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

This is an unusually difficult review for me to write, because I have somewhat mixed feelings about this book. I wanted to love it; and I actually did end up loving it a whole lot, but not quite as much as I was hoping to for some reason. I'm a political scientist with a background in sociology and a strong interest in psychology; so, as you might imagine, I've always had a fascination with social psychology in general and political psychology in particular. I haven't yet had the opportunity to teach a course on political psychology; but I've wanted to for some time now. I devour everything I can get my hands on that deals with the underlying psychology of political affiliation, political decision making, and political violence. In the course of my study of the subject I have encountered the work of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt on several occasions (if you search online you can find videos of him giving talks on his subject of expertise; and he also has a website -- YourMorals.org -- that deals with his work); and I've been intrigued and impressed with his unique approach to understanding political affiliation, as well as with his calls for greater civility and a willingness to compromise in the political arena. So, when I saw that he had written a book on political psychology, I simply had to read it. I began reading with very high hopes. Not only was I expecting this book to unlock the mysteries of why some people are "conservative" and others are "liberal"; but I was also hoping that this would be the ideal text to assign my students if I ever taught a course on political psychology. Haidt's book lived up to my hopes and expectations in some ways, but not in others. I would definitely recommend it to political psychology students; but I'm not sure that I would want to use it as the primary text for teaching the subject. I really did love this book; but as I was reading it I kept getting the nagging feeling that something about it was just a bit off -- something that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Now I don't want to leave the wrong impression; so I want to say up front that this is a wonderful, well-written, thought-provoking book that everyone ought to read. I've given it five stars because I genuinely believe it's worthy of the highest possible rating. Haidt's theory of political affiliation is original -- one might even say radical -- flying in the face of much of the conventional wisdom within the social and behavioral sciences; but if you are willing to consider Haidt's argument with an open mind, it actually makes a whole lot of sense. So, when I say that something about this book felt a bit off to me, please don't interpret this as a criticism of Haidt's theory, his approach to the subject, or his writing style. This is a book that you really ought to read, and that you will probably enjoy. That said, I still felt slightly dissatisfied after reading it; but it was hard to say exactly why. After some reflection, I think that my dissatisfaction was due to three things. First, I felt that Haidt's argument was a bit anticlimactic. Haidt spends most of the book laying the foundations for his theory of political affiliation; and the theory he finally presents is, at least in my view, quite compelling. But, after all that setup, I was expecting more of a discussion of how this theory can be applied to help us understand why different people hold such radically differing views on such a wide range of political issues. But Haidt skimped on the application of his theory. The main insight that Haidt gives us into why some people are liberal while others are conservative or libertarian is that a combination of nature and nurture has predisposed some people to build their morality primarily on just three core principles -- care, liberty, and fairness -- while predisposing other people to build their morality on six principles -- care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity -- and still others to build their morality on a single principle -- liberty. As I'm sure you've guessed, those in the first group become liberals, those in the second group become conservatives, and those in the third group become libertarians. This is certainly an important insight; but I was hoping for more. For example, I wish Haidt had given us a bit more insight into how the three liberal values shape liberal policy positions, how the six conservative values shape conservative policy positions, and how the lone libertarian value shapes libertarian policy positions. He did briefly discuss some of the differences between liberal, conservative, and libertarian views of the economy; but he didn't really have all that much to say about the myriad other policy issues that liberals, conservatives, and libertarians routinely fight over -- e.g. abortion, equal pay, gay marriage, affirmative action, collective bargaining, voter access, immigration reform, taxes, entitlements, gun control, civil liberties, criminal justice, drug laws, military spending, the conduct of foreign policy, the appropriate use of military force, etc. Haidt's theory does provide a framework that can help us to understand why liberals, conservatives, and libertarians might take different positions on these issues; but he doesn't spell it out for us issue by issue. I really wish he had. I think it would have been very useful, and would have made his excellent book even better. Second, while I admired his efforts to treat liberals, conservatives, and libertarians with equal respect, and not to treat conservatism as if it were some sort of mental disorder (as many political psychologists are wont to do), I ultimately felt that he went a little too far in his efforts to be "fair and balanced", and ended up glossing over some of the biggest moral failings on the right (e.g. sexism, racism, homophobia, religious bigotry, jingoism, xenophobia, demagoguery, anti-intellectualism, and science denialism) in the interest of portraying conservative values as being just as legitimate as liberal values. Besides, the conservatism that Haidt found worthy of praise was old-fashioned Tory conservatism -- a cautious, genteel, intellectual form of conservatism based on the ideals of serious thinkers like Edmund Burke, who mainly just wanted to preserve society against the sort of chaos that often accompanies radical change -- which bears little resemblance to the "red meat" conservatism that prevails on the American right today. So, when Haidt advises us to pay attention to what conservatives have to teach us about what it takes to maintain a healthy, functioning society, he's really talking about old-school conservative intellectuals of the center-right, like George Will and Colin Powell, not the dogmatic culture warriors of the far-right, like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. In fact, Haidt has relatively little to say about the conservatism represented by the evangelical Religious Right or the Tea Party movement, where ideological zeal often manifests itself as an ugly form of demagoguery. It's almost as if he wants to sweep this under the rug so he can sell the idea that mutually respectful civil discourse and bipartisanship are actually possible in this day and age. I think this book would have been better if Haidt had stuck to trying to explain partisanship rather than trying to find a cure for it. And third, although I found Haidt's argument quite compelling, there are certain aspects of it that might alienate some readers, causing them to simply reject Haidt's conclusions out of hand without much critical thought. The last thing I would ever want to do in a classroom is to alienate any of my students so they stop listening to what I have to teach. So I'm more than a little reluctant to assign a highly controversial text that many students will likely have a knee-jerk reaction against. Why might this book be controversial? For one thing, Haidt's theory draws heavily on evolutionary psychology, which is rejected by many on both the right and the left. Many progressives decry evolutionary psychology as "politically incorrect" because it argues that much of human behavior -- including such things as gender differences, xenophobia, and aggression -- may be innate parts of human nature that can never be changed by social engineering. Many conservatives, on the other hand, reject evolutionary psychology because they don't believe in Darwinian evolution at all. So Haidt's use of evolutionary psychology may be enough to cause some readers to reject his argument outright. In addition to this, he bases much of his argument on the evolutionary principle of "group selection" -- a theory that has been pretty firmly rejected by biologists for several decades now, but which Haidt argues ought to be reconsidered. But perhaps the most controversial part of Haidt's argument is his treatment of religion. Haidt himself is an atheist; so he makes no pretense of actually believing that any religion is "true". He looks at religion purely from a psychological and sociological perspective in an attempt to figure out what function religion has played in human society throughout history. Yet he forcefully rejects the anti-religious fervor of the so-called "New Atheism" popularized over the past decade by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens, among others, with its assertion that religion is a dangerous "meme" -- a "virus of the mind" -- that is inherently harmful to human wellbeing. Haidt devotes an entire chapter to refuting the New Atheists' claims about religion, arguing that religion has actually been a force for good in the world which serves to strengthen social bonds and discourage individual selfishness, and that religion is actually a product of natural selection. So, his treatment of religion is unlikely to win Haidt any friends from among either the devoutly religious or the fervently irreligious. And, on top of all this, Haidt defends conservative values that many liberals find abhorrent, arguing that they are just as vital to the wellbeing of society as are liberal values. So, suffice it to say that this iconoclastic book is liable to alienate many different people for many different reasons. Haidt butchers a lot of sacred cows in these pages. So, I suspect that plenty of folks will simply reject everything that he has to say out of hand. While I am an advocate of open-minded critical inquiry, I'm also a pragmatist. I know that many of my students are not going to be as open-minded as I would like them to be; so, as an educator, I have to be sensitive to this if I want to help them learn. A little controversy in the classroom can be healthy; but too much can derail the entire lesson plan. I wouldn't want the class to get sidetracked by debates over tangential issues that are not directly relevant to the subject I'm trying to teach. So, if I were to teach a course on political psychology, I would be a bit hesitant to use this book as the main text for fear that students would get too distracted by some of its more controversial elements. However, I would consider using this book as a supplemental text, and would definitely put it on the recommended readings list. Anyway, these three problems are relatively minor, and do not detract from the overall quality of the book. They simply leave me ever-so-slightly dissatisfied, perhaps because my expectations were unreasonably high. I would certainly recommend Haidt's book. I really do feel that it deserves to be read and talked about. There's no doubt in my mind that it deserves a five-star rating. But I'm afraid that the five stars I give it will have to come with an asterisk.

Question authority -- your own righteous mind and the self-righteous certainty of your religious or political sect. Haidt's appeal to reasoned self-knowledge contradicts his main message -- that your opinions are largely driven by unconscious intuitions and those who believe reason guides human action are victims of the "rationalistic delusion." Haidt is a certified "top world thinker" [wikipedia] so all who think about morality, religion, politics have to read this excellent, challenging, enormously informative book, a powerful contribution to the old "nature-nurture" debate. As it has been widely reviewed and praised, I will focus on some criticisms. His study of a vast range of material from philosophy to neuroscience, and his original research, forms the basis of his "moral science." Is it good science? Less than 40% of psychological research is replicated (scientificamerican). He boldly makes an argument (chapter 9) in favor of a theory of natural selection at the group level. Group selection isn’t widely accepted by evolutionists, but it's useful for Haidt's theory of innate moral foundations, the "groupiness" of humans coded in their genes and in "gene-culture co-evolution.". For good discussion search Haidt + Steven Pinker / Massimo Pigliucci / Sam Harris / Daniel Dennett /Jerry Coyne / John Jost. He quotes colleagues who note that "nearly all our research in psychology is conducted on a very small subset of the human population: people from cultures that are Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (forming the acronym WEIRD)." (96) This unrepresentative set probably skews the results. I think another bias, not mentioned, may result from much of the work being done with college students -- in addition to being WEIRD, they are young and inexperienced in the adult world of work, religion, politics. He cites (99) previous research which identifies three major clusters of moral values: 1) autonomy cluster: individual liberty, rights, justice, equality. 2) Community cluster: submergence in family, army, tribe, religious sect, nation; values duty, hierarchy, respect, reputation, patriotism, self-sacrifice. 3) divinity cluster: sanctity/sin, purity/pollution; soul/spirit/mind is spark of divinity, the body is a holy temple not a playground; individualism is denounced as libertinism, hedonism, disobedience, sacrilege; taboos prohibit acts that degrade a person (miscegenation, homosexuality) or dishonor the Creator or violate the sacred order. "The ethic of divinity is sometimes incompatible with compassion, egalitarianism, and basic human rights." (106) Cluster 2 and 3 were the basis of social control for millennia; it was a fierce struggle in recent centuries that elevated cluster 1, autonomy. Haidt seems to deprecate this achievement. Developing this theory further, Haidt identifies five clusters, or "moral foundations." His theory posits innate disposition or intuition, partly genetic, partly cultural, to exhibit values and behaviors on one or more of these five clusters. They are: Care/harm, Fairness/cheating, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, Sanctity/degradation. He finds that liberals rely on the first two predominately; conservatives rely on all five, which may "give conservative politicians a broader variety of ways to connect with voters." (154). Perhaps a game point to conservatives, but does that valorize the code of ancient regimes? An example of politicians exploiting moral intuitions of conservatives is the North Carolina legislature drafting and passing in one day a law which responds to disgust/fear about transsexuals using the wrong bathroom -- a few months before a tight election. Trump expressed disgust at Clinton's use of a restroom--many were embarrassed, but maybe Trump knew what he was doing. Ongoing research and criticism convinced Haidt that his five foundations failed to fully explain moral and political values. More analysis is needed on the cluster of values around Liberty/oppression. This oversight is strange, as Liberty is the central moral value of modern liberalism, at the root of the Enlightenment, the American Revolution and our Constitution and Laws. Other values he believes need study are Proportionality (a division of Fairness), Honesty, Property (the main concern of moralists like Abbe Augustin Barruel and Edmund Burke!). I have seen conservatives misuse this book to say it proves conservatives are more intelligent or moral than liberals. Haidt is not saying which moral cluster is best: the theory is a descriptive analysis of how people think. But he allows such misinterpretation by lecturing liberals on their need to honor conservative intuitions. In the U.S., he says, these five or six clusters of moral intuition are at the root of the left-right political conflict. Can we explain current political conflict as growing out of genetically embedded feelings? Can we describe as "morality" attitudes based on Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity without evaluating specific attitudes or acts? He says Democrats are naive because they respond to a narrower set of "moral tastes" than conservatives. (157) That's a value judgment. If we are being urged to choose our moral foundation, we need to discuss specifics: appeal to loyalty gave us McCarthyism; appeal to authority gave us a war based on lies; appeal to sanctity gave us slavery and homophobia. The "five moral foundations" are not equal in merit for guiding moral choice. Haidt acknowledges this criticism but does not, in my opinion, make a satisfactory revision of his analysis. The "research" consists in the questions and stories framed, and the body of respondents selected. I think questions and stories could be framed that reveal liberal embrace and conservative rejection of Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity. Do you loyally honor the President even if he is a black Democrat? Should persons and corporations comply with the authority of the IRS and the EPA to make rules, and respect the authority of scientists on issues like evolution and human-caused global warming and species extinction? Does sanctity (purity, avoidance of disease) motivate citizens to support FDA in protecting the purity and healthfulness of consumer products? Do you approve the disloyalty of the American Revolution? Of the Confederate rebellion? Do you support the authority of the Supreme Court (and the value of autonomy) to say gays have the right to marry? It is not a great revelation that liberals care more about Care/harm and Fairness/cheating and Liberty/oppression than about Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity. Has Haidt proven that conservatives do not value autonomy higher, or is it merely that they are more easily triggered by the older codes? If one catalogs all the "triggers", gut reactions, fear, hate, superstition associated with each "foundation", it's not hard to see where the higher morality is -- which conservatives and liberals perhaps equally embrace. Surely most Americans highly value the overthrow of millennia of tyranny under monarchy, aristocracy, theocracy and the enshrinement (new content for Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity??) of liberty, justice, equality. Haidt puts cleanliness, avoidance of disease, and such under Sanctity (purity), and implies liberals don't value this cluster much. That's clearly wrong, and he acknowledges that "the Sanctity item showed no partisan tilt; both sides prefer clean[liness]" (162). Learned responses are wrongly defined, it seems to me, as "intuitive" or gut instinct. EGGs show the brains of liberals and conservatives react differently to significant words without deliberation. Yes: the brain has already learned the meaning of words, and the meanings vary with one's learning. His famous metaphor -- the mind is divided into parts, like a small rider (conscious reasoning) on a very large elephant (automatic and intuitive processes) -- is upside down. He says the metaphorical elephant is in charge, but a real rider or trainer of an elephant is clearly in charge of a very powerful animal. The power of intelligence to control atavistic impulses is the foundation of civilization. His other metaphor -- humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee -- is equally misleading. Bees don't think, so where is human intelligence in this metaphor? "Democrats often pursue policies that promote pluribus at the expense of unum, policies that leave them open to charges of treason, subversion, and sacrilege." (185) He doesn't say the charges are fair, but he says Ann Coulter's book "Treason: Liberal Treachery" "says it all" (141) What it says to me is that hateful slanders of liberals are popular among conservatives. What does Haidt think it says? Such charges are bogus (McCarthyism) and a "morality" that motivates them is atavistic. The thesis of the book is that Republicans successfully appeal to these (atavistic--my word) impulses. If liberal politicians decline to push these effective (atavistic) triggers, is that evidence of truncated moral foundations? In chapter 11 Haidt criticizes three scientists, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for books denouncing religion as delusion. (He omits Victor Stenger, physicist, philosopher, atheist, who has written a dozen books on science ["flies us to the moon"] and religion ["flies us into buildings"].) Haidt faults them for focusing on belief in supernatural agents. Haidt says that is not the principle function of religion, which is to create community. But state churches created warring communities until our new constitutions disestablished religion. Haidt is advocating a "Durkheimian model" is which humans are fully human only as part of a social group. He acknowledges the danger -- the value creates fascist societies too (271) but still he defends group loyalty and authority as a necessary foundation for morality. Don't liberals support building social cohesion? Doesn't the American "creed" enshrined in our Constitution and Laws give us a superior unity without blind loyalty or obedience to (what other?) authority? Haidt quotes two archetypal narratives on pages 284-285 that give us a clear choice. The "liberal progressive narrative" seeks liberty and justice and has "succeeded in establishing modern, liberal, democratic, capitalist, welfare societies." The "Reagan narrative" calls on good Americans to "take back" the nation that has been "undermined" by anti-market, anti-American, anti-family, criminal-coddling, flag-burning liberals. [How many liberals have ever burned a flag?!] The merit of the conservative narrative, relying on all five (or six) "moral foundations", where conservatives smear liberals as flag-burners, escapes me. It's a dishonest caricature. A caricature from Haidt: liberals see only individuals, while conservatives see that essential moral community arises from "the complete community." (292) [But it was conservatives who ridiculed Hillary Clinton for borrowing the African wisdom "it takes a village to raise a child."] Another Haidt caricature, unscientifically taken from conservative rhetoric: liberals think fairness means equal outcomes. No liberal theorist or Democratic leader takes that position. Haidt defines morality near the end of the book (270) : "Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make co-operative societies possible." He is clear that he is describing, not prescribing, morality. He includes "technologies" but omits "rational guidance for good behavior" or the idea that morality "make good societies possible." But calling bad ideas and behaviors a system of morality is confusing. Morality usually implies the search for ideal or prescriptive values, even if the search is unending and full of disagreement. Here is a better definition, IMO, from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy -- "morality, an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, having the lessening of evil or harm as its goal, and including what are commonly known as the moral rules, moral ideals, and moral virtues." I think liberals and conservatives would subscribe to this. It addresses the social aspect of morality, in contrast to Haidt's claim that liberals "focus intently on individuals" while conservatives "recognize that human flourishing requires social order" (272) -- a false dichotomy. Hillary Clinton's theme was that flourishing societies are necessary for the development of flourishing individuals. Despite his disparagement of "the rationalist delusion" (28, 88) his work is rational/scientific and he expects his book to influence rational persons toward civility and cooperation. This is an affirmation of the power of learning to shape morality. It made me more sympathetic toward people who differ from me. This is an important book and Haidt earns great deference -- respect for authority -- for his mastery of a vast literature in philosophy and science, and for his ongoing industry. He is associated with several websites that continue this research.

Everyone is so angry at each other. Social media is a mess. Everyone just screams and treats their opponents as evil. But when everyone is Hitler how can we live together? The Righteous Mind is a fascinating book which seeks to help us understand one another. I have actually come across Jonathan Haidt before in some of his online lectures. He is very balanced, insightful and I enjoyed this work. In this book, Jonathan does a great job describing the social function of morality (not the content of morality). He describes the function of religion as well. It feels a bit weird to be under the microscope as one of the religious people he is describing. Jonathan is actually very positive about the societal benefits of religion while aware of its liabilities. And that is the major insight and contribution of this book: seeing how morality functions within various communities, religions and political groups. The book is divided into three parts which make up Haidt’s view of morality: Part I: Intuitions come first, Strategic Reasoning Second The key debate regarding morality is the relationship between intuition (emotion, passion) and strategic reasoning (cognitive processes). There is the Plato model which says that reason leads and intuition follows. There is the Jefferson model which says that reason and emotion are co-pilots each operating equally. And then there is the Hume model which says intuition leads and strategic reasoning follows as a servant. Haidt argues for the third model. The key metaphor he gives is an elephant with a rider on its back. Intuition is the main driver with reason acting as a rider who is essentially justifying the movement of the elephant. His argument isn’t that the elephant is always right or that it cannot be controlled. Rather his argument is that if you are going to change people’s minds then you have to go beyond just the cognitive and appeal to their intuition as well. Haidt argues for better-trained riders and elephants. Part II: There’s More to Morality than Harm and Fairness Part of the problem we face is that morality is often reduced down to harm or fairness. But morality is more complex than that. If one takes in western and non-western cultures we find there are actually six foundations of morality: care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation. The key metaphor here is a tongue with six taste receptors. There are some things which taste sweet to those who call themselves liberals and conservatives. There are things which taste sweet to religious people and the non-religious. Those on the liberal/left side of things tend to have very strong inclinations toward the care/harm and fairness/cheating foundations. Conservative/right leaning folks tend to have a mixture of all six. Now Haidt is politically liberal. He has spoken at democratic conventions and written for left-leaning publications. He is not saying that one group is better than another. He is simply trying to help each side understand the other. Why do those on the left prize marginalized groups? Why do they say the rich need to pay their “fair” share? Because they are high on the care, oppression, and fairness foundations without much concern for loyalty, authority or sanctity. Why do conservatives care about people kneeling for the American flag and the Christian heritage of the nation? It isn’t because they don’t have care, oppression or fairness foundations but that these three are basically on par with the other three: loyalty, authority, and sanctity. This isn’t an argument about who is right, but insight into understanding how people come to their moral conclusions. Part III: Morality Binds and Blinds While we are certainly individuals Haidt argues that we are also naturally “groupish” and prone to tribalism. He doesn’t see this as a bad thing, but a necessary trait in order for people to form cohesive communities that maximize human potential and encourage human flourishing. According to Haidt, a shared morality helps to bind together communities which foster trust and trade while discouraging largely damaging behaviors. The key metaphor here is that people are 90% chimps and 10% bees. We function very much individually, but we have a “hive switch” which activates in us from time to time. For instance when we go out in nature and are overcome by how vast it is. He cites military service, college football games and going to church as other examples. Basically, it is whenever we are caused to forget that we are individuals and consider ourselves as a part of a whole. But this doesn’t work on a universal scale. We just don’t operate in that way. Nor should we. When the hive becomes the sole identifying factor it goes wrong for that is fascism. But when you have a series of connected smaller hives it produces greater happiness and social cohesion. Conclusions Haidt’s purpose in this book to help us understand each other and how we arrive at our moral judgments. To that end, I think he does a fine job. Interestingly, apart from the evolutionary origin stories I found very little in this book which would contradict the Christian worldview. We are individuals who need community and certainly have a shared morality. As Biblical Christians, we wouldn’t say it is our Christian morality which binds us together. Rather we would say it is Christ who unites us together. Further, our morality doesn’t just ascend out of the group think of evangelicalism. Our morality comes from divine revelation in the scriptures. So would I recommend this book? It is well written and very insightful, but I can’t say I would recommend it to everyone. If you want to dive into moral psychology then yes I would recommend it. If you are able to read and benefit from someone who doesn’t share a Christian worldview, then I would recommend it. More likely I would recommend starting with Haidt ’s book which he co-authored with Greg Lukionoff entitled The Coddling of the American Mind.

Why is there such a divide in American politics today, such that people on the left and the right can barely talk to each other without becoming angry? I think a large part of the answer can be found in Jonathan Haidt’s book, “The Righteous Mind.” I recently finished the book, and found it enormously enlightening. It is his life‘s work as a social psychologist, and a professor of ethics at New York University’s Stern school of business. To grasp how his theory works, you have to understand the bases of moral intuition. That is, when making moral judgments that inform both individual choices and political ideals, people are subject to moral intuition impulses. I.e., “that’s just WRONG,” for the most part. Then, if asked to justify their political opinions, the neocortex kicks in with various justifications. But, the real reason for leaning one way or another on a question usually has little to do with starting from a set of facts and reasoning to a conclusion, and everything to do with minor variations in their evolved brains, and how they were acculturated. In other words, we normally respond to a situation emotionally, and figure out how to justify our positions later. In nearly 30 years of research on moral decision-making, Haidt uncovered six foundations for moral intuition. How much each of these foundations causes you to respond emotionally will dictate which side of the political spectrum you are on. The six foundations (conveniently listed in Wikipedia) are: - Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm. - Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating. - Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal. - Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion. - Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation. - Liberty: freedom from coercion by dominating power; opposite of oppression. According to his research, the American left uses basically two intuitive foundations in evaluating a situation: care (which might be called “kindness”), and fairness (which is defined on the left as something close to equality of outcome). Hence, the left is a champion of social programs to help the unfortunate, and reacts to situations in which people have vastly different outcomes, such as a vastly different amounts of wealth, as “that’s just wrong!” The American right tends to use all six moral foundations, not emphasizing any one much over the others. It is important to note that large segments of the American right might stand against abortion because, “that’s just wrong!” At the same time, they are hardly devoid of kindness, actually giving more to charity as a proportion of income than American leftists. They do tend to have more respect for the law and duly constituted authority than leftists. American libertarians tend to use liberty as by far the most important of their moral intuition foundations. They are lower on considerations of kindness and fairness, and define fairness as proportionality (are your rewards approximately proportional to your inputs) as conservatives do. However, they also are low on sanctity, loyalty, and authority, which makes them look like American leftists. I think for most people it is hard to accept the idea that one’s political positions are not the result of a well thought-out set of principles that are used as the basis for rational evaluation. Instead, when faced with a moral question, we have a flash of emotion that makes the decision for us, and our neocortex has to come up with some rationale. However, I am quite comfortable with this idea myself. It has been around for decades in experimental psychology, where researchers have shown that people make vast numbers of decisions long before the neocortex gets involved. The debate over illegal immigration is a great example of how emotions drive political decisions. The recent Time Magazine cover showing a crying illegal immigrant child standing in front of a smiling Donald Trump is a great example of appealing to the kindness and fairness triggers of the American left (“That’s just wrong!”). On the American right, there would be a complex of impulses regarding illegal immigration – illegal immigrants lack respect for our laws, they pollute our country with foreign languages and ideas, and their presence is unfair to working Americans who have invested in the United States for their entire lives. It is easy to see why so much emotion surrounding many political issues can lead to a complete lack of agreement, and even an inability to carry on a rational discussion. As a libertarian (and moderate one), I find that talking to either my friends on the left or the right tends to result in us talking past each other. American leftists are inclined to find someone who does not acknowledge unkindness or unfairness as an evil person. They will keep bringing up the fact that some policy is unkind or unfair, and someone who does not share their moral impulses just doesn’t acknowledge their emotions. Someone on the American right will bring up the moral evils of a policy from their religious perspective, or the lack of loyalty to the United States, or the fact that someone is getting something for nothing from the rest of us. Someone on the left simply can’t understand how much emotion is behind those points of view. In any case, I hope you will take the opportunity to get a copy of the book and read it. You could ignore the chapters about the evolutionary bases of these moral impulses – he has good intuitions about that, but very little empirical evidence. However, the rest of the book is brilliantly researched, reasoned, and written. You can also find a lot of short videos of speeches and discussions by Jonathan Haidt on YouTube.

What's in your head, zombie? Hey, hey, hey. What's in your head, In your head, Zombie, zombie, zombie? -- The Cranberries "Righteous Mind" is my second book by Haidt. Both books I place in a short stack of books that when I was finished with them, my life actually seemed different. After Happiness Hypothesis, it was changed for the better. After "Righteous Mind," it seemed to have taken me down a peg or two. But, that's OK, it was still a great read. "Righteous Mind" is sort of a "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)" meets politics. For those not familiar with "Mistakes Were Made," it is a book that shows how insanely easy it is to manipulate people, along with the fact that most people always think they are right. If anything goes wrong, most people start pointing fingers, because if everyone thinks they are perfect, how could they be the ones that made the mistake? Just how easy is it to manipulate people? Just releasing a good smell or a bad smell before interacting with people can heavily influence the way the interaction will go. If it is a good smell, the interaction will be more positive. If it is a bad smell, the interaction will lean negative. Or, you could have the best business plan in the world, and blow an important meeting to discuss it, because you shook hands wrong ("The Charisma Myth," by Olivia Fox Cabane). "Righteous Mind" builds a great case that there are certain foundations that appeal to the majority of people. We will say that there are five to six of these areas. Haidt claims that Democrats only focus on two to three of these areas, while Republicans focus on five to six of these foundations. In that respect, Republicans have a broader appeal than Democrats, because they cater to more "tastes." Haidt also shows how, not only do Democrats have this narrow focus, but that they are so opposed to the expanded foundations, there is no chance of compromise. So there really is no chance of unity between the two parties or America; nor is there any real chance for Democrats to expand their core base of supporters. I've often tossed around the notion that some books are so important that they should be used as textbooks in high schools. Outside of a few gross examples used for their moral shock value, this book really should be read by students in every school in America. For one, it is a great counter-argument for books such as Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene." It also shows, with research to back it up, how something can be beneficial to groups of people, even though *you* don't really understand it or that it may go against "science." In fact, I think Haidt understands a lot more about religion than a lot of religious people. If you read between the lines, I thought he came close to making one of the best arguments for intelligent design that I think I have ever read, and it was written by a self-described liberal atheist. With all that said, I think Haidt totally missed one thing. While he shows that people that know moral ethics are no more moral than anyone else, what would have really made the book more interesting to me is if he took a page from Martha Stout's, "The Sociopath Next Door." What if sociopaths are using the foundations Haidt speaks of, simply to manipulate people? I'm going to quote Deepak Chopra: -=-= One of the peculiarities of modern life is that people violently disagree over religious beliefs, and then go on to lead similar lives. Niche's famous remark that God is dead, should be changed to God is optional. If the government kept round the clock surveillance on those who felt they were abiding by divine law, and those who never gave a thought to living by God's rule book, I imagine that sum total of virtue and vice, love and hate, peace and violence, would look exactly the same. If anything, the balance of intolerance and lovelessness would probably tilt to the most loudly religious people in any society. -=-= I'm going to alter the quote slightly, for the way I would imagine it if it were written for "Righteous Mind": -=-= One of the peculiarities of modern life is that people violently disagree over political beliefs. Niche's famous remark that God is dead, should be changed to God is useful to manipulate people. If the people kept round the clock surveillance on Republicans, who felt they were abiding ethically, and Democrats who never gave a thought to living by ethics, I imagine that sum total of virtue and vice, love and hate, peace and violence, would look exactly the same. -=-= I think Haidt totally misses another reason there can be no compromise between Republicans and Democrats. Yes, Republicans do appeal to a broader range of "tastes" than Democrats, but that they do so simply to get votes. Yes, the same does go for Democrats, as well, but their narrowed scope lowers the hypocrisy meter a tad. While the two parties have consistently moved the country in the same direction, one of them continually harps on the fact that they are more moral. Consistently, the words coming out of the Republican party's mouths said they would do something different, yet they failed to do so, time after time. On some level, Haidt was cynical, but on another level, he takes politics at their face value. Perhaps he was afraid of what he would find if he dug too deep? Anyway, as Deepak says, "One of the peculiarities of modern life is that people violently disagree over religious beliefs, and then go on to lead similar lives." It's really kind of sad that no matter how similar we are, we divide over things that lie mostly between our ears. They don't come into play in the real world that often, and rarely really even affect us as we go about our day to day business. The sum total of virtue and vice, love and hate, peace and violence, are all pretty much the same, yet we all seek out our hive of clones, because that is what makes us comfortable. On some level, I think Haidt is right on the money. But on some level, it makes me sad that simple thoughts bouncing around in our heads can so easily divide us, sometimes even violently. After all, considering how easy it is for a sociopath to manipulate people, wouldn't it be bad if someone were dividing us on purpose by putting thoughts into our heads to do just that? What's in your head, zombie?

Haidt is a psychologist studying the nature and evolution of morals, especially as they apply to politics. He is a political Progressive, but eminently careful to be as objective as possible in his research and his conclusions. His generalizations are supported by numerous experimental test projects and statistical analysis, which are fascinating in themselves. The book makes two main points. First, our initial reaction to situations or expressions of ideas is formed by deeply held moral foundations. Haidt expresses this as "Intuitions come first, Strategic reasoning second". Many people, much of the time, of course never reach the second step. He uses a metaphor of the mind consisting of an elephant and a rider, with the elephant being the unconscious moral foundations, and the rider being the intellect or reason. The rider can nudge the elephant slightly one way or the other, but the initial course is chosen by the elephant. In fact, the rider often acts as a "press secretary" for the elephant, spinning a rationale for actions driven by our moral foundation without our conscious thought. These moral foundations have developed over millennia of evolution, some of it strictly individual, like caring for young, and some related to group life, like sensing helpfulness. (Of course the DNA is carried by individuals, but its development may be driven by individual characteristics that facilitate the success of groups, usually small ones.) As these moral foundations develop, they create what he calls Moral Capital - this is an interlocking set of values, virtues, norms, and institutions that comport with evolved psychological mechanisms and enable a community to regulate selfishness and promote cooperation. For example, it would include the trust that enables a free market. Development of moral capital "solves one of the hardest problems humans face: fostering cooperation without kinship." Elements of this problem are bullying, or exploitive leadership, and free riders, those who consume the wealth of the group without contributing to it. So, what are these moral foundations? The answer to this constitutes Haidt's second main point, which he calls Moral Foundations Theory, and which consists of a set of six dimensions or variables expressing different kinds of human interaction, and which can be measured in individuals. They are: 1. Care/Harm - This foundation originates in the human need for extended care for vulnerable children. It makes us sensitive to suffering in others. 2. Fairness/Cheating - This sensitivity fosters cooperation and reciprocal altruism in small groups without individuals being exploited or allowing tolerance for free riders. It makes us sensitive to indications of good or bad partners for collaboration. It contains the principle of proportionality, as in "the punishment should fit the crime", and reward should reflect input to production. In this regard, Haidt observes that while conservatives may never use Karma in a sentence, they believe in it, while progressives, at least the New Age sub-species, often use it, but don't really believe in it. 3. Loyalty/Betrayal - The early success of larger tribes over small groups led to a sensitivity to the quality of team players and an aversion to "others", especially traitors. We see it in loyalty to family, sports teams and nations. Unquestioned loyalty leads to Manichaeism (third century Persian prophet) that considers everyone either all good or all evil. 4. Authority/Subversion - a sensitivity to signs of status, and behavior that is appropriate to one's status. This is an early trait based on dominance hierarchy, like in chimps and very early man. It is still present, but balanced by. . . 5. Liberty/Oppression - a response to the challenge of living in small groups with individuals who would, if given the chance, dominate and bully the others. It is triggered by signs of attempted domination. 6. Sanctity/Subversion (or pollution) - believed to be based on very early practices around safe eating. This foundation invests classes of objects with intrinsic value or revulsion. In our culture, eating a dog or a dead human seems wrong. This is a refutation of the utilitarian view of values. Haidt demonstrates, with several laboratory experiments, that these six foundations seem present in a rudimentary form in human brains at birth, and are then refined by life experiences and cultural training. Thus their actual expression as stated morals can vary among cultures. Progressives emphasize the Care/harm, Liberty/Oppression, and Fairness/Cheating foundations, but they define them differently from conservatives, who regard all six more or less equally. This asymmetry and the different meanings lead to difficulty in communication between these groups. The conservative vs. liberal (progressive) approach to the environment and global warming provide rich examples of several of these moral foundations. (It's the end of the world - It's a fraud) Haidt offers no profound remedies for this problem, only the diagnosis. One of his few concrete suggestions is for congressional representatives to resume the earlier practice of moving their families to Washington during their tenure in office. This no doubt fostered greater collegiality due to easier and more frequent social interaction, but can also be seen as leading to conservatives seeking social approval of the usually dominant Democratic Party and its once monolithic media sycophants. As another example of Haidt's progressive bias, he states that it is "profoundly important for the health of a society that governments can and should restrain corporate super organisms". He leaves open the meaning of "restrain", and on what basis to do so. Without detracting from the value of Haidt's analysis of human reactions to situational stimuli, it bears pointing out that man at his best is rational, not simply reactive. A successful life of an individual or a nation must be based on careful long-term thought and not impulsive reaction to immediate stimulus, which is what is measured in university psychology laboratories. His analysis will be of immense value to advertising executives and political consultants, but to someone planning a career or conducting statecraft only as a reminder of what pitfalls to avoid. These objections are but quibbles tangential to the main thrust of the book. Every serious student of political (and social) behavior can profit from reading it. Post-Script: Only because Haidt gave it the prominence of the opening paragraphs, I must encourage readers to overlook his choice of an innocuous platitude quoted from a person hardly to be admired to introduce his exploration of the question, "Can we all get along?" This unfortunate choice doesn't foreshadow the quality of the subsequent analysis.

I found this book to be among the best I have read in providing a thoughtful balanced description of who we are and why we behave the way we do. I sense that Haidt’s desire to write this book centered on helping us understand ourselves; not because he wanted to becoming wealthy or famous. I learned quite a bit from reading it. Having written that, as informative as Haidt is, I think there is more to consider. Perhaps, in the spirit of Smith’s ‘invisible hand,’ above the dynamics of genetics and culture is a set of environmental dynamics that control both the elephant (emotions) and the rider (reason). For example, If, by forming groups, we identify ourselves as liberal, conservative, or libertarian while retaining (without addressing) our individual selfish natures, selfishness will become a major force that overpowers all other interests and intentions (i.e., overcome the elephant) even while we genuinely believe that our motivations are other-oriented. J. R. Saul offered an excellent analysis of political and economic factors in "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West." Jacques Ellul, of course, among the cornucopia of his writings, has described the (interfering) role that technique and technology play. Renė Girard described another set of possible candidates in his explanation of mimetics. In “The Weight of Glory,” C.S. Lewis offered still another perspective. I find myself agreeing with them all; perhaps I am too naïve. To over-generalize... The selfish liberal finds security not by helping the oppressed become free, but by keeping the oppressed oppressed or by broadening the definition of oppression and convincing an increasing percentage of a population they are oppressed. The selfish power that the liberal wants to maintain and reinforce is directly related to her or his ability to convince others about the level of oppression and the size of the populace who is oppressed. (J.R. Saul pointed out that many who obtain positions within government so they can help others, soon turn that position into one of personal power. Before long, helping others becomes a secondary byproduct to the key goal which becomes keeping and expanding one’s power and position.) The selfish conservative finds security not in helping others find similar levels of security, but by ensuring hers or his security (possessions or stature) is always better than those whom she or he helps. The selfish power of the conservative is directly related to the percentage of people in her or his environment who want what she or he has. (Girard posited that respect for others because of who they are, what they have, or their power evolves into emulating them, then envying them, then competing with them, and then trying to depose them. The struggle culminates by identifying, sacrificing, and deifying an idol that substitutes for what they first respected but could not achieve). In either case, it is far too easy for the oppressed to become the oppressor and, in the process, produce the opposite of what they first intended to produce. If the prime characteristics of liberal or conservative excluded self-interest, there would be empirical evidence of their success in helping others. That evidence is lacking. The evidence that exists, seems to point to the failure of both groups in moving toward and achieving their original goals. From what I can tell, since the beginning, governments have been moving away from what the original founders wanted and designed, churches have been moving away from what their founders and first practitioners taught and prayed, and the purposes and functions of public schools have been moving away from what their founders envisioned. We should not let appellations like childish, foolish, trite, or absurd prevent us from pointing out that loving others must accompany if not precede service if we are to help others. If neither helper nor the helped are transformed to become better persons in the ‘helping’ process, helpers risk doing more harm than good. Here, I reference the type of love that expects nothing in return and the acts that stem from ‘purity of heart’ as Kierkegaard put it. If we ever hope to form a community, as Haidt (and a plethora of others) proposes, helping others become more like us, is like wanting all parts of our bodies to be the same. This will not work. As Paul put it log ago in his first letter to the believers at Corinth, “If the ear says ‘because I am not an eye, I am not part of the body’ it is not. . . any the less a part of the body. if the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be?” “Above all,” Peter wrote, “keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.” Perhaps Nussbaum focuses on this in “Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice.” Based on Haidt’s recommendation, I have just begun reading that book.

5/2/12: Okkaaayyy, I decided to give my original, rather negative review a complete overhaul, take out the cynicism and bitterness after all, and bump it up from three to four stars. Not so much because I now believe that my initial critique is invalid, but because I realized that this book somehow does what Haidt say's his intention is, it did help me strive for more understanding, patience, and tolerance. It did so because it had me thinking, reasoning, debating, and yes, evolving for weeks. I am not quite sure if that is part of Haidts intention, even if he says so. I perceived the book more as an appeal to stop thinking too much and trust my instincts instead (like in: to dumb down somewhat), and that's my main problem with this book. Putting more trust in ones instincts might be a good advice in general (as in being less cerebral and getting some stuff done instead), yet I don't think it is a good idea when it comes to politics. Not with all the sound bites, over promises, scare tactics and mud slinging in nowadays politics that might corrupt our instincts. About the book: Haidt tries to explain why conservatism is more appealing to the broader audience then liberalism. Conservatism is more in tune with emotions and intuition (the elephant part of our human personalities), while liberals address thought and reason (the elephants rider). But because, according to Haidt, the rider doesn't have control over the elephant, and the riders only purpose is to help the elephant justify his actions (like a PR agent), liberals have a harder time to get their messages across. He also claims that conservatism is based on a broader spectrum of morality than liberalism, by putting more emphasis on motions like loyalty, authority, and sanctity, not just 'do no harm' and fairness. He also points out how humans are part chimp, part bee, and that we thrive within groups (beehives), and put personal interests aside for the sake of the group, which can result in extraordinary achievements. Conservatism lines up with this tribal instinct by promoting strong binds to family, community (church), and country (patriotism). Haidt explains how he discovered that conservatives are 'on to something', because they tend to be happier with life and 'get more stuff done'. He thinks that left and right balance each other out for the greater good, that both sides should show more tolerance and respect, and that fundamentally both sides are not that different in their goals and values as it seems. Here is where I disagree: Conservatives are generally happier and get more stuff done, Haidt says. Conservatives know how to activate the beehive switch, which turns selfishness into groupishness, enabling humans to achieve great things. I think he sneaks in a bit of judgement here. Beehives are good and useful, but in my opinion the whole argument sounds less pleasant if you replace the beehive with an anthill or termite colony. Germans made that discovery after world war II. Post war german historians came to the conclusion that german citizens didn't exercise their moral responsibilities to take a more critical look at their 'beehive', turning a blind eye for the sake of self serving groupishness. So I believe it is the responsibility of each and every individual to make sure that the 'beehive' doesn't turn into a wasp nest. Because our national hive is wide spanning and complex, we need the help of the rider to make such assessments. Haidts elephant/rider analogy sounds convincing at first glance, but it doesn't make all that much sense to me on second thought. If the riders only job is to act as a PR agency for the elephant, with the only purpose to justify any kind of action the elephant takes, but otherwise having no say in were the elephant goes, than what's in it for the rider?? If an an elephants strength and power cannot be directed and channeled in any meaningful way, it is pretty much useless to the rider, so why would he bother? I believe Haidt got it wrong here. Also, elephants in the wilderness don't look for a rider, why would they? Unless they find a good reason, but elephants don't reason, riders do. Riders have the ability to foresee the potential advantage in domesticating an elephant. Riders have imagination, elephants don't. If an elephant rider team is to be of any use or purpose, one of them has to take the lead and be in control, and how can that not be the rider? But here is my biggest complaint: I don't think you can have a multiset of different rules or moralities without having a master rule. In Christianity most people would agree that to be the Golden Rule ('do upon others...', or Do No Harm/Fairness). Non religious people might rather think of Kant's categorial imperative. Haidt is saying it is not only tolerable but also justified to apply different sets of moralities in any given circumstance, I respectfully disagree with that. For rules or moralities to serve any kind of purpose or meaning, you need a reference point (like true North on a compass), hence the name Golden Rule. So while loyalty, authority, sanctity as moralities are of value no doubt (like West, South and East on the compass), they only retain their value as long as they don't breach the Master Rule/Golden Rule (or can be crosschecked against true North). How else would one ever claim moral integrity? Impossible if one keeps contradicting themselves, by following one of the rules, while in doing so breaking another. It's like adhering to the speed limit while running a red light. A good example for such a double standard would be somebody to expect their preschooler to master behavior skills like sharing, waiting your turn, looking out for others, apologizing, not to bully or hit; and than cry out in outrage when the president considers to offer an apology to foreign nations for past controversies (like in offering the olive branch). If he did so or not, or if he had a reason to do so or not is besides the point, its about moral conduct, and consistency thereof. The same applies to 'historical car crashes' like communism, the French revolution (fought in the name of reason), or the crusades, the Inquisition, and the 30 year war (fought in the name of religion), just to name a few. In none of these events True North (the Golden Rule, Do No Harm/Fairness) was being tracked, it was never really about reason or religion, but rather about power and control. In my opinion, running red lights at a reasonable speed is not too big of a deal with only 3 cars in town, but becomes a recipe for disaster with 7 billion cars (or elephants) all over the place. And some nukes too boot, and who knows how long we are able too keep them out of angry elephant's (as in alienated nations) trunks? Do we really want to try to find out? Yes, some elephants undeniably seem to suffer from a form of 'mad cow disease', and hopefully can be taken out the way Bin Laden was handled, instead of spooking the whole herd into a stampede (think 'the axis of evil'). How to keep families, communities or nations together without conservative impulses? I think there are many cultural impulses that are worth conserving but are not controversial; take traditions like Thanks Giving or Christmas for example, or the sports we play, or music, from enjoying geographic landmarks like national parks or mountain ranges to the skyline of NYC, all the way to Disney Land, Coca Cola and Apple. The list is endless. There is so much to love about America, and to be proud of as an American. But I think wether or not we are the shining beacon on the hill is not on us to decide, it's on the rest of the world to judge that. To put it another way: A little more leading by example, less of 'do as I say, not as I do'. As for our tribal instincts I would suggest that elephants in need of a well deserved break from the rider could go to a football game and yell and howl all they want to support their team, or find a similar outlet of that nature. But when it comes to politics in the domestic or - even more important - the international arena, one should make sure to bring a well trained, good natured elephant. And whoever we send there by our vote should be able to handle their elephant well (and know how to read traffic lights). Only then the rider can do his real job and engage in a meaningful debate. Bottom line: When it comes to politics, Haidt, in essence, is asking for more of the same, just at a lower volume. That is a good start, but it leaves me dissatisfied. After listening to a book introduction on NPR, I was expecting more. He basically tells us, look, it is what it is, let's all be nice, and move on. I wish he would have provided some inspiration what COULD be achieved if all of us would try to become more of an 'elephant whisperer', not only in our personal lives, but on a global scale. People, families, communities, governments, nations, all those entities are elephants. Haidt misses out on that opportunity. But than again, if lowering the volume helps calming down spooked elephants, so the rider gets to spend less time finding excuses for the good beast, and more time for some serious soul searching, while blending out the sound bites and mud slinging, than maybe that's all that can be asked for.

This is a brilliant book very insightful

Excellent livre de sociologie sur les comportements humains dans les relations interhumaines et sociales

Written from scientific, not political or sensational perspective. Well backed with facts, without hype or propaganda. If one is interested in psychology, and not headlines, this is a have to have book. In today's world of bombardment informed and uninformed opinions, often tainted with political radicalism, and emotional slant, this book is a refreshing return to facts derived from science. It does make one to step back from being hijacked by emotions, after reading online opinions, and get into understanding of human psyche, and into cerebral instead of triggered space. Hope it makes sense.

As someone who sees themselves as a conservative with little background on the area of psychology I found this book very interesting. I would like to read it a second time, though, as there were a lot of new concepts to take in. Haidt, himself a liberal, puts forward his theories based on life experience and reading books from conservative authors. He draws his conclusions from Darwin, Shweder, Hume, Glaucon, Durkheim and others. His key points ideas include 1. Intuition drives strategic reasoning 2. His Moral Foundations Theory and how this explains the differences between liberals, libertarians and conservatives 3. We are products of multi level (personal and group) selection - and how we are 90% chimps and 10% bees. My key takeaway, overall, is how liberals and conservatives have become evermore tribe like. So the next time we are next next to someone from the other ”side”, start by finding out what you both have in common - not what separates you. Very interesting and balanced read indeed.

As a psychologist and mother of two young girls I have frequently worried about the negative impact of social media and how to protect children and adolescents from it given the seeming ubiquitous use of smart phones, without being able to fully articulate my concerns. Jonathan Haidt puts together all the pieces of the jigsaw in a clear and eloquent manner, backed by research. This book is a necessary call to action for governments, tech companies, schools and parents.