The Righteous Mind

Fundamentally changed my thinking

This book only earned its fifth star from me a week after I finished it and I realized it had changed the way I think about other humans.

Reading political arguments on Facebook, I've started thinking about everyone's position in terms of the underlying values Haidt identifies. It is particularly valuable to me to understand the impact that "sacred" ideas have on people's thinking. Surface-level logic won't help to budge a person if it contradicts what's sacred to them, so either arguments need to work with that, or strong emotional tools are necessary that can reach and adjust that sacred value itself. It's a simple but profound insight that will influence how I do my job for years to come, so a book that accomplishes that deserves five stars.

The first few chapters alone are worth the price of the book. If you ever want to convince anyone of anything, understanding the power of our emotional instincts and how our logical mind works to rationalize them is necessary.

I will quibble with a few things. It is unclear whether the author believes there truly are six distinct moral frameworks that have separately and physically evolved in the mind, or whether this is just a useful artificial system of categories to help understand a much more complex underlying moral system. The conflation of what's real and what's a useful abstraction leads to some sloppy thinking. He assumes that each moral framework are set up as binaries (good v. bad) without defending why the brain would work that way. So, for example, he suggests our sense of sacredness can only exist if we have a sense of disgust to contrast it. Maybe, maybe not. The fact he offered no evidence suggests the idea is so embedded in his thinking he doesn't realize it's an empirical question.

Heidt is also, at times, slips into relativism, suggesting (I think without meaning to) that understanding why someone believes something is right or wrong is to justify that moral belief. Better understanding why people believe what they do is valuable for moving issues forward. It does not require that we respect or agree with throwing acid in women's faces or treating lower classes with discrimination. While he himself makes this point late in the book, he avoidably crosses the line into relativism more than once early on.

He spends the latter part of the book defending the value of religion as a group adaptation to allow humans to work together more effectively. Some of his evidence here feels flaky, like the powerful common feeling ravers feel while dancing. While ravers like to suggest they are building a stronger sense of common humanity, because that idea makes them feel good, I have first-hand experience to suggest that this is bullshit. His conclusions are compelling and suggest a need for atheists to think about accomplishing what religion does by other means, but as the cliché goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. More work needs to be done on the evidence.

This should give you pause.

I just finish this book and I have to admit it give me a great deal of pause As a liberal thinker, i've tried to fully understand the counterpoints to liberalism. And sometimes find myself wondering "why would anybody want to be a conservative?" Well, I seem to understand better now. Not that I'm going to abandon liberalism, but rather try to understand conservatism better.

Necessary book for a divided people

I'm so glad I heard this book during the 2016 U.S. election season. We are a divided people, and if we're going to move forward we need to find our way back to an understanding of each other. If you want to try to understand people who think differently than you, buy this book. You'll probably come away knowing more about yourself too.

Even if you don't agree with all his conclusions, the information in here's too important to skip over! I have heard some other evolutionary psychology books, so I wondered if this would just be redundant, but it wasn't. It really brings the evo psych knowledge to bear on political and social problems. Also the most convincing argument for group selection I've heard. But I think this would also make a great introduction if you've never heard any evolutionary psychology before. I intend to foist it on my unsuspecting husband next road trip.

Jonathan Haidt (pronounced like 'height', btw, not 'hate') gets an extra star on the performance because he actually verbally describes photos, charts, and graphs (!) as well as making sure they are available online. He must be an audiobook listener himself.

I was Made to Disagree with my Father.

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

In 'The Righteous Mind', Haidt isn't seeking simply to explain why some people vote Left and others vote Right, or why some people believe in God A and other believe in God B. Haidt's bigger purpose is to explain how we are all hardwired to use reason NOT to MAKE our moral decisions/choices, but rather to use reason to BUTTRESS the choices (about God, politics, etc) that we've already made.

While I think his approach is a bit too simplistic, I still use his Moral Foundations Theory to explain why my father and I might have some overlap in values but different political views. I like the whole matrix of:

1. Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.
2. Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)
3. Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.
4. Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)
5. Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)
6. Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)

Do I agree that liberals rank certain of these values higher than conservatives? Yes.
Do I agree that conservatives might value some of these foundational values more than liberals? Yes.
Do I agree that this list is the end-all, be-all of our Moral compass? No.

I think this is a good beginning. It is another social science draft that gives another way to look at how we think, how our thinking has evolved, and how we interact with each other. Any theory involving the human brain is bound to be a bit of a game in the dark. I think there are answers and many of the answers are compelling, but not all answers will be final or correct.

Look, there were certain parts of this book that just felt right, so I will spend a bit of time building a rational reason why it feels right and then post that reason on Audible.

Why Good People Are Divided - Good for whom?

By and large, I think this is a good and even an important book. In it, Haidt very clearly lays out the research that supports the view that human beings have been endowed by evolution with 6 moral intuitions, or foundations. The moral intuitions are innate, which Haidt clearly explains does not mean fixed and immutable, but, rather, arranged in advance of experience. We don't all have a fixed set of moral intuitions, but there is a limited palate from which experience may paint the picture of how we perceive the world.

The most important part of Haidt's research and the argument of this book is that liberal and conservatives share these moral intuitions but tend to emphasize them very differently, and it is the different emphases that cause the divisions among us. In brief, liberals tend to assign moral weight to issues of justice (is it fair - does everyone have an equal chance) and harm/care (does it cause harm to another - bad; or does it help another - good). Conservatives share these intuitions, but their take on justice is different. For a conservative, justice is determined by proportionality. Each according to his/ her contribution, not his/ her need. In addition, everyone, but conservatives to a much greater extent than liberals, also feel that questions of loyalty (to one's group/family/country), authority (obedience), and purity/ sanctity (as in not mixing this with that) are moral issues. A sixth intuition concerns liberty. Here again, however, liberals and conservatives differ in how they think about liberty. Liberals wish to be free of constraints applied by other members of the group, while conservatives think of liberty as freedom from government.

As a framework for parsing arguments between liberals and conservatives, I think this is extraordinarily helpful. What Haidt and colleagues argue is that when we disagree with our ideological counterparts, the disagreements arise from differences in the weight we apply to these moral intuitions. For liberals, there really are just two primary moral issues, fairness and harm/care, while conservatives also value authority, loyalty, purity and liberty to a great extent.

Importantly, Haidt argues that each of the moral intuitions has been vital to the evolution of human culture. While those among us who are liberals care more about justice and care, without the other intuitions, we would never have achieved the groupishness and hence the culture that separates humans from other animals. It is primarily the conservative intuitions that have been responsible for providing the glue that held groups together over our evolutionary history, and it is as groups that human beings have generated a culture that has distanced us from our primitive ape cousins.

Not much to take issue with there.

Ultimately, however, Haidt explains that his study of morality produced in him a sort of conversion from liberal to moderately conservative, having discovered the value of groupish moral intuitions. He also cites research showing that conservatives are better able to take the view of a liberal into account that vice versa, and invites liberals to try to broaden their view to include these other intuitions. His suggestion in this book and elsewhere is that more conservative voices should be added to the intellectual debate over the role of moral intuitions in society.

So here's my problem with that. 1) I am liberal and have a hard time, as he says, understanding how the groupish intuitions might continue to retain their value as moral intuitions in the modern world. It seems to me that many of our greatest problems today have to do with the oversized role of these moral intuitions in buttressing parochial concerns (issues of importance to my group only), leading to inter-group conflict.
2) I am a member of a group (gays) that has been and still is legally disenfranchised in this country, and that disenfranchisement is largely justified by referral to the moral intuition purity. I can't marry my partner, because too many people in this country believe that to allow me to do so would somehow violate the purity/sanctity of heterosexual marriage. So, I can't get behind it. Of course, that is my parochial concern, but I can point to similar concerns that would affect nearly everyone. Purity/Sanctity, in my view, is a moral intuition that has outlived its useful life.
3) Too much of Haidt's argument has the flavor of a naturalistic fallacy. One is committing the naturalistic fallacy when one deems something to be good on the basis of it being natural. Another way it is expressed is when a person assumes that something ought or should be a certain way solely on the basis that it is that way in nature. Haidt's argument is more subtle than saying that because people are endowed with six moral intuitions, therefore all six ought to be valued equally. But, for may taste, his argument still relies mostly on the argument that because these six moral foundations were all critical for the development of what we consider to be civilized society, that they are all to be consulted in policy- and decision-making now. Much of our civilization consists of norms and rules for curbing natural instincts. The instincts that continually reify parochial groupishness, ie, the conservative moral intuitions, are among the natural instincts that I believe must be curbed. An alternative take is that the moral foundations are fine as is, but the groups to which they are applied must be continually enlarged to include everyone, and then perhaps everything. Clearly, this circle-enlarging has been occurring and will likely continue. That's great. But, shouldn't we also work to limit the sway of the intuitions that, while historically vital, are presently harmful or at best of dubious value for large swathes (i.e., anyone not in the majority) of our society today?

Required reading... with one caveat.

What did you love best about The Righteous Mind?

Broad, scientific approach to understanding the biology of human behavior.

What other book might you compare The Righteous Mind to and why?

"Thinking Fast and Slow" by Kahneman and "The Believing Brain" by Shermer in terms of understanding neuroscience and the way our brains, opinions and behaviors come about.

Any additional comments?

We've created a culture where we all operate under the illusion that we need to be right. We convince ourselves that our thoughts and actions stem from some innate ability to realize and appreciate a guiding, transcendent truth, whether it be social, spiritual or logical. The humbling reality is that we have selfish genes which utilize complex modules to ensure their survival. Haidt cogently describes our biology with both scientific and symbolic aplomb.

As a biologist and physician, I have great appreciation for this perspective. I particularly appreciate the analogy between our ethical "taste" modules and our literal gustatory senses. We cannot fight the fact that we are hardwired to respond to these tastes and indulging them initiates the neurochemical cascade which, if deprived, would leave us bereft of the true experience of humanness.

Continuing this analogy, I would attempt to demonstrate where Haidt possibly falls short in helping both himself and his reader best apply their enhanced understanding of human and cultural biology.

As our ethical "tastes" for sanctity, loyalty and authority have a place in maintaining safety and wellness, our taste for sugar and fat has served our species greatly in times of scarcity. The utility of these modules is entirely contextual though. In the United States (my very divided country), we live in relative abundance. The vast majority has an excess of calories as well as social safety. The context has changed and indulging our hunger for fat and sugar as well as symbolic tribal loyalty, sanctity and authoritarian acquiescence has very negative consequences. We benefit when we recognize mal-adaptive application of natural tendencies. There is little risk that we will go hungry if we forgo calories and there is little risk that the fabric of our society (and our own differential survivability) will fall apart if we question authority, symbolism or factionism.

We live in a country of abundance and safety. Indulging these tastes is causing an epidemic of obesity, hypertension, diabetes and heart disease. Could not the same be happening when insisting on applying unnecessary ethical modules? I enjoy being clean AND my understanding of germs and public health tells me I don't need to be continually vigilant. I enjoy my groups of shared interest AND I don't need to denigrate or vilify any groups to which I do not belong. I appreciate order AND I know rules and laws exist to serve a social purpose but my eternal soul is not at risk should I fail to worship compliance.

Haidt is correct in that Conservatives indulge their ethical tastes more broadly. Their message is an ethical meal that satisfies many of our cravings. The Liberterian and Liberal ideologies are less appealing to a broad population... but dining at their table more often may be the only way of preventing the epidemic of ethical indulgence?

Hopefully the start of a more productive dialogue

The thing that saddens me when I read books on moral psychology is that it makes it clear that we as a species have come to a good understanding about how it is we think, yet that understanding doesn't filter down to the individual level. Like Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain, or Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me), this book has within it much that could help keep in check the more extravagant of cognitive pitfalls, yet how does it make that tricky journey from the psychology journals and out into the public? This book, as good as any other on the topic I have read, has me hoping it will be able to make a little headway.

Since I'm not a psychologist, I can't comment on the quality of the research, except to say that I found the presentation of the ideas was clear and very illustrative. Haidt's writing style is very accessible, and whether or not you agree with him by the end, anyone who carefully listens should at least appreciate where he was coming from. By the end, there's perhaps a means to appreciate where other people are coming from.

One major problem was that in his efforts to give a descriptive moral psychology, he ignored the prescriptive aspect. The question of whether or not people see morality a particular way doesn't make that way warranted. Of course Jonathan Haidt knows this, but neglects to mention this until near the end of the penultimate chapter, and even then does little more than shrug at the prospect. That's fair enough as he's not a moral philosopher, but for several chapters preceding that brief mention he focused on trying to understand morality from a neurological perspective - even going so far as to ridicule those current prescriptive theories as being inadequate and possibly the result of Aspergers' syndrome. As the reader this was quite jarring, as he was seeming to make the same mistake Sam Harris did in The Moral Landscape by descending into neurobabble.

For example, much is made of Western Educated Industrial Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) phenomenon of moral psychology where the educated products of enlightenment thinking see the role of moral thought in a very different way from all other societies (and even the poor in their own society). While he makes an interesting case for why moral psychology as a discipline has misfired by focusing on the WEIRD, be doesn't address the inverse case - why some of us are WEIRD? After all, being weird is the anomaly.

If you keep in mind that his account of morality is descriptive rather than normative, then the book reads much better. It's a good account of how to think about how other people think on moral issues, and that is a vital part of having an understanding of where other people are coming from. For that, the book is good. And as far as the presentation goes, Haidt's willingness to describe the diagrams was useful, and him breaking out in song was an unexpected joy.

Last great chance to stop all of the Hate

This should be required reading before people are allowed to voice opinions in the political process. (Kidding since that would restrict free speech) Still such a requirement wold hopefully tone down the hate that has become standard fair in political circles. It was refreshing to be reminded that the other side is not evil, just different in their approach to what is morally right. Interesting to learn how our brains work in this department and how we can strive to be more thoughtful before our subconscious completely takes over. Fascinating reading into how we both innately feel and learn what is right and wrong.

A very worthwhile read if you are one of the very few who actually want to understand why people who think differently from you think as they do. Lest you think I an too hopeful I have decided on the headlines of the book reviews in two different publications. The NY Times will headline "Research shows liberals care more about others than conservatives". The National Review will headline "Research shows liberals have an unbalanced moral foundation".

Finally this book explains why an economic conservative, libertarian, recent Christ follower such as myself is so conflicted on what is moral.

Poorly researched

In the first five minutes, Jonathan Haidt has such a clear bias I couldn’t get through the rest of the chapter without my mind constantly picking up little digs here and there. For a book that is supposed to be (partially) about how people view religion, the author clearly took no time to study apologetics or hermeneutics. I find his willingness to accept what other, unlearned, people say about religion without actually delving into the topic himself off putting — at best... intellectually dishonest — at worse.

Bridging the liberal / conservative chasm

Would you consider the audio edition of The Righteous Mind to be better than the print version?

Most "readers" will appreciate the superb delivery of the audio version. Those of us (myself included) who discover that his worldview and ideas reshape our own will either want to listen to the audio twice or also purchase the print version -- to enable note taking and marking up of the most important pages.

What did you like best about this story?

Because the ideas are so unsettling for social and political liberals (like myself!), the author's tone and personal story vignettes are absolutely vital to keep me from becoming defensive (and thus no longer really listening). Yet, by the time he concludes, I feel fully affirmed -- as the need today is not for liberals to go conservative, but for liberals to become morally fuller by maintaining our existing commitments while opening to searching for solutions that are no longer win-lose but win-win. In fact, I recall watching online a spring 2012 interview that Bill Moyers conducted with the author, and Bill's curiosity and open delight in this larger worldview are a treasure to watch. Morality becomes all encompassing.

What about Jonathan Haidt’s performance did you like?

The author is the audio narrator -- and he is superb! Personal stories he tells are especially powerful this way, and his best stories are those that reveal the pivotal experiences in his own life that led him from social/political liberal to a wider embrace of the full spectrum of moral and ethical appreciation.

Was this a book you wanted to listen to all in one sitting?

It is way too long to listen to in one setting -- but very compelling to use as bedtime listening on consecutive nights or for a very long road trip.

Any additional comments?

I learn so much these days online via short videos, newsclips, blogs, op-ed pieces, etc. that I tend to become stingy about my time reading a traditional book. Books are often not time-efficient enough for me anymore. But The Righteous Mind exemplifies deep respect for the reader/listener's time via its organization, writing, storytelling, and editing. It actually restores my faith in learning via books. As I reflect on my experience, I see that what took the author a lifetime to achieve in worldview expansion, I actually got in a week of evening listening.