could predict the way human society behaved into the future was entrancing. But, in the end, it was fiction. Reading Haidt's ideas I got a similar jolt, but based on sensible relatively simple observations. It's almost too right to be wrong.

The Righteous Mind suggest that we make moral decisions intuitively and then justify them using rational argument. It presents six dimensions (care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation) as the framework in which we make these moral decisions. And shows how the two main political wings differ in that the left almost entirely bases its thinking on the first two dimensions (with a touch of the third), while the right tends to use all six much more evenly. This apparently simple observation results in some truly impressive insights.

Every politician should be forced to read this book before taking office. And everyone who believes that people from the opposite end of the political spectrum is evil, wrong and stupid should also read it. As should every wild-eyed scientific atheist who proclaims that religion is entirely bad and without redeeming features. And every fundamentalist religious supporter who believes liberals and atheists should be burned.

Perhaps the most fascinating part of the book is the way that Haidt, a left wing intellectual atheist, comes to realize that his own position and views are blinkered, just as much as any right wing religious bigot. Truly brilliant.

Review first published on www.popularscience.co.uk and reproduced with permission. ...more

flag 22 likes · Like · see review

Dec 15, 2012 John Brown rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

After this year's presidential election I emailed my sister, a smart, super-competent, true-blue, bleeding-heart, save the weeds and snails, liberal, who volunteered to do campaign work for Hilary Clinton in Colorado during the 2008 Democratic primaries and, of course, voted loudly for Obama.

"Are you kidding me?" I asked. "How can anyone who doesn't have a carrot for a brain want more of the same? I don't get it. Obama? How can so many Americans be that gullible? I'm totally baffled." And that ...more

flag 21 likes · Like · see review

Jun 21, 2014 Mara rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, money-and-mind, psychology, audiobooks, behavioral-economics, 2014-reads, science, 2016-reads

n.b. This is a “pre-review” — see full explanation below.

Recommended required reading:
Before I begin anything that bears even a slight resemblance to a review, I want to say that I am incredibly grateful that a friend (a real, live human one at that) suggested I read (or re-read, as it were) Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow before taking on Haidt's oevre. I wholeheartedly endorse the aforementioned recommendation, so do with that what you will.

Excuses, excuses:
I am absolutely ...more

flag 19 likes · Like · see review

Nov 09, 2018 Tom LA rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Wow. Wonderful, lucid, important and challenging work.

In these days, when it comes to political opinions, "You’re an idiot!” has everything necessary to be considered the ultimate representation of Internet discourse.

If you care to better understand why, within yourself, people who disagree with you on politics or religion tend to be categorized as human beings with a profound intellectual disability (maybe today more than ever), this is the perfect book for you.

At the very least, if you read ...more

flag 17 likes · Like · see review

Dec 08, 2013 Zachary Bonelli rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

(Originally posted at http://www.zacharybonelli.com/book-re...)

Pretend for a moment that you grew up and now live in a completely different country. Let's call it Unrealia. Unrealia has two major political factions, Blarg and Frangle.

Now imagine growing up. The moment you can begin to process news and literature from a social standpoint, you notice something—every time the Blargs do something, it looks pretty awesome. And every time Blarg politicans talk on television, everything they say seems ...more

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

Jul 15, 2017 David rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: psychology, ethics, favorites

How do we make ethical and moral choices?

Many people throughout history, as well as today, say we make choices based on reason. We are faced with a choice, we weigh our options and choose what we think is right. This reason may be impacted by emotion or tradition or religion. Or there's the nature/nurture debate - are we born with proclivities or does our family and society shape us?

Haidt argues that we make choices almost immediately, based on intuition. After that reason comes to our aid, How do we make ethical and moral choices?

Many people throughout history, as well as today, say we make choices based on reason. We are faced with a choice, we weigh our options and choose what we think is right. This reason may be impacted by emotion or tradition or religion. Or there's the nature/nurture debate - are we born with proclivities or does our family and society shape us?

Haidt argues that we make choices almost immediately, based on intuition. After that reason comes to our aid, mostly to help us find arguments to support what we've already chosen. The image he used here is that of a person riding an elephant. The elephant veers one way or another (intuition, our choices) while the rider has little to do but go along with it (reason). In other words, the person (reason) does not control the elephant (intuition). It is the other way around.

Haidt goes on to encourage us to beware of moral monists, people who argue that morality comes through only one path. Instead five factors go into our moral choices: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation. Later research caused him to add a sixth one, separate from fairness, as liberty/oppression. What is interesting is that conservatives utilize all six while liberals only utilize three (care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating). Haidt argues this gives conservatives an advantage because they can relate to people on numerous moral levels. Liberals scoff at things like loyalty and authority to their own detriment.

Finally, in the third part, Haidt argues for the communal aspect. Morality binds us together. When it comes to our religion and politics, we are like football fans who cheer our team on and dismiss any rational arguments against our team simply because they go against our team. I think we see this everywhere today. As we are bound together, we are blind to the other side. We do not talk to those on the other team as much and instead assume the worst about them. Interestingly, Haidt ends by pointing out issues where he thinks liberals are right and some where conservatives are right. Throughout the book he weaves his personal story and this recognition of good arguments on both sides is a testament to how his own research has allowed him to change.

Overall, this was a fantastic book. It was also disturbing because it makes clear how susceptible we are to all these things. I am guilty of this when I dismiss people and just assume I am right. Worse, when we fail to befriend others and listen to them we just talk past each other (at best) and are reduced to seeking power and dominance since rational arguments are fruitless (at worst).

I highly recommend this for anyone interested in religion, ethics, morality and the big debates in our culture. ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Mar 31, 2014 Becky rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: religion-y, politicalish, non-fiction, reviewed, audiobook, highly-recommended, 2015, yay-science

This turned out to be pretty damn good in the end, despite the fact that it took pretty much forever to get to the point (out of a desire to set up foundational principles and concepts), and was super repetitive (reiterating said concepts again and again), and also felt a bit silly at times with the "I'm going to tell you what I'm going to tell you, then I'll tell you, and then I'll tell you what I just told you" format. (Also, if you have to describe more than 2 or 3 diagrams and figures, maybe ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Jul 28, 2016 Cheryl rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Fascinating. Enjoyably readable, if you don't try to keep up with the extensive end-notes. Scientifically and philosophically convincing, if you do....

Haidt is synthetic. He works on original research, traveling to conduct experiments on different people and groups of peoples, and he reads extensively & widely, and he interviews other scientists.

The biggest takeaway *I* have is that many ppl are voting Republican because they are conservative and feel, deep in their genes, that they ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Jun 10, 2014 Matthew Ciarvella rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: 2014

I enjoyed Haidt's approach to the psychology and if you'd asked me my opinion of the book during the early psychology chapters, I'd have said this is a four star book.

But when Haidt starts going into the political philosophy of liberalism vs. conservatism, things start going downhill in a hurry. I'll agree that liberals don't respond to one of the points on his Six Foundations of Morality Theory; the Authority/Subversion scale. Okay, sure. But two of the points (Loyalty/Betrayal and I enjoyed Haidt's approach to the psychology and if you'd asked me my opinion of the book during the early psychology chapters, I'd have said this is a four star book.

But when Haidt starts going into the political philosophy of liberalism vs. conservatism, things start going downhill in a hurry. I'll agree that liberals don't respond to one of the points on his Six Foundations of Morality Theory; the Authority/Subversion scale. Okay, sure. But two of the points (Loyalty/Betrayal and Sanctity/Profanity) are so narrowly constructed that they're essentially meaningless.

His basic argument is that his research shows that liberals only use 3 of the 6 foundations (Care/Harm, Liberty/Oppression, and Fairness/Cheating) while conservatives employ all six, thus giving them an "advantage" in understanding their opponents (as explained in the chapter "The Conservative Advantage.")

Haidt explains that it was his experience in India that caused him to open up to non-Western ideas of morality, which made him appreciate Sanctity/Profanity much more than he did as a liberal atheist.

His flawed assumption, however, is that Sanctity can only be expressed by conservative sexual norms and adherence to organized religious tradition. Despite warning us over and over about the dangerous of assuming one's own morality is universal, he seems unwilling to construct Sanctity as anything other than a conservative norm.

He mentions, incredibly briefly, that liberals have some notion of Sanctity as it relates to nature and the environment, but it's really the conservatives who believe that the body is sacred (through not having premarital and/or homosexual intercourse). His claim is that the liberal concern for the equality of gay people stems from the Care/Harm and Liberty/Oppression foundations and aren't constructed from notions of Sanctity. I disagree. I think that my conceptions of the Sanctity of love and the Sanctity of nature are every bit as meaningful as one's experiences attending church.

Haidt's data may not support my version of Sanctity. If the questions being asked are about church and the value of conservative sexual norms, I'm Profane. But ask me about the Sanctity of lying on my back and looking at the sunlight filtering through the branches of the trees as the sun crests over the lip of a canyon and I'll tell you that I feel Sanctity as strongly as any conservative.

I picked this title up because I saw it on a reading list of "five books that will change your mind." I really wanted it to do that. I think Haidt made a strong counter-argument against the New Atheists' argument that religion is a mental parasite. But when it comes to explaining political philosophies, Haidt doesn't just fall short. He misses the target entirely.

...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Aug 07, 2012 Tucker rated it liked it · review of another edition

This book was ultimately a mixed bag for me. There is one supremely interesting component, which comes in part two, and which consists in the elaboration of what Haidt calls Moral Foundations Theory. MFT is roughly the idea that our evaluative judgments of rightness and wrongness of action are guided by intuitions that encode the world in terms of six dichotomies (care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, respect/disobedience, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression). The idea that This book was ultimately a mixed bag for me. There is one supremely interesting component, which comes in part two, and which consists in the elaboration of what Haidt calls Moral Foundations Theory. MFT is roughly the idea that our evaluative judgments of rightness and wrongness of action are guided by intuitions that encode the world in terms of six dichotomies (care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, respect/disobedience, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression). The idea that there is more to morality than harm and fairness seems to me to be quite right and interesting, as its at least common for some of us not to realize that, e.g., concerns of group loyalty and sanctity matter to us. By far the best parts of the book were those that illustrated broadly what it means to think out of concerns for sanctity. I think the book actually (accidentally) makes the compelling case that we all do this, although we westerners are less likely to think, e.g., that concerns of sanctity do or should belong to our understanding of the moral order.

The fundamental problem I have with the book is that the story the book tells to support Moral Foundations Theory suggests that these dichotomies should be universal, but a large part of the book is devoted to arguing that political liberals organize their moral judgments only in terms of three of them, ignoring the dichotomies of loyalty/betrayal, authority/disobedience, and sanctity/degradation. I wasn't at all convinced by the psychological evidence used to justify this conclusion (much of which seems to presume that there's just one way to encode rightness or wrongness in those axes, whereas you might think, as I do, that differences between conservatives and liberals correspond to what we encode as violating norms of loyalty, authority, and sanctity), and Haidt seems keen to use the conclusion to develop a narrative that lays the blame for the increasing polarization of the electorate squarely on the shoulders of the American left.

There are parts of morality that we liberals, supposedly, just don't get. The problem I found with this analysis is that it just seemed to me to assume a view of what it is to be sensitive to concerns of loyalty, authority, and sanctity that grants that the conservative point of view is right about what is sacred, what it is to whom one should be loyal, what authorities are worth being recognized. This is an easy trap to fall into, because a lot of language associated with words like 'sanctity,' 'loyalty,' and 'authority' have acquired connotations and associations with very particular conceptions of how one *should* respond to considerations relevant to these axes. If you step back, however, and consider the virtues of loyalty, deference, and reverence for the sacred more abstractly, my suspicion is that you would find that liberals and conservatives actually encode the world in these terms to exactly the same degree. The disagreement is, I suspect, purely and simply a disagreement in the *content* of ideals of loyalty, deference, and reverence. Unfortunately, this makes Moral Foundations Theory much less potent for generating prescriptions about how to heal our fractured political discourse. The problem is not as simple as teaching an uneducated listener how to appreciate jazz.

Unfortunately, instead, the apparatus of Moral Foundations Theory gets marshaled in the service of hippie-punching (a favorite past-time of fellow moral psychologist, Steven Pinker, and many, many other ardent ex-liberal centrists). I don't want to suggest that Haidt's criticism of the American left is entirely without merit: we could do more to highlight the ways in which our moral discourse *does* make contact with concerns of loyalty, deference, and reverence, and we could certainly think more seriously about how our Utopian ideals satisfy the constraints implied by those virtues. But I don't think Haidt makes a very convincing case that liberals (but apparently not libertarians or social conservatives) have a moral 'blind spot.' He can only entitle himself to that conclusion by assuming that certain conservative views are correct -- which he often does, for example, in describing the "failures" of liberal social reforms of the 60s and 70s (which supposedly destabilized and disrupted minority communities, schools, &c.) with next-to-no scientific evidence cited to support such evaluative judgments.

I'll also mention that Haidt's discussion of figures from the history of philosophy is pervasively misinformed (e.g. his discussion of Plato, which gets Plato's position wrong in basically every possible way) and sometimes just juvenile (e.g. his discussion of Kant is largely limited to several paragraphs of speculating about whether Kant may have been autistic, and how, if true, this could account for the content of his moral theory; true or not, it's a little insulting). This was a huge distraction for me in the first third of the book (which was also, I thought, by far the weakest). ...more

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
Goodreads Librari...: Please add cover for The Righteous Mind Audio Book	9	26	Oct 27, 2017 03:01AM
Effective Altruists: The Righteous Mind Discussion	8	81	Jul 30, 2017 06:19AM
Pantsuit Politics...: Jun - The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt	10	58	Jul 09, 2017 07:34PM

See a Problem?

Preview — The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Jonathan Haidt

Books by Jonathan Haidt

Trivia About The Righteous Min...

Quotes from A Mente Moralista...

See a Problem?

Preview — The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Jonathan Haidt

Books by Jonathan Haidt

Trivia About The Righteous Min...

Quotes from A Mente Moralista...

new topic
Discuss This Book