Prawy umysł. Dlaczego dobrych ludzi dzieli religia i polityka

Prawy umysł. Dlaczego dobrych ludzi dzieli religia i polityka

  • Downloads:2094
  • Type:Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date:2021-12-15 09:52:48
  • Update Date:2025-09-06
  • Status:finish
  • Author:Jonathan Haidt
  • ISBN:836212282X
  • Environment:PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle

Summary

Dlaczego nasi przywódcy polityczni nie potrafią ze sobą współpracować w obliczu zagrożeń i narastających problemów? Dlaczego ludzie tak chętnie przypisują bliźnim najgorsze motywy? W książce Prawy umysł psycholog społeczny Jonathan Haidt analizuje genezę podziałów między ludźmi i wskazuje drogę ku wzajemnemu zrozumieniu。
Punktem wyjścia są dla niego intuicje moralne – niemal natychmiastowe odczucia dotyczące innych ludzi oraz ich zachowań。 Intuicje te wydają nam się oczywistymi prawdami, wzbudzając w nas niewzruszoną pewność, że ci, którzy są innego zdania, nie mają racji。 Haidt pokazuje, że owe intuicje różnią się w zależności od kultury, między innymi kultury lewicy i prawicy politycznej。 Autor łączy wyniki własnych badań z odkryciami antropologów, historyków i innych psychologów, aby sporządzić czytelną mapę królestwa moralności。 Wyjaśnia też, dlaczego konserwatyści posługują się tą mapą bardziej sprawnie niż liberałowie。 Haidt przygląda się genezie moralności, obalając pogląd, że ewolucja uczyniła z nas istoty na wskroś egoistyczne。 Nie twierdzi jednak, że jesteśmy urodzonymi altruistami, lecz wysuwa bardziej subtelną tezę – uważa, że ludzie są z natury istotami grupowymi。 To nasza skłonność do łączenia się w grupy – wyjaśnia autor – jest źródłem naszych największych radości, naszych podziałów religijnych i naszych sympatii politycznych。 W znakomitym ostatnim rozdziale poświęconym ideologii i cywilizacji Haidt pokazuje, w czym każda ze stron ma rację, i wyjaśnia, dlaczego potrzebujemy idei liberałów, konserwatystów i libertarian, aby osiągnąć sukces jako społeczeństwo。

Jonathan Haidt jest profesorem psychologii na Uniwersytecie Stanu Wirginia oraz profesorem etyki w biznesie w Stern School of Business na Uniwersytecie Nowojorskim。 Jest autorem książki Szczęście。 Od mądrości starożytnych po koncepcje współczesne。 Mieszka w Charlottesville w stanie Wirginia。

Download

Reviews

Andrew Sternisha

Really thought provoking book。 Perhaps the most important idea presented here is that people use their intuition more than reason to make decisions。 Haidt argues that the Republicans appeal to a more broad morality framework。 I enjoyed this book and it introduced me to a new field, moral psychology。 I will need to do more research, but I am well versed in political study and while there are some quibbles I have with Haidt’s methodology, his overall thesis seems sound based upon my own anecdotal Really thought provoking book。 Perhaps the most important idea presented here is that people use their intuition more than reason to make decisions。 Haidt argues that the Republicans appeal to a more broad morality framework。 I enjoyed this book and it introduced me to a new field, moral psychology。 I will need to do more research, but I am well versed in political study and while there are some quibbles I have with Haidt’s methodology, his overall thesis seems sound based upon my own anecdotal experience。 。。。more

Shazia

This imperfect book delineates a framework for understanding ourselves as moral human beings。 He makes a compelling argument for why the theory of homo economicus is a flawed theory (of course, I was sold long before I read his argument)。 Then he goes on to suggest how we are all primarily given by our gut reactions to things rather than our rational minds。 This is reasonably compelling - especially because we know that to think through everything rationally would just take far too long。 More of This imperfect book delineates a framework for understanding ourselves as moral human beings。 He makes a compelling argument for why the theory of homo economicus is a flawed theory (of course, I was sold long before I read his argument)。 Then he goes on to suggest how we are all primarily given by our gut reactions to things rather than our rational minds。 This is reasonably compelling - especially because we know that to think through everything rationally would just take far too long。 More often, we use our rational mind to justify our gut reactions。 From there he goes on to describes six pairs of moral foundations that people ascribe to: care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation。 Reasonable enough, but his evidence is less robust here。 Then he moves into the political realm: Liberals base their morality on three areas: care/harm, liberty/oppression, and fairness/cheating, whereas Conservatives appeal to all six types of moral foundations。 In my view, Haidt defined these foundations in such a way as to deny the ways in that liberals might also approach the last three foundations。 He refers to sanctity and degradation in terms of sex, but he doesn't explore how liberals might use the same features to apply to food。 Similarly, with loyalty and betrayal, he focuses on patriotism, but with Liberals, he might have explored family, or political affiliation, or occupation。 In the last part, he uses his framework to examine politics, and this is pretty much just Haidt moving well away from his area of expertise and into his own opinions。 His arguments and justifications are weak, to say the least。 And when he got to how a focus on diversity makes people less likely to cohere, he is so clearly speaking from his place as a white man。 Not to get too personal, but I can say that acting like everyone else will not make people get beyond your "difference" if that is their inclination。 His views do not address the fact that we are not all of one uniform ethnicity, race, religion, or gender, and pretending we are all white men has never gone well for non-dominant groups。 Haidt should stick to social psychology (his expertise) and away from policial science/sociology (his opinions)。 。。。more

Joel Ye

Insightful in all three sections (individual post-hoc rationalization, morals of dimensionality, and the important role of tribalism/groupishness)

Young

Explications assez complètes sur le sens moral; son origine, son utilité et ses différentes « facettes » ou « tons »。 Je comprends mieux pourquoi je ne comprends pas certaines positions conservatrices et pourquoi il y a tant de polarisation。 Malheureusement, pas de solution vraiment offerte。

Henry DeForest

No book has made me less bitter than this one。 Despite Haidt's liberal non-religious background, this book gives a very fair take on all of humanity。 Through his thorough exploration of moral psychology, while I still disagree with those on the other end of the political spectrum from myself, I no longer find their stances to be of moral failure。 I think this book should be read by anyone looking for an exercise in empathy。 No book has made me less bitter than this one。 Despite Haidt's liberal non-religious background, this book gives a very fair take on all of humanity。 Through his thorough exploration of moral psychology, while I still disagree with those on the other end of the political spectrum from myself, I no longer find their stances to be of moral failure。 I think this book should be read by anyone looking for an exercise in empathy。 。。。more

Edith

David Hume wrote in A Treatise of Human Nature: “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them。”In this book, Haidt argues that people cannot convince each other because people's moral judgments are produced by emotions, and only after certain moral judgments are produced, the reasons supporting the judgments will appear, and then the reasons will be used to justify their moral judgments。 The process is as below:E David Hume wrote in A Treatise of Human Nature: “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them。”In this book, Haidt argues that people cannot convince each other because people's moral judgments are produced by emotions, and only after certain moral judgments are produced, the reasons supporting the judgments will appear, and then the reasons will be used to justify their moral judgments。 The process is as below:Emotion (heart)- Moral Judgement - Reasoning (head)When A was telling its reasoning to B, it triggered the emotional reaction rather than B’s rationality。 Then, B made a judgement based on its emotion and later on gave out its own reasoning。 Haidt vividly refers to this psychological phenomenon as "the rider on the elephant"。 Our emotions, intuitions and feelings are an elephant on the move, and our rationality as a rider。 It is impossible to change the elephant’s path, but can only control its speed to avoid stalling, or clear the way for the elephant to remind other passers-by to avoid。 In short, the rider is to better serve the elephant's progress。Therefore, when two people are facing the same social event and have completely different attitudes, it is normal that they cannot convince each other at all, because the fundamental reason is that the emotional elephants of the two people move in completely different directions。 Thus, the rider's rationality cannot make the two sides reach an agreement by just reasoning。In general, Haidt’s conclusion seems very pessimistic, that people cannot share the same set of moral principles and attitudes towards things based on rationality。 Acquired academic training may enable us to be more neutral in argumentation, but it cannot change the concepts that we have been instilled and have become intuitive。 It's just like the subtitle of the book-“Why good people are divided by politics and religion" 。 There is not much difference in rational ability between people, but the differences in educational background, cultural background and previous experience make it impossible for people to understand each other, given that everyone is a little man riding an elephant。 The direction of the elephant towards which our heart is heading has long been determined by the social environment we live in。 。。。more

Vaibhav Tripathi

4。5/5

Rosemary

Absolutely fascinating, thought provoking, and well written。

Lord_Humungus

Not very convincing, I'm afraid。First of all, if you think that "intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second", that "reason is a slave of the passions", that reason is only our "lawyer" or "press secretary", that its purpose is to construct post hoc justifications of our intuitions, etc。, then。。。 why should I read the reasonings and arguments in your book?Second, reason can do a very good job of circumventing your innate programming, your intuitions, and your received ideas。 Maybe not canc Not very convincing, I'm afraid。First of all, if you think that "intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second", that "reason is a slave of the passions", that reason is only our "lawyer" or "press secretary", that its purpose is to construct post hoc justifications of our intuitions, etc。, then。。。 why should I read the reasonings and arguments in your book?Second, reason can do a very good job of circumventing your innate programming, your intuitions, and your received ideas。 Maybe not cancel them, but circumventing them。。。 oh yes!For example, it's true that I can't get myself to see the two lines in the Müller-Lyer illusion as lines of the same length。 But I have resources: I know about perception, optical illusions, physics (both theoretical and intuitive), rulers, etc。 And I can get to know that they, are, in fact, of the same length。 Afterwards, I COULD BET MY LIFE on it。 But a very uneducated person, a primitive, let's say, would be skeptical of my ruler and my reasonings: "I see with my own eyes that they are of different lengths"。 Well, that's the disadvantage of being a primitive。The same goes for moral reasonings and moral dumbfounding。 It's true that I find the idea of fucking a dead chicken quite repugnant, (and homosexual sex too, for that matter)。 But I don't think it should lead to prison sentences because I circumvent my disgust with my reason and my arguments。 I know there are people that think that the chicken fucker and homosexuals should be punished。 They can not or will not circumvent their disgust。 Disadvantages of being primitive and uneducated。Instead, Haidt interprets that I'm blind to a Sanctity/Purity receptor in my "moral tongue", because I'm WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic)。 In contrast, the primitive hasn't lost touch with the receptor in his moral tongue。 Sorry, I don't see it。When Haidt says that "there's more to morality than harm and fairness" he is being purely descriptive。 Yes, there are people that think that cows are sacred (Sanctity/Purity), that you should obey the king because he is the king (Authority), and that you should favor those of the same nation or race because, well, they're like you (Loyalty)。 Conservatives have six moral receptors, while leftists have only two (the other ones are somewhat atrophied in leftists and Haidt wants to reactivate them)。 That's why conservatives are better than leftists in predicting the beliefs of the other side: they have the same two receptors, plus four more。I have an alternative explanation: because moral principles based on Authority, Loyalty, and -above all- Sanctity are more irrational, they are more difficult to predict by others。 How was I supposed to predict that cows are sacred? Why cows and not monkeys?I read the book because I'm interested in human tribalism and nationalism。 Haidt tries to hypothesize explanations for human groupishness, especially for intertribal aggression。 He invokes group selection theory, and falls into a thick quagmire, because group selection is false。 See "The False Allure of Group Selection" in Edge。org for a complete demolition by Pinker and Dawkins (Haidt is down there in the debate section)。He then enters another quagmire by saying that humans are "90% chimp and 10% bee"。 We usually behave like kin selection and reciprocal altruism predict: our behaviors are those that would have maximized our inclusive fitness in ancestral environments。 But we are also like bees sometimes: we have a "hive switch" that in some situations gets activated, and unites us with the group, and prepares us to make sacrifices for the group, even at a loss to ourselves (more exactly, to our inclusive fitness)。 I'm afraid the cause of the switch is group selection。 But then, quite hilariously, he spells out triggers for the switch。 One of them, for example, is "awe in nature"。 So the feeling that you get by seeing a precious starlit sky in Arizona and the "spontaneous" voice that tells you that you have to go first line into battle are activated by the same switch and the cause is group selection。 Sorry, I don't see it。I must say that tribal behavior remains a mystery to me。 I haven't experimented communion with the group in my life, probably because I'm too wEird。 I find the usual evolutionary psychology explanations of extreme tribalism very unsatisfactory。 In my opinion, groupish behavior and intertribal aggression are too easy to elicit to be explained away by "psychological manipulation", "parasite memes" or the like。 And group selection is a false theory。 So groupishness remains a mystery。The book also has a positive vision of religion as a force that gives cohesion to the group。 The exact beliefs of the religion are not very important。 It seems to me quite narrow: beliefs are also very important。 If a lot of people think that infidels must die, or that sodomy is an abomination, those beliefs can exert powerful influence in the world。 Religion is not only a thing that people do to see each other more at church。The final section, merging the "moral taste receptors" and political ideologies is the final and thicker quagmire。 I appreciate Haidt, and wished him the best of luck, but he disappeared in the bog。 。。。more

Zhijing Jin

What Bertrand Russell inspired me through his book the History of Western Philosophy is that when facing two hypotheses, I should compare how well they interpret the world and are internally consistent, as well as consistent with other existing things I know。Example comparison:a) Legendize Ancient Greek philosophersb) Believe that every talent has a reason that contributes to their thoughts and development into their theories。 Identify their society, geographic, cultural, occupational, political What Bertrand Russell inspired me through his book the History of Western Philosophy is that when facing two hypotheses, I should compare how well they interpret the world and are internally consistent, as well as consistent with other existing things I know。Example comparison:a) Legendize Ancient Greek philosophersb) Believe that every talent has a reason that contributes to their thoughts and development into their theories。 Identify their society, geographic, cultural, occupational, political and academic backgrounds, etc。Russell let the readers choose by themselves which theory to believe。Applying this methodology to this book, I saw the shift of my ways to understand different groups of thinking from (a) to (b):a) "How could these people ever think 。。。?!" -- Simply label certain groups of people as unreasonable, and alienate them。 Action item: Fight against them and try to convert them to our group。b) "I understand how these opinions and group effects are developed。" -- Spend efforts to decompose and understand their actions until everything makes intuitive sense。 Action item: Understand them and try to find the middle ground that can unite people。-------------This book is dedicated to the (b) type。 I appreciate the efforts。1) Definition:- ideology = “A set of beliefs about the proper order of society and how it can be achieved。” E。g。, creating the best possible society, the one that brings about the greatest happiness given local circumstances (although I'm not sure whether "happiness" is the best goal)。- right = Preserve the present order。 Left= change it。 (History: At the French Assembly of 1789, the delegates who favored preservation sat on the right side of the chamber, while those who favored change sat on the left。 The terms right and left have stood for conservatism and liberalism ever since。)Examples of confusion- Not true: conservatism = orthodoxy = religion = faith = rejection of science。 Instead, conservatism is different from orthodoxy (e。g。, following a transcendent moral order such as religious principles), counter-Enlightenment。 Praising conservative intellectuals (Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hayek and Thomas Sowell) does not mean thinking highly of the Republican Party。- Libertarians are sometimes said to be socially liberal (favoring individual freedom in private matters such as sex and drug use) and economically conservative (favoring free markets), but those labels reveal how confused these terms have become in the United States。More fine-grained terminologies:- Libertarians are the direct descendants of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Enlightenment reformers who fought to free people and markets from the control of kings and clergy。 “new liberals” (also known as “left liberals” or “progressives”) looked to government as the only force capable of protecting the public and rescuing the many victims of the brutal practices of early industrial capitalism。 Liberals who continued to fear government as the chief threat to liberty became known as “classical liberals,” “right liberals” (in some countries), or libertarians (in the United States)。2) Key takeaways- [Better understanding] We can decompose people's moral decision-making preferences to six moral foundations: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression- [Psychology tip] People usually come up with intuitions first, and then find post-hoc explanations。- [Psychology tip] The human mind is a story processor。 “Life narratives” are McAdams’s third level of personality。- [Psychology tip] People are largely groupish。- [Action item] We must look not just at people, and not just at the relationships among people, but at the complete environment within which those relationships are embedded, and which makes those people more virtuous (however they themselves define that term)。- [Action item] When proposing changes, we *must* care about the changes in the moral capital。3) Examples- stories using questionnaires at YourMorals。org: When asked to account for the development of their own religious faith and moral beliefs, conservatives underscored deep feelings about respect for authority, allegiance to one’s group, and purity of the self, whereas liberals emphasized their deep feelings regarding human suffering and social fairness。- when liberals try to understand the Reagan narrative, they have a harder time。 When I speak to liberal audiences about the three “binding” foundations—Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity—I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral。 Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say。 Authority is oppression。 Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia。- “Some people draw a line and say, ‘Everything on this side is ours。 The rest of you keep out。’ ” I found the same dislike of exclusion applied to religions。 A graduate student was surprised by my claim that religions are often good for the rest of society, and she said, “But religions are all exclusive!” I asked her what she meant, and she replied: “Well, the Catholic Church won’t accept anyone who doesn’t believe its teachings。” I couldn’t believe she was serious。 I pointed out that our graduate program at UVA was more exclusive than the church—we rejected almost all applicants。 In the course of our discussion it became clear that her overriding concern was for victims of discrimination, particularly gay people who are told that they don’t belong in many religious communities- liberals might have even more difficulty understanding conservatives than the other way around, because liberals often have difficulty understanding how the Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity foundations have anything to do with morality。 In particular, liberals often have difficulty seeing moral capital, which I defined as the resources that sustain a moral community。4) Tradeoff of heuristics- A commune that valued self-expression over conformity and that prized the virtue of tolerance over the virtue of loyalty might be more attractive to outsiders, and this could indeed be an advantage in recruiting new members, but it would have lower moral capital than a commune that valued conformity and loyalty。 The stricter commune would be better able to suppress or regulate selfishness, and would therefore be more likely to endure- if you are trying to change an organization or a society and you do not consider the effects of your changes on moral capital, you’re asking for trouble。 This, I believe, is the fundamental blind spot of the left。 It explains why liberal reforms so often backfire,43 and why communist revolutions usually end up in despotism。 It is the reason I believe that liberalism—which has done so much to bring about freedom and equal opportunity—is not sufficient as a governing philosophy。 It tends to overreach, change too many things too quickly, and reduce the stock of moral capital inadvertently。 Conversely, while conservatives do a better job of preserving moral capital, they often fail to notice certain classes of victims, fail to limit the predations of certain powerful interests, and fail to see the need to change or update institutions as times change。- Russell: "Social cohesion is a necessity, and mankind has never yet succeeded in enforcing cohesion by merely rational arguments。 Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers: ossification through too much discipline and reverence for tradition, on the one hand; on the other hand, dissolution, or subjection to foreign conquest, through the growth of an individualism and personal independence that makes cooperation impossible。"- (Very surprising to know; welcome discussions) "Liberals stand up for victims of oppression and exclusion。 They fight to break down arbitrary barriers (such as those based on race, and more recently on sexual orientation)。 But their zeal to help victims, combined with their low scores on the Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity foundations, often lead them to push for changes that weaken groups, traditions, institutions, and moral capital。 For example, the urge to help the inner-city poor led to welfare programs in the 1960s that reduced the value of marriage, increased out-ofwedlock births, and weakened African American families。 The urge to empower students by giving them the right to sue their teachers and schools in the 1970s has eroded authority and moral capital in schools, creating disorderly environments that harm the poor above all。 The urge to help Hispanic immigrants in the 1980s led to multicultural education programs that emphasized the differences among Americans rather than their shared values and identity。 Emphasizing differences makes many people more racist, not less。" 。。。more

Amor Camatcho

why is this not required reading for everyone, especially people who voted, anyone with an enemy, a facebook account or resides in the DC area?! These thought frameworks blew me away, more friendship, less loveYourmorals。org

Sitthiwach

This is the MUST READ for all man in the world! If you are able to read it till the end。 Your mind will be blown。The introduction is so great, well organized。 The first part is quite good。 It give me amaze and questions。But all the questions answered in the part 2-3。 BEST one for me。 🙏หนังสือดี ควรอ่านสำหรับทุกคน โดยเฉพาะในยุคที่คนเราเกลียดชังกันด้วยการเมือง จะทำให้เราเข้าใจคนอื่นที่มีมุมมองแตกต่างกันได้มากขึ้น เขาคิดต่าง ไม่ได้เพราะเขาชั่ว หรือคิดไม่ได้ แต่เพราะเขาคิดคนละอย่าง มีคุณธรรมที่ยึดถื This is the MUST READ for all man in the world! If you are able to read it till the end。 Your mind will be blown。The introduction is so great, well organized。 The first part is quite good。 It give me amaze and questions。But all the questions answered in the part 2-3。 BEST one for me。 🙏หนังสือดี ควรอ่านสำหรับทุกคน โดยเฉพาะในยุคที่คนเราเกลียดชังกันด้วยการเมือง จะทำให้เราเข้าใจคนอื่นที่มีมุมมองแตกต่างกันได้มากขึ้น เขาคิดต่าง ไม่ได้เพราะเขาชั่ว หรือคิดไม่ได้ แต่เพราะเขาคิดคนละอย่าง มีคุณธรรมที่ยึดถือแตกต่างกัน แนะนำให้อ่านอย่างยิ่งครับ 。。。more

Joel Gn

I don't usually recommend grand narratives in the social sciences, but there is quite a lot in here that one should pay attention to, especially when it's time to enter the voting booth! I don't usually recommend grand narratives in the social sciences, but there is quite a lot in here that one should pay attention to, especially when it's time to enter the voting booth! 。。。more

Logan Lewis

A very fascinating book, there were some principles that I felt are important for everyone to learn about to better understand people on the other end of the political spectrum, but parts of the book seemed heavy handed and lost my interest。

Joseph Hoehne

6 stars! The content and organization was perfect for me。 I loved every minute of this book!

David

I've listened to this book twice now。。。and will probably listen to it a couple more times。 I think this is a must read for understanding human behavior。 The author is a "moral psychologist" and as such the book is full of research and study results related to how we go about making moral decisions。 It turns out we all make many of these each day。 It's probably important to note that the author says that he, like almost all professors in America, is liberal。 In the end the author walks through th I've listened to this book twice now。。。and will probably listen to it a couple more times。 I think this is a must read for understanding human behavior。 The author is a "moral psychologist" and as such the book is full of research and study results related to how we go about making moral decisions。 It turns out we all make many of these each day。 It's probably important to note that the author says that he, like almost all professors in America, is liberal。 In the end the author walks through the good and bad of each political flavor and makes a plea for cooperation and compromise between all political viewpoints。 He points out why better decisions come as a result。The book is divided into three sections。 The first section deals with how we, as individuals, make moral decisions。 The key take away is "Intuition Comes First, Strategic Reasoning Second"。 The author calls this section "an attack on rationality。" He cites three historical models of the brain that have been put forth for how we make moral decisions。 One of the Greek philosophers, I forget which one, said humans use our powers of rational thinking。。。or at least in his mind we should do this。 This philosopher felt that emotions get in the way of good rational thinking and thus probably only well trained philosophers should be put in charge of government。 Ordinary people are unskilled in getting emotions out of the way。 The 18th century philosopher, Hume, felt that we should look at what humans really do, not theorize about what they should do, thus he came to the conclusion that in humans, emotions rule the day。 Finally Thomas Jefferson postulated a "dual King" model where reason and emotion both had equal sway and share the role of decision making。 The author concludes from his, and others, extensive research that Hume was almost correct。 More so than the other two。 He says moral decisions are made pretty much as snap judgements by the unconscious/emotional cognition machinery in the brain。 He calls this intuition。。。mostly to avoid the bad rap many in the field give to emotions。 The rational part of our brains are then used almost exclusively to justify the decision that has been made。 He cites a number of studies, including fMRI brain scans that show this to be the case。 He has a great analogy of a large elephant with a human rider on top。 You might think that the human rider is the driver。。。but not so。 The elephant is your intuition and the rider your reasoning brain circuitry。 The elephant pretty much goes where its wants to go。。。based on instinct。。。and the riders job is to justify the decisions it makes。 Thus the rider is like the Presidential Press Secretary。 The Press Secretary has no authority to make any decisions but her job is to go out each day and justify the decisions that the administration has made。。。no matter how absurd the justifications are。Hume is only mostly correct though, because the elephant can be persuaded。。。either by it's own rider。。。or by the riders of other elephants。。。but these situations are rare and occur only under special conditions。 It turns out that if we 1) have affection for someone, 2) admire them and 3) have a desire to please them then our elephant can be persuaded to change course by someone else's rider。 Occasionally our rider can also persuade our own elephant to adopt another course。。。but this doesn't happen very often。 I love this insight!Section two of the the book is called "There is More to Morality than Care and Fairness"。 The introduces an analogy to the tongue。 Each taste bud has five receptors。 One each for sweetness, sourness, bitterness, saltiness, and one called savory。 This one is sometimes called umami。 Peoples palettes differ due to differences in the sensitivity of these five receptors。 In the analogy the author has identified six moral foundations of what he calls a persons "moral matrix"。 These six foundations are found in varying degrees across all world cultures。 Peoples political orientation varies depending on the weight they give to each of these six foundations。 As with many thing biological。。。our genes bias us to certain sensitivity levels。。。but do not determine our political leanings。 Certain personality traits tend to one political flavor over the other。 As we grow, life experiences, in addition to these preexisting biases nudge use in certain political directions。 The six moral foundations come in pairs of opposites。 They are: Care/harm, Fairness/cheating, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, Sanctity/degradation。 Pretty much everyone cares about Fairness/cheating but it means different things to different political leanings。 Besides this American liberals have a heavy emphasis on Care/harm, Liberty/oppression (the concern being mostly about oppression)。 Their moral matrix makes little use of Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion or Sanctity/degradation。 American Libertarians emphasize Liberty/oppression and pretty much nothing else。 The moral matrix for what the author calls social conservatives has equal weight on all six foundations。 Interestingly studies show that conservatives can predict quite accurately how liberals will respond to different issues。。。in other words they can empathize with liberals。 But liberals, are very inaccurate at predicting how conservatives will respond。 This is probably due to their moral matrix resting so heavily on only two of the six foundations。 The author points out that the American Liberal type moral matrix is found only in what he calls WEIRD cultures (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Developed)。。。which is pretty much the US/Canada and Europe。 I think he assumes the bulk of his readers will come from this culture background。。。thus the point of this chapter is to try to help broaden their view of morality。 The author is concerned that liberals operate at a disadvantage to conservatives as he feels their narrow moral focus attracts fewer voters。 I'm not sure he is correct about this。The third section of the book is titled "Morality Binds and Blinds"。 In this section the author spends a significant amount of time coming up with a theory of how evolution wound up producing the human brains that we have。 Many think that evolution has produced humans that are pretty much selfish and driven by what benefits them, individually, the most。 This has made it difficult to explain traits like altruism, charity, and other unselfish behavior observed in humans。 The author talks about multi-level evolutionary pressures。。。pressures that select at the group level, not the individual level。 He argues that humans have some "hive" like behaviors。。。like ants and bees。 Groups of humans that bind more cohesively, act less selfishly etc。 have a competitive advantage over groups that do not。 The author, although I don't think he is religious himself, really goes on the attack against the "new atheists" like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harrison。。。two people who attack religion as useless and destructive and something that all humanity would be better off if eliminated。 The author, on the other hand, cites numerous studies that show religion, regardless of particular beliefs, bestows significant "moral capital" on societies。 Religion significantly enhances "group behavior"。。。thus the "morality binds" part of the title。 Religion overcomes very difficult problems to deal with like the "freerider" problem (the loafer, or non-worker) and a couple of other difficult problems that boost a cultures "moral capital" and makes them more likely to succeed against groups with lower "moral capital"。 The author says religious people are better neighbors and better citizens。。。and cites studies to prove it。Finally the "morality blinds" part of the discussion。 The group'ish nature of humans often blinds us to insights groups other than ours, may have。 The author ends the book with an interesting discussion of policies and programs that highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each political flavor。 He ends with an appeal to understand each other better, communicate with each other more patiently and listen for insights from those who differ from us。 。。。more

Liesl

A fantastic nuanced discussion of moral psychology。 Haidt lays out some great arguments such as reason being the slave of intuition when it comes to making moral judgements。 I will no doubt be re-reading this book again in future。

Boogie

Read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" first, so you get a clue that people act irrational most of the time and they don't want to admit that。 Kahneman encourages his readers to take a step back and question our first thoughts。Haid on the other hand doesn't let you believe that you are able to do that。 Kahneman's got that idea that there are two systems in your brain that you switch between at will but Haidt compares it to riding an elephant so you are never fully in control。 And with this view on human Read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" first, so you get a clue that people act irrational most of the time and they don't want to admit that。 Kahneman encourages his readers to take a step back and question our first thoughts。Haid on the other hand doesn't let you believe that you are able to do that。 Kahneman's got that idea that there are two systems in your brain that you switch between at will but Haidt compares it to riding an elephant so you are never fully in control。 And with this view on human behaviour he explains morals and politics。 。。。more

Adam

A must read for anyone who has disagreed with anyone regarding politics or religion!

Rajwinder Singh

A very important and a good read to understand why some people are liberal and some are conservative。The author has explored all the possible factors like biological, cultural, evolutionary to get to a credible conclusion。 And his writing style is gripping too , so you won't feel bored。 5 stars from my side! A very important and a good read to understand why some people are liberal and some are conservative。The author has explored all the possible factors like biological, cultural, evolutionary to get to a credible conclusion。 And his writing style is gripping too , so you won't feel bored。 5 stars from my side! 。。。more

Luis

Un psicólogo que estudia el comportamiento social se siente intrigado por cómo nuestra mente crea y procesa la moralidad。 Partiendo desde planteamientos políticos, busca entender por qué la gente que vota a izquierdas o a derechas ve las cosas de distinta forma, hasta tal punto de que es incapaz de entender el punto ideológico opuesto。 Este libro es una recopilación de sus experimentos en psicología social, desde las primeras intuiciones hasta desarrollar una matriz de comportamientos morales de Un psicólogo que estudia el comportamiento social se siente intrigado por cómo nuestra mente crea y procesa la moralidad。 Partiendo desde planteamientos políticos, busca entender por qué la gente que vota a izquierdas o a derechas ve las cosas de distinta forma, hasta tal punto de que es incapaz de entender el punto ideológico opuesto。 Este libro es una recopilación de sus experimentos en psicología social, desde las primeras intuiciones hasta desarrollar una matriz de comportamientos morales de las dos ideologías, siendo importante para comprenderlas desentrañar por qué nos adherimos a grupos。La idea del libro es muy llamativa y necesaria, aunque su desarrollo ha perdido enteros a lo largo de algunos capítulos un tanto extraños y ha ganado muchos puntos en otros muy entretenidos y útiles。 Yo sí que habría modificado la estructura, en especial, creo que el autor incide demasiado en la teoría de los grupos cohesionados, cuando es algo que podría haber explicado más rápido debido a que su importancia capital es fácil de entender。 Logra poner de forma clara por qué nos polarizamos y cuáles son los fundamentos de la moral humana。 En cambio, se podrían haber incluido más datos sobre el posicionamiento de ideologías concretas y cómo unirlas en torno a puntos comunes, que ha quedado más difuminado en el resultado final de la obra。 Destacaría varios descubrimientos de este libro, de cuyo autor seguramente acabe leyendo más obras:- Las personas más avanzadas moralmente son las que experimentan y practican el intercambio de roles con personas que piensan distinto a ellas, logrando entender la realidad desde la perspectiva opuesta。- Cuando muchas personas se sienten aferradas a una idea moral y se intenta desafiarlas mediante la razón, acaban recurriendo a una respuesta indeterminada e ilógica: no quieren cambiar de posición, pero no saben cómo defenderla racionalmente (es decir, que la posición es puramente intuicional)。- La mayoría de nuestras decisiones están primero guiadas por la emoción y después sustentadas en ese punto por razones alineadas con esa intuición (por ello, si hay que conectar con alguien que piensa opuesto, hay que empezar por lo emocional)。- Un camino para avanzar moralmente uniendo a las ideologías de signo opuesto es reconocer que algunos de los presupuestos de ambas, por mucho que no nos gusten, dan resultado。En conclusión, me ha parecido una lectura valiente que aporta al juego ideas muy frescas, pero al que la falta de estructura le ha jugado en contra。 。。。more

Alice

Interesting topics in moral psychology。 Thought some of the stuff on evolution felt hand-wavey and didn't fully buy it, which makes me feel a bit weird in a non-fiction science book。 Interesting topics in moral psychology。 Thought some of the stuff on evolution felt hand-wavey and didn't fully buy it, which makes me feel a bit weird in a non-fiction science book。 。。。more

clauds

main takeaway - liberals have a three foundation morality - care, liberty, and fairness, whereas conservatives use all six in their approach to morality (+ loyalty, authority, sanctity), which can help to explain the conservative advantage for polling。 i think haidt provides a great overview of how morality/psych fields have changed over the past decades and a great framework for understanding morality, but he falls short in demonstrating how his ~ new found empathy for social conservatives in I main takeaway - liberals have a three foundation morality - care, liberty, and fairness, whereas conservatives use all six in their approach to morality (+ loyalty, authority, sanctity), which can help to explain the conservative advantage for polling。 i think haidt provides a great overview of how morality/psych fields have changed over the past decades and a great framework for understanding morality, but he falls short in demonstrating how his ~ new found empathy for social conservatives in India ~ translates into increased understanding + finding ‘middle ground’ for the role tradition/hierarchy tends in conservative politics。 i get that he's not a political scientist/philosopher but the whole 'can't we just get along' and 'lets just live with it' is quite disappointing for a person in this field of research。 also, if conservatism appeals to a wider audience (in the sense that it appeals to a broader scope of moral foundations) then why has it failed to reach a wider following? why do conservatives value authority as a moral foundation but fight against govt regulation? if both sides are right, are conservatives 'more right' than liberals because they their views (supposedly) draw from a wider scope of moral foundations? how influential are morality foundations in forming our political views when compared to something like our social class? 。。。more

Laís Lyra

If you're looking for a book to teach you how to actually understand other people's political views and see eye to eye, this book is for you。 Even if you still don't agree with them, it's really useful to know how to switch moral matrices。 I do that frequently, for example, when I try to argue with religious people。 Since I used to be like them, I can quickly switch to my old views in order to give a reasonable opinion they will understand。Haidt's theory about the six moral receptors explains A If you're looking for a book to teach you how to actually understand other people's political views and see eye to eye, this book is for you。 Even if you still don't agree with them, it's really useful to know how to switch moral matrices。 I do that frequently, for example, when I try to argue with religious people。 Since I used to be like them, I can quickly switch to my old views in order to give a reasonable opinion they will understand。Haidt's theory about the six moral receptors explains A LOT of things。 He predicted my moral foundations when he said "there is more to morality than harm and fairness"。 It was scary, because just few weeks ago I had come to the conclusion that something is morally wrong either because it is harmful, or because it is unfair。 。。。more

Jonathan Lothspeich

I really liked this book。 It presented some very convoluted and sticky topics in a way that was easy to digest and readable。 While it mostly stayed politically impartial, the author did a great job of acknowledging his own biases and using them as examples within the scope of morality。 This is a must-read for anyone interested in psychology, morality, or political philosophy。

Melusine

I found this book simultaneously chilling, fascinating, infuriating and educational。 While I still don't think that "good" people are actually divided on certain issues -- racism for example -- the author illuminates well the ways in which human minds are influenced, and how we go about making decisions in a biomechanical sense, justifying our passions through real and false logic。 What I found so chilling was the non-stop evidentiary display of not why people are divided, but rather of how inca I found this book simultaneously chilling, fascinating, infuriating and educational。 While I still don't think that "good" people are actually divided on certain issues -- racism for example -- the author illuminates well the ways in which human minds are influenced, and how we go about making decisions in a biomechanical sense, justifying our passions through real and false logic。 What I found so chilling was the non-stop evidentiary display of not why people are divided, but rather of how incapable some people are of change or growth, despite their own legitimate best efforts。 Haidt dives deeply into the centers of our emotional and informational processing。 He examines the major ways in which humans evaluate benefit, loyalty and other deep-seated values and beliefs, going to effort to keep his own bias out of his presentation, or at least call himself out when he notices his own errors。 I could not bring myself to some of the author's own conclusions about the hopeful possibilities of human nature and utilizing what he describes as our "hive switch" to manifest great boons to our societies。 However, I did find myself doubting some of my own initial assumptions and learning to see the world in a different, and I feel valuable, way。 I felt the information was presented in a stellar fashion, and largely accessible to the average reader。 。。。more

Liam

While far from perfect, I found this book to be a powerful, thought-provoking read, and one that changed my mind and my understanding of morality。 The book convincingly describes how our moral judgements are innately made by our intuition (then followed by post-hoc justification), how difficult it is to change one's moral opinion from their initial intuition (albeit, more difficult for some than others), and how one's genes make them predisposed to certain political leanings。 I also appreciated While far from perfect, I found this book to be a powerful, thought-provoking read, and one that changed my mind and my understanding of morality。 The book convincingly describes how our moral judgements are innately made by our intuition (then followed by post-hoc justification), how difficult it is to change one's moral opinion from their initial intuition (albeit, more difficult for some than others), and how one's genes make them predisposed to certain political leanings。 I also appreciated Haidt's descriptions of 'Moral Foundation Theory' (how conservatives tend to value Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity equally with Fairness, Care, and Oppression; whereas leftists tend to only care about the later three)。 While it may be somewhat self-evident, its clear that people still tend to ignore this all the time (e。g。 Leftist parties tend to neglect calls to Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity in their messaging when they could do so easily with different framing, likely hindering their ability of getting votes from a large segment of the population)。I did find that Haidt had a tendency to give straw man arguments to those with dissenting opinions against his narrative, and I found myself disagreeing with a host of his opinions and some of his interpretations, but in the end I thought it was very much worth the while。 。。。more

Yanjun Liang

Mmm, I’m not so sure about a book that was trying to convince the audience instead of stating stats or facts and let the readers judge by themselves …。 it is also very uncomfortable for me when the author said he started to embrace part of the India culture after living there for 3 months。 I’ve been to India and I can never imagine myself accepting putting people into different castes from birth and the deprivation coming with it, as well as the defecation and garbages on the streets…。。I really Mmm, I’m not so sure about a book that was trying to convince the audience instead of stating stats or facts and let the readers judge by themselves …。 it is also very uncomfortable for me when the author said he started to embrace part of the India culture after living there for 3 months。 I’ve been to India and I can never imagine myself accepting putting people into different castes from birth and the deprivation coming with it, as well as the defecation and garbages on the streets…。。I really hate when the western world fantasizing the often times brutal tradition of a developing context… in sum…。 I didn’t enjoy the book very much, but I at least learnt that psychology is not my type。 。。。more

Meghan

Thought provoking, interesting, lots of pieces。

chcubic

I am not from the US, and thus don't care much about the content related to the specific moral systems of Democrats and of Republicans。 Many reviewers seem to be infuriated because they think the author is providing some justification for the Republicans。 I don't think that's his intention: who tells you a more "balanced" moral system must be "better"? That's not his point。 He just want to show the difference in moral systems through some quantitative way, which enables him to do some experiment I am not from the US, and thus don't care much about the content related to the specific moral systems of Democrats and of Republicans。 Many reviewers seem to be infuriated because they think the author is providing some justification for the Republicans。 I don't think that's his intention: who tells you a more "balanced" moral system must be "better"? That's not his point。 He just want to show the difference in moral systems through some quantitative way, which enables him to do some experiments with measurable data。The most valuable part of the book, in my opinion, is how he apply the "decision first, reasoning (a。k。a。 finding excuse) second" principle to political psychology。 The principle should be familiar for people who are interested in cognitive sciences, and it's nice to see the discovery being popularized。 It is also reassuring to see people who are over-confident in (especially their own) reason and science, such as the New Atheist, get the criticism they deserve。 The author doesn't denigrate science at all (unlike the claim of some reviewers) ー remember, he himself is a scientist ー he just points out personal cognitive processes are usually impulsive and biased。 As a collective and accumulative activity science can still make amazing progress。 However, when it comes to biology, evolution, and sometimes even anthropology, sometimes the author falls into the trap he himself criticized。 He is too fervid about some idea such as group selection (which I am not against) and usually jumps to conclusion too quickly without checking to make his scenario to be feasible what should be the range of the related parameters (e。g。 heritability, strength and duration of selection, etc。)。 He also has the tendency to put too much confidence in how genes determine behavior, such as a "hive switch" to make people more cooperative。 Behavior is malleable in response to environment, the same man can behave very differently depending on the number of interactants。 Many collective behavior doesn't necessarily require a change in genes at individual level: all you need is enough people。 Without the quantitative rigor in theory and wider consideration, many of his evolution arguments turn out to be just-so stories。 。。。more