Fantastic Four by Jonathan Hickman Omnibus Vol. 1

Fantastic Four by Jonathan Hickman Omnibus Vol. 1

  • Downloads:3679
  • Type:Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date:2021-04-07 15:51:55
  • Update Date:2025-09-06
  • Status:finish
  • Author:Jonathan Hickman
  • ISBN:1302932403
  • Environment:PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle

Summary

Why can’t our political leaders work together as threats loom and problems mount? Why do people so readily assume the worst about the motives of their fellow citizens? In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explores the origins of our divisions and points the way forward to mutual understanding。

His starting point is moral intuition—the nearly instantaneous perceptions we all have about other people and the things they do。 These intuitions feel like self-evident truths, making us righteously certain that those who see things differently are wrong。 Haidt shows us how these intuitions differ across cultures, including the cultures of the political left and right。 He blends his own research findings with those of anthropologists, historians, and other psychologists to draw a map of the moral domain。 He then examines the origins of morality, overturning the view that evolution made us fundamentally selfish creatures。 But rather than arguing that we are innately altruistic, he makes a more subtle claim—that we are fundamentally groupish。 It is our groupishness, he explains, that leads to our greatest joys, our religious divisions, and our political affiliations。 In a stunning final chapter on ideology and civility, Haidt shows what each side is right about, and why we need the insights of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians to flourish as a nation。

Download

Reviews

Kenna

This book is an insightful and unbiased look into political group thinking。 It also has given me very important information。 Did you know that counties with Cracker Barrels are 62% more likely to be conservative than ones that don't? I do now! This book is an insightful and unbiased look into political group thinking。 It also has given me very important information。 Did you know that counties with Cracker Barrels are 62% more likely to be conservative than ones that don't? I do now! 。。。more

Leanne

This read like a romp through sociology。 Not really about relating to the facist lean toward mind manipulation and its toxicity and violence in the 21st Century。

L

didn't finish didn't finish 。。。more

Olwen

This is a great book to read if you want to understand why people can seem to be so fixed in their perceptions of the world, and why we all are。 There is a lot of information to take in, but the author has developed some analogies that make this complicated mess much easier to understand。

Marco Matos

Em 'The Righteous Mind', Jonathan Haidt percorre o campo da psicologia evolutiva e da psicologia moral para responder a uma simoles mas complexa questão: porque é que as pessoas ficam divididas e não conseguem chegar a um middle ground devido às suas crenças políticas e religiosas, ou seja, às suas crenças morais。 Haidt começa por avançar que, ao contrário dos racioanlistas dos anos 60 e 70 acreditavam, novos estudos começam a demonstrar como primeiro temos intuições morais e só depois fazemos u Em 'The Righteous Mind', Jonathan Haidt percorre o campo da psicologia evolutiva e da psicologia moral para responder a uma simoles mas complexa questão: porque é que as pessoas ficam divididas e não conseguem chegar a um middle ground devido às suas crenças políticas e religiosas, ou seja, às suas crenças morais。 Haidt começa por avançar que, ao contrário dos racioanlistas dos anos 60 e 70 acreditavam, novos estudos começam a demonstrar como primeiro temos intuições morais e só depois fazemos uma racionalização post hoc dessas mesmas intuições, para podermos validar o nosso ponto e convencermos os outros e nós mesmos da sua validade。 Assim, a demanda pela verdade objetiva não se verifica, já que a capacidade de argumentação moral do ser humano evoluiu apenas para que a espécie com mais chances de explicar e influenciar com a sua visão do mundo conseguisse melhor argumentação e, assim, melhor sobrevivência。Dito isto, o autor procura entender de que forma pensam os diferentes quadrantes políticos e porque assim pensam。 Faz então uma teoria das fundações morais, que se agregará à sua análise intuitiva, para poder verificar se os quadrantes têm espectros morais difernetes。 Divide a moralidade em 6 fundações: care; fairness; authority; loyalty; sanctity e liberty/oppression。 Conclui então que a mente liberal (progressitas na Europa) tem um maior valor de 3 destes espectros morais: care - a sua preocupação com os pobres e minorias étnicas; fairness - a procura de uma certa equidade social pela redistribuição do dinheiro; liberty/oppression - a crença de que certos grupos são oprimidos pela superestrutura da sociedade。Pelo contrário, os conservadores têm todos os 5 eixos morais, apesar de terem menos dos dois primeiros que os liberais: care - Por aqueles dentro do seu grupo, que protege a todo o custo; fairness - quem trabalha deve ganhar o seu dinheiro, quem não trabalha não deve, pelo que o estado se deve manter longe da economia; authority - é necessária uma certa hierarquia de poder para manter a coesão social; loyalty - o indivíduo deve-se sacrificar pelo bem do grupo onde pertencer e seguir o seu eixo moral; sanctity - devem-se manter os valores divinos de certas crenças, como a família e a religião pois estas servem de motor à sociedade; liberty/opression - o ser deve ter a maior liberdade econômica possível, mas seguir o seu potencial dentro de uma estrutura social bem construída。O facto de haver um overlap e os conservadores terem uma visão da moral mais alargada faz com que seja mais complicado para os liberais entenderem os conservadores que vice versa。 Pode parecer, numa visão de fora, que estes querem só o mal para o país e para a sociedade。Por fim, com base em Durkheim e Darwin, Haidt demonstra em como a nossa sociedade faz uma evolução em dois niveis: o individuo e o grupo。 Sendo o grupo necessário, mas sendo que o individuo deve também se potencializar, o caminho politicamente saudável seria no debate de ideias livre entre um e outro espectro, visto ser importante progredir e transgredir certas estruturas opressoras, como acredita a esquerda, mas sendo também importante a noção de que toda a sociedade está baseada num conjunto de crenças comuns que lhe servem como motor e que não devem ser apagadas de um momento para o outro, pois ajudam à colaboração do grupo social, como acreditam os conservadores。 。。。more

Griff

Very compelling moral psychology book that my partner and I discuss frequently。 This book is dense with ideas and theses that can stoke great conversation and interesting takeaways。 I have to agree with what many other readers have observed, that the author does more to defend conservative points of view, and glorifies their 'moral matrix' more than the good people on the other side, which Haidt views to be composed of 'liberals', not 'progressives' as may be more fitting in this time and place。 Very compelling moral psychology book that my partner and I discuss frequently。 This book is dense with ideas and theses that can stoke great conversation and interesting takeaways。 I have to agree with what many other readers have observed, that the author does more to defend conservative points of view, and glorifies their 'moral matrix' more than the good people on the other side, which Haidt views to be composed of 'liberals', not 'progressives' as may be more fitting in this time and place。 Haidt builds upon some assumptions that I could never take seriously, but also legitimately opened my mind to appreciating the ways that others do, in fact have a different moral core。A very interesting read that alternates from a 5 to 2 star book based on how much 'both sides-ism' the author is interested in defending and advocating for in that particular segment。 。。。more

Omar Fernández

If you ever thought to yourself "that sounds true, but it feels wrong so it must be missing something" you understand what's at the heart of this book。 A few key things I learned or reiterated: 1) People make up their minds first using intuition and their gut。 Then they build rationalizations to explain their feelings。 Rarely will they change their original position, rather they will look for arguments that confirm their initial position。 2) People's intuition may be wired differently to respond If you ever thought to yourself "that sounds true, but it feels wrong so it must be missing something" you understand what's at the heart of this book。 A few key things I learned or reiterated: 1) People make up their minds first using intuition and their gut。 Then they build rationalizations to explain their feelings。 Rarely will they change their original position, rather they will look for arguments that confirm their initial position。 2) People's intuition may be wired differently to respond to different ideals, which explains why their intuition and gut reactions diverge。 The author spends a lot of time talking about 3 aspects more conservative people tend to weigh more heavily: loyalty, authority, and sanctity。 He goes into the research behind these factors。 3) The author makes a sort of plea to show that there is value on both sides of the liberal/conservative narrative。 He tells conservatives to appreciate the value of government in dealing with 'externalities' or side effects that corporations wouldn't deal with when unregulated。 The author also asks liberals to appreciate the detrimental effects of pushing for change, particularly as it relates to 'moral capital', that is, the benefit that a group has when they have a shared set of values/culture。 A push for diversity often reduces moral capital, which can be costly to groups。 Going back to point #1, I'd be remiss not to point out that after reading the book I find that it rings true, but that it must be missing something because a few things don't feel right。 I suspect that the morality matrix the author talks about with ~6 different ideals is likely incomplete or unfairly making it feel that every ideal is as important as the rest。 I feel that reality is more nuanced than that, and the categorization may just be an academic exercise we'll learn more about over time。 However, I think that it deserves a solid 4 stars for asking everyone to rethink their positions about those on 'the other side'。 They aren't dumb or uninformed, they may just have different ideals they value more。 As such, any appeals to change should focus on those ideals and how they are helped/threatened。 。。。more

Ben Clark

"A landmark contribution to humanity's understanding of itself" On the front cover sums it up very well, with this book we can be a little less wrong。Great neutralising content generally based on Moral Psychology and Sociology offering some great theories and ideas backed up with studies and experiments。 Fantastically articulating (I would imagine) a lot of people's intuitions and instincts。It might be possible to get a bit turned off by the over-generalisation with words like "liberals", "conse "A landmark contribution to humanity's understanding of itself" On the front cover sums it up very well, with this book we can be a little less wrong。Great neutralising content generally based on Moral Psychology and Sociology offering some great theories and ideas backed up with studies and experiments。 Fantastically articulating (I would imagine) a lot of people's intuitions and instincts。It might be possible to get a bit turned off by the over-generalisation with words like "liberals", "conservatives" etc but always found Haidt to be a super smart guy and for me this was just for the sake of discussion。Read Happiness Hypothesis by Haidt already and will certainly be reading more。 。。。more

Cindy

This is probably one of the most fascinating books that I have ever read。

Yasmine Ahmaribaf

Zeer interessant boek! De auteur probeert in zijn boek uit te leggen waar onze morele/politieke voorkeuren vandaan komen。 Liberalen scoren over het algemeen hoger op Openness to new experience, maken zich meer zorgen over minderheden en hun morele impulsen komen volgens de schrijver vooral voort uit het ‘Harm/care’ principe。 Conservatieven scoren hoger op conscientiousness, zijn gevoeliger voor disgust en hebben volgens de schrijver een breder moreel kompas dan liberalen (sanctity, loyalty en au Zeer interessant boek! De auteur probeert in zijn boek uit te leggen waar onze morele/politieke voorkeuren vandaan komen。 Liberalen scoren over het algemeen hoger op Openness to new experience, maken zich meer zorgen over minderheden en hun morele impulsen komen volgens de schrijver vooral voort uit het ‘Harm/care’ principe。 Conservatieven scoren hoger op conscientiousness, zijn gevoeliger voor disgust en hebben volgens de schrijver een breder moreel kompas dan liberalen (sanctity, loyalty en authority)。 Genen hebben meer invloed dan opvoeding, en mensen zijn zeer intuïtieve wezens die vaak achteraf pas hun ideeën goedpraten。 Tot slot zijn mensen niet perse selfish, maar “group-ish” (we stemmen wat goed is voor onze groep)。 Religie, culturen, landen etc hebben hier evolutionair een grote rol in gespeeld。 Al hoewel ik het boek licht biased vond (de schrijver lijkt zeer beïnvloed te zijn door Emile Durkheim) en lang niet overal mee eens was, merk ik wel dat ik meer begrip heb gekregen voor conservatieven。 Daarnaast ben ik het wel eens met de boodschap die de schrijver op het einde gaf: schrijf mensen met een ander moreel matrix dan jij niet gelijk af als ‘immoreel en onethisch’, maar luister naar wat ze te zeggen hebben en geef ze een kans。 。。。more

Hamed

از جنبه خوب: هاید به طور گسترده ای از تحقیقات در روانشناسی ، انسان شناسی و زیست شناسی برای ایجاد مبنای شش عاملی برای اخلاق (مراقبت / آسیب ، آزادی / ظلم ، انصاف / تقلب ، وفاداری / خیانت ، اقتدار / براندازی ، تقدس/ تخریب) ) ، و نشان می دهد که قضاوت اخلاقی یک توانایی شهودی ذاتی همراه با توجیهات پس از وقوع است。 اخلاق به منزله پیوند دادن گروههای غیر مرتبط در جامعه با یکدیگر است و مهارتهای اخلاقی توسط مکانیسمهای تکاملی مختلفی بوجود می اید。 هاید سپس نشان داد که لیبرالیسم فقط از سه عامل اخلاقی استفاده م از جنبه خوب: هاید به طور گسترده ای از تحقیقات در روانشناسی ، انسان شناسی و زیست شناسی برای ایجاد مبنای شش عاملی برای اخلاق (مراقبت / آسیب ، آزادی / ظلم ، انصاف / تقلب ، وفاداری / خیانت ، اقتدار / براندازی ، تقدس/ تخریب) ) ، و نشان می دهد که قضاوت اخلاقی یک توانایی شهودی ذاتی همراه با توجیهات پس از وقوع است。 اخلاق به منزله پیوند دادن گروههای غیر مرتبط در جامعه با یکدیگر است و مهارتهای اخلاقی توسط مکانیسمهای تکاملی مختلفی بوجود می اید。 هاید سپس نشان داد که لیبرالیسم فقط از سه عامل اخلاقی استفاده می کند در حالی که محافظه کاری از هر شش عامل ناشی می شود。 این امر هم تفاوت بین لیبرال ها و محافظه کاران را توضیح می دهد و هم اینکه چرا محافظه کاران در انتخابات نظرسنجی ها لیبرال ها را میبرندد。 نویسنده به پرسش اصلی پاسخی نمیدهد: آیا یک سیستم سیاسی دموکراتیک، می تواند از نظر رویه ای تصمیم گیری بر اساس هر شش عامل اخلاقی حفظ کند؟ مراقبت / آسیب ، آزادی / ستم ، و انصاف / تقلب از عوامل جهانی هستند。 همه از آنها استفاده می کنند و ما بیشتر در مورد تایید یا نقض آنها توافق داریم。 سه عامل بعدی برای هر فرهنگ و هر فردی متفاوت هستند。یکی از نکات جذاب کتاب برای من شرح چگونگی تکامل گروهها و همچنین نقش مذهب در تکامل بشر و حفظ انسجام گروه ها بود。دیدگاههای کتاب خوبند ولی اندکی سخت خوان بود。 。。。more

Alex Kahn

Descriptive analysis of dual-process morality and multi-dimensional Moral Foundations Theory。 Advocates for political consideration of 3 major perspectives: progressive, libertarian, conservative。

Kamile Pudzemyte

3 ½ stars。 Loved the idea, it's really thought-provoking, really did affect my thinking。 However the book seemed a little one-sided (aimed at liberals), some of the research and studies weren't convincing (some conclusions were misinformed apparently。。), it felt that the author was using confirmation bias in some instances。 Also, not sure I totally agree with the moral foundation theory described, sometimes it seemed it only serves to prove the point of the book, did not convince me completely。 3 ½ stars。 Loved the idea, it's really thought-provoking, really did affect my thinking。 However the book seemed a little one-sided (aimed at liberals), some of the research and studies weren't convincing (some conclusions were misinformed apparently。。), it felt that the author was using confirmation bias in some instances。 Also, not sure I totally agree with the moral foundation theory described, sometimes it seemed it only serves to prove the point of the book, did not convince me completely。 Overall a great book, well worth a read。 I might change my rating after thinking about it more。 。。。more

Sam

This wasn't bad, but was more clinical than I was hoping for。 This wasn't bad, but was more clinical than I was hoping for。 。。。more

Ronald Schoedel III

Before one participates in a single additional political debate on Facebook, or in the comment section, on Twitter or anywhere else, one really should read this book。 You might come to realize that everybody who doesn’t 100% agree with you is not an ignorant, unpatriotic, and stupid schmuck。

Chelsae

4。5 stars- highly recommend to anyone tired of political entrenchment and division。 Haidt is a liberal, atheist, evolutionary psychologist。。。 as pretty much the opposite, I fundamentally disagreed with many of his presuppositions and some his conclusions。 But he does an excellent job describing the divide between left and right and reasons behind the breakdown。 His moral foundations theory is fascinating and helpful as a descriptor of our “moral tastebuds。” I listened to the audiobook, which he 4。5 stars- highly recommend to anyone tired of political entrenchment and division。 Haidt is a liberal, atheist, evolutionary psychologist。。。 as pretty much the opposite, I fundamentally disagreed with many of his presuppositions and some his conclusions。 But he does an excellent job describing the divide between left and right and reasons behind the breakdown。 His moral foundations theory is fascinating and helpful as a descriptor of our “moral tastebuds。” I listened to the audiobook, which he narrated- I found him engaging and winsome。 As a psychologist I loved his exploration of various research studies- I think he covers challenging material like any skilled and engaging professor would, making it accessible while informative。 I think this is a great book for anyone interested in civics and civility。。。 。。。more

Mike Degen

Relevant arguments on morality even though I’m sure Sokol would disagree

Abhishek Agarwal

I found a significant overlap with "The Selfish Gene" and "Sapient" in third part of the book, which frankly was most interesting part。 The author tried to argue for group selection or multi-level evolution, but it seemed like the specific behaviors he was looking for (which he calls "hive" behavior) can clearly be derived from gene-selection itself。 The theory of genetic basis for ideology is interesting, not sure how it can be better tested。 I found a significant overlap with "The Selfish Gene" and "Sapient" in third part of the book, which frankly was most interesting part。 The author tried to argue for group selection or multi-level evolution, but it seemed like the specific behaviors he was looking for (which he calls "hive" behavior) can clearly be derived from gene-selection itself。 The theory of genetic basis for ideology is interesting, not sure how it can be better tested。 。。。more

Book Dragon

This book was gifted to me by my wife on Christmas primarily due to my growing interest in psychology, religion, politics and the fact that I have been sort of puzzled over the uber-polarization of our political discourse。 This book is split into three parts:In the first part of the book the author presents a theory that when it comes to moral decision making, we tend to make decisions based on our intuitions rather than strategic reasoning。 Haidt uses a metaphor for an elephant and a rider to d This book was gifted to me by my wife on Christmas primarily due to my growing interest in psychology, religion, politics and the fact that I have been sort of puzzled over the uber-polarization of our political discourse。 This book is split into three parts:In the first part of the book the author presents a theory that when it comes to moral decision making, we tend to make decisions based on our intuitions rather than strategic reasoning。 Haidt uses a metaphor for an elephant and a rider to describe intuitions and strategic reasoning, respectively。 Haidt goes a bit deeper and discusses the fact that the majority of our decisions are not made to find the truth but to prove others that we are right。  Instead of searching for the truth like a scientist, we form a narrative and send out our strategic reasoning to confirm our narrative like a politician (Yes we are all guilty of confirmation bias)。In the second part of the book, the author delves into the Moral Foundation Theory。 The author discusses that based on people's personalities, they can be predisposed to be either Conservative or Liberal。 In this part the author also introduces six moral foundations and takes us through how liberals and conservatives perform in each of these moral foundations - Care/Harm, Liberty/Oppression, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/subversion, Sanctity/Degradation。 In the last part Haidt talks about how humans are "Homo-Duplex" i。e。, we are 90% Chimps and 10% Bees。 What the author means by that we are inherently selfish and do what's in our self interest (Chimp analogy) but he also argues that humans embrace altruism when involved in group selection(Bee analogy)。 This is an interesting concept because humans we had to behave in a cohesive way to compete against other groups to survive over the years for the limited available resources。 So why was this book important for me? Over the years I somewhat struggled to communicate with friends and family in political discussions。 I'd like to think I am well read and understand the nuances of various topics, but at times it was gut wrenching to be ostracized for holding certain values and beliefs。 What I failed to realize is that everyone around me (including myself) was slowly getting more polarized and started to move away from partisan politics to the more parochial form of politics。 In my case, the paradigm shift was more or less driven by social media which in my opinion has turned everyone into a somewhat of a politician。 Instead of trying to find pragmatic solutions that a democracy should be able to reach, we are focused on prosecuting the other side of the story。  The author also sheds light on the fact that it is perfectly fine to lean left and have more people lean left than right i。e。, we don't need balance but what we do need is the  complete absence of orthodoxy。 The orthodoxy means that if you dissent - you will be punished, which is fine if you are an army marching in a cohesive manner, but not as a scientist seeking truth。 This last sentence resonated a lot with me as I believe the society is gearing more towards kowtowing rather than having a rational and constructive argument。 The following quote apt summarizes the dilemma fairly well “You can’t make a dog happy by forcibly wagging its tail。 And you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments。” This book has forced me to behave more like a scientist where I will attempt to weigh the strength of opposing logic and evidence before making any conclusion。 Even though this book has more takeaways for liberals, I'd recommend this book to moderates, libertarians and conservatives。 Instead of division, we should try to find similarities among people to make any progress because as the chinese philosophy states we need both Yin and Yang to move forward。 。。。more

Leia

Timely and important。 I found myself defensive at times which tells me I still have room to grow in peace making and welcoming other viewpoints。

Tracy

I love to read books that help me understand why people act the way they do。 This has been on my to read list for several years。 It isn't an easy read as the author has to lay the groundwork to explain why people are divided。 He uses the book to explain why moral psychology is the key to understanding our differences in politics and religion。First he explains what moral psychology is and its principles: Intuitions com first, strategic reasoning second; There's more to morality than harm and fair I love to read books that help me understand why people act the way they do。 This has been on my to read list for several years。 It isn't an easy read as the author has to lay the groundwork to explain why people are divided。 He uses the book to explain why moral psychology is the key to understanding our differences in politics and religion。First he explains what moral psychology is and its principles: Intuitions com first, strategic reasoning second; There's more to morality than harm and fairness; and Morality binds and blinds。One of my favorite parts of the book is where he discusses how people become liberal or conservative。 There are three steps that are broken down into: genes make brains, traits guide children along different paths, and people construct life narratives。 Then, liberals and conservatives place different values on the six items in the moral matrix: care/harm; liberty/oppression; fairness/cheating; loyalty/betrayal; authority/subversion; and sanctity/degradation。 From Haidt's research, liberals generally have as their most sacred value care for the victims of oppression (a joining of the first two items on the matrix) and then fairness/cheating as a less strong value。 The values of loyalty, authority, and sanctity are nowhere as strong。 The conservative moral matrix's most sacred value is preserve the institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community (which is a combination of all six values)。 These differences cause people to not understand that both sides have people with valid points that are worthy of actually listening to and trying to understand。 。。。more

Zuzana Struháriková

。。。a aj táto kniha prispela k tomu, že sa postupne vzdávam akýchkoľvek politických debát s ľuďmi z iného voličského spektra。 Aby došlo k zmene názoru, sú totiž potrebné iné, oveľa závažnejšie okolnosti, než len dobromyseľné presvedčovacie metódy pri pive。 Oh, well。。。 :),,Ľudia chcú pôsobiť, že majú pravdu, nepotrebujú ju aj skutočne mať。 。。。 Naše morálne zmýšľanie možno skôr prirovnať k politikovi snažiacemu sa získať čo najviac voličských hlasov než k vedcovi, ktorý sa snaží pravdu nájsť。" (s。 。。。a aj táto kniha prispela k tomu, že sa postupne vzdávam akýchkoľvek politických debát s ľuďmi z iného voličského spektra。 Aby došlo k zmene názoru, sú totiž potrebné iné, oveľa závažnejšie okolnosti, než len dobromyseľné presvedčovacie metódy pri pive。 Oh, well。。。 :),,Ľudia chcú pôsobiť, že majú pravdu, nepotrebujú ju aj skutočne mať。 。。。 Naše morálne zmýšľanie možno skôr prirovnať k politikovi snažiacemu sa získať čo najviac voličských hlasov než k vedcovi, ktorý sa snaží pravdu nájsť。" (s。 89),,Ľudia netúžia po rovnosti z dôvodu jej všeobecného úžitku; bojujú za ňu spravidla vtedy, keď nadobudnú pocit, že oni sami sú obeťami šikany či nadradenosti zo strany niekoho iného。" (s。 212) 。。。more

Matthew Chua

A work of marvelous synthesis, it's impact is in its immediate applicability in one's understanding of, and interaction with, the social, political currents of the times。 A work of marvelous synthesis, it's impact is in its immediate applicability in one's understanding of, and interaction with, the social, political currents of the times。 。。。more

Leora Wenger

I will save you the trouble of reading this book。 The title is quite enticing: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion。You would think the author had done a bit of research on religion with a title like that。Page 13: "Why do 。。。 Jews believe that 'cleanliness is next to godliness'"? I have studied Judaism for many years -- never learned such a thing。 The footnote just lists Leviticus。 Um that is quite a large book。 He clearly has no idea of what the Oral Torah is (see the Talmud -- I will save you the trouble of reading this book。 The title is quite enticing: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion。You would think the author had done a bit of research on religion with a title like that。Page 13: "Why do 。。。 Jews believe that 'cleanliness is next to godliness'"? I have studied Judaism for many years -- never learned such a thing。 The footnote just lists Leviticus。 Um that is quite a large book。 He clearly has no idea of what the Oral Torah is (see the Talmud -- if you think Leviticus is long, try studying one daf of gemarah)。 This is what I call lazy research。 And people accept it because it is what they want to hear。The only piece of the book of the book that I found beneficial was this:"If you want your kids to learn about the social world, let them play with other kids and resolve disputes。" Good idea before learning the rules of resolving disputes - maybe the gemarah Sanhedrin or Eruvin? Has the author studied those? 。。。more

Rhonda

Gained insight from this book。

Jennifer

While I disagree with the author’s overall conclusions about what the best moral combinations are, I did find it very valuable to think about people’s differences as a result of having different moral priorities。 And that we must understand that people feel first, and rationalize later。

Ginger

Haidt has answered, for me, the question I so often asked, "How can they think like that?!??" as I dug in my heels in belief in the righteousness of "my" end of the political spectrum。 Haidt has answered, for me, the question I so often asked, "How can they think like that?!??" as I dug in my heels in belief in the righteousness of "my" end of the political spectrum。 。。。more

Nita

I couldn't finish this book。Haidt does a decent job when he is talking about the psychology behind decision making and what drives our ability to decide if actions are morally right or wrong。 He lost me when the book turned into partisan drivel。 His excuse of "They meant well" to explain why oppressive acts were morally okay was just outrageous。 I went into this book with high hopes。 I enjoyed the beginning where he talked about some of his research。 He lost me when he tried to use that research I couldn't finish this book。Haidt does a decent job when he is talking about the psychology behind decision making and what drives our ability to decide if actions are morally right or wrong。 He lost me when the book turned into partisan drivel。 His excuse of "They meant well" to explain why oppressive acts were morally okay was just outrageous。 I went into this book with high hopes。 I enjoyed the beginning where he talked about some of his research。 He lost me when he tried to use that research to justify oppression。 。。。more

Jiaxin

Rating: 3。5/5

Joshua Swift

If ever I am asked to recommend just a single book, from now on it will probably be this one。 Haidt's clear prose and thoughtful explanations reveal a vast depth of knowledge, spanning not just moral psychology, but also evolution, religion, social science and philosophy。 Truly an inspiring and perspective changing book。 If ever I am asked to recommend just a single book, from now on it will probably be this one。 Haidt's clear prose and thoughtful explanations reveal a vast depth of knowledge, spanning not just moral psychology, but also evolution, religion, social science and philosophy。 Truly an inspiring and perspective changing book。 。。。more