Has anyone yet read "The Righteous Mind"? I think that most people, after they read that book, will be disabused of the notion that one side of the political spectrum (namely their side of the political spectrum!) approaches issues logically, rationally, and with "common sense" while the other side approaches issues using only emotion and lies (because the other side is stupid...or evil...or both). I thought that the author made a compelling argument that all of us largely come to our conclusions about how things should be done in life intuitively and only then employ our unique human powers of logic and reason to construct post hoc arguments to support what we have already concluded to be true and right through intuition. If more people read this book, I think partisan arrogance about the logical "correctness" of one's views may be significantly diminished. I also think that if people acknowledged that and dealt with it directly and consciously in discussions with others, then political debates may be more constructive as well.
The Righteous Mind
It's an interesting book. I've been recommending it to my friends.
For people that don't have the book readily available but want to explore the ideas, there's a website for it:
Figures from the book are available at:
http://righteousmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Figures-for-The-Righ...
The figures on page 13 of the pdf give a handy one-page summary of his findings (although of course boiling a book down to three pictures is bound to lose some of the nuances).
"The left is just as irrational as the right" says the right.
The same irrational thinking that leads the fundamentalists to claim that atheism/agnosticism and science are simply a competing faith.
@ LTJ
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I'd say some people on the left and the right (across the political spectrum, that is) are equallly capable of arrogance, righteous indignation, a conviction that they are absolutely right and refusal to even consider why others hold the values they do.
It has very little to do with whether someone is right or wrong on an issue IMO; it's not the same thing as moral equivalency at all. It addresses the question of how we deal with those differences.
Also, I'm not sure I agree with everyithing on that diagram on page 13, or the notion that there is a rational/intuitive split here. A lot of our most important values are based on our intuitive beliefs; that doesn't make them any less valid.
Sounds like an interesting book, if a bit analytical.
That is an eviscerating review by Hedges. Haidt's book struck me as ahistorical mumbo jumbo from his articles. Not that I would have likely read it anyway, but Hedges's review ensured it.
I wouldn't say that it eviscerates the point as raised by Sven.
But yes, Just off the top of my head I can think of plenty of people within so-called U.S. Liberal and social conservative ranks which have vastly different motives than those in that diagram. On that, I'd say your mumbo jumbo assessment is fair commnet
As well, the fact that many on the right and the left spend more time going after their own, rather than each other, and that those divides ae sometimes moving targets, makes me wonder why he frames it that way in the first place.
You see the merit in Hedges' argument as do I. But the fact is there are some who reject Hedges outright as a pariah over points of disagreement, and his personal beliefs.
I don't see it as that different with the author he is criticizing. I found the examples pretty slanted, for example that one which is framed in terms of monetary reward. But personally, I think the general question about adversarial politics is an important one - a critical one, as a matter of fact.
So whether or not I agree with the fellow's entire thesis or his methods, if someone finds something in there of worth, I am fine with it.
After all, we are increasingly living in a society where different factions aren't just not speaking to each other, they are practically living in different realities.
The review is not the book. I would suggest reading the book (or at least skimming Chapter 7) before reaching a conclusion, rather than relying on Hedges' review, since it is, in a word, tendentious. I would not place Haidt on the right. See page 163: "When Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination for the presidential race, I was thrilled." That doesn't seem to fit a "Right" categorization.
Haidt's thesis is that people have traits and that traits can predict political orientation with some reliability. The depressing thing about this, if true, is that to some extent we're all doomed to talk past each other. That doesn't mean we can't try to understand.
I would not place Haidt on the right. See page 163: "When Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination for the presidential race, I was thrilled." That doesn't seem to fit a "Right" categorization.
But, remember, some people would classifiy Obama and most of the Democratic party as being only slightly to the left of Hitler (and then so only grudgingly). It's all a matter of perspective!
Haidt's thesis is that people have traits and that traits can predict political orientation with some reliability. The depressing thing about this, if true, is that to some extent we're all doomed to talk past each other. That doesn't mean we can't try to understand.
I'm somewhat less pessimistic than that. If people better understood how and why others may think they way they do (and how and why they themselves may think the way they do), then dialogue between those with differing views may be more productive. Since reading that book, it has certainly given me a better appreciation for why others may hold a view different than mine.
Thank you for posting about this. I had not previously heard of this book but it looks not only fascinating but also valuable. I tend towards guarded optimism myself and have found that understanding how others of very different persuasions think can facilitate meaningful dialogue *if* one is truly interested in it (it often means one has to reframe questions and issues and use neutral language, avoiding "trigger" words and loaded descriptors.)
The four quadrant cognitive maps are reminiscent of Ken Wilber on one hand or Michael Adams on another.
I've ordered The Righteous Mind from the library and should have it in a couple of days. Can't wait to get into it.
I'm somewhat less pessimistic than that.
I can't say if I'm pessimistic or not, but I do think that if this is reduced to every camp refusing to recognize or even try to understand anyone who sees things differently, it no longer matters who is in the right. At that point we are on the road to war (and sadly, there are plenty rubbing their hands at that prospect).
It is refreshing at least to see this question raised, however biased it may be.
I would not place Haidt on the right. See page 163: "When Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination for the presidential race, I was thrilled." That doesn't seem to fit a "Right" categorization.
Ok, but when I look at that page, I am compelled to read the full paragraph:
When Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination for the presidential race, I was thrilled. At long last, it seemed, the Democrats had chosen a candidate with a broader moral palate, someone able to speak about all five foundations. In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama showed himself to be a liberal who understood conservative arguments about the need for order and the value of tradition. When he gave a speech on Father’s Day at a black church, he praised marriage and the traditional two-parent family, and he called on black men to take more responsibility for their children. When he gave a speech on patriotism, he criticized the liberal counterculture of the 1960s for burning American flags and for failing to honor veterans returning from Vietnam.
Haidt goes on to say that his initial thrill at these wonderful qualities - racism, elitism, homophobia, militarism, imperialism - gave way to disappointment when Obama occasionally lapsed into non-jingoistic phraseology.
So - I'm not too sure that Haidt's "thrill" over Obama reflected anything very positive. Even before his first election, many commentators, including we here at babble, had outed Obama for his chauvinistic neoliberal economic and social attachment to all thingz Amerikan - an analysis sadly confirmed by his entire first term in office, and about to be re-confirmed.
Haidt's achievement appears to be to explicate why unabashed right-wingers are better at conveying right-wing messaging than faux non-right-wingers.
I guess Haidt is actually helping us out then, no?
After all, we have to keep those battle lines crystal clear, and remember who our allies and our enemies are, right? Heaven knows what we would do if that started to get blurry.
@ Unionist, since you've read the book, do you think his whole achievement is explicating right-wing messaging? I thought it was broader than that. He tries to apply his six moral foundations approach to understand the thinking of more than just the Right. See, for example, the graph on page 158, showing a clear gradient in each of the (at that point five) foundations by self-described left/right political orientation.
For those without the book, the graph is on page 7 of the pdf linked above.
...while page 13 shows the perfect balance of values achieved by social conservatives.
Utter bullshit.
Except that not all social conservatism is the same.
some may come from it from a religious perspective, some from a sense of entitlement, some from a sense of tribalism, or a sense of state versus federal power.
And some are more centrist than others.
Actually, I find the libertarian category just as odd, because that is a personal philosophy which includes people of radically different political beliefs. And plus the mainstream right in the U.S. is itself driven by a notion of "liberty".
And the "liberal" breakdown? I think it is more his idea of what a liberal is.
@ Unionist, since you've read the book, do you think his whole achievement is explicating right-wing messaging? I thought it was broader than that.
Of course it's broader. The only reason I intervened above was to provide some context to the notion that Haidt couldn't be right-wing because he was thrilled at Obama's victory. It's important to have a sense for what exactly he was thrilled by.
Having said that, I'm not interested in categorizing Haidt (or anyone else, when it comes to that) as "left" or "right". I think his objective is interesting, even if I've been raised and nourished on class analysis rather than psycho-genetic-moralistic or whatever one should call his approach.
I read babble posts and marvel at how some people can get into a nervous fit at someone they don't know, not because of the person's words or deeds or position in the scheme of things, but because of how the person votes or what party they identify with. Witness the fury when someone is suspected of, or admits to, being a Liberal or Green or (rarely) Conservative or Separatist or Communist or Whateverist. To the extent that Haidt wants to deal with such issues - even if I'm not convinced by his answers or approach - I think he merits attention.
I do largely share this view:
Once people join a political team, they get ensnared in its moral matrix. They see confirmation of their grand narrative everywhere, and it’s difficult—perhaps impossible—to convince them that they are wrong if you argue with them from outside of their matrix.
I used to belong to political teams - I've been a member of the NDP, the BQ, others... sometimes simultaneously (don't tell please, especially the NDP, they're a jealous bunch). I'm not any more, though I give money and campaign support when I can. I've voted NDP, BQ, PQ, QS, Projet Montréal, and on occasion "fringe" parties when the others pissed me off unduly. I've never voted Liberal in my life, but if I thought my vote would deprive Harper of a seat, and if the Liberal candidate wasn't some foul individual (anti-choice, homophobe, too Zionist, etc.), I really wouldn't hesitate long.
I don't have any definitive all-embracing opinion about Haidt's work yet. And again, his conclusions may be indigestible to me, but the conversation I think is important. I think it needs to be pursued.
...while page 13 shows the perfect balance of values achieved by social conservatives.
Utter bullshit.
I think that you are assuming that Haidt is making a normative claim. I don't think he's making a normative claim. I think he's making a descriptive claim, and refer you to the graph on page 158 that I referenced above.
I don't have any definitive all-embracing opinion about Haidt's work yet. And again, his conclusions may be indigestible to me, but the conversation I think is important. I think it needs to be pursued.
That's along the lines of my thoughts as well.
I'm actually put off by all the graphs and charts and analysis, which I think is rather pointless, and I'm not surprised that his biases would start showing; I'm sure it would be no different for any of us. Hence, I don;t really come at this question from the same direction as this author
I'd say all of us want what is best; there aren't too many people who set out with the intent to destroy the world. Thing is, how can we hope to start a dialogue, or change anyone's mind if we just assume we are fighting enemies who are absolutely wrong and posessed by demons, and don't even bother to ask them why they hold the values they do?
Has anyone yet read "The Righteous Mind"? I think that most people, after they read that book, will be disabused of the notion that one side of the political spectrum (namely their side of the political spectrum!) approaches issues logically, rationally, and with "common sense" while the other side approaches issues using only emotion and lies (because the other side is stupid...or evil...or both).
I have read both this book and Haidt's previous book (The Happiness Hypothesis). It has been long enough since I have read either that I can say that I don't know if either has impacted my life in any way. I don't know if I have carried any of the contents forward in my life. In saying that I am not making the claim that neither book is good. I enjoyed both, but at the same time I lack the background and expertise on the issue to assess how rigorous either are in relation to the professional literature.
However, I long ago realized that there were people on both sides of the political who use a good deal of logic and rationality and others on both sides seem to led by emotions etc. In my life I have worked with people from all sides of the political spectrum. The politician I have most enjoyed working with on an issue is a PC who I have tremendous respect for.
That is an eviscerating review by Hedges.
That is true. I, however, don't care for Hedges, who once said: "People should reap what they sow. People who work hard should get to keep the fruits of their labor. People who are lazy and irresponsible should suffer the consequences.”
Of course, some people will complain that I am attributing words, which appeared in Hedges' book review, to Hedges himself when those words were clearly from Haidt's book. But at the same time, Hedges has zero problem with attributing words to Haidt as if they were his own position, when Haidt was clearly summarizing the view of emails he received from people who view fairness from a protestant work ethic worldview. That is not the first time I have witnessed Hedges do that. Hell it wasn't the first time in that book review that Hedges completely misrepresented the author despite the quote being near the beginning. Hedges "poisons the well" ensuring that if any of his readers do pick up the book, their views have likely been completely polluted before hand. My political philosophy is a whole lot closer to Hedges then it is to say Coulter or Limbaugh, but I have the same amount of trust in him to give me accurate information as I do those other two.
...while page 13 shows the perfect balance of values achieved by social conservatives..Utter bullshit.
Perhaps. On the other hand, speaking only for myself (and having read the book), I feel that "Liberal Moral Matrix" is a pretty accurate description of me. I don't feel that I am any position to assess whether that matrix is a relatively accurate description of other liberals, or if the Libertarian and Conservative ones are accurate descriptions for most Libertarians and Conservatives.
Am I upset that I perceive my moral matrix to not have a perfect balance? No. Do I feel that I should attempt to find a balance? No. I feel that such a balance is not justified as those values are not equal. Comparatively speaking, I care very little about loyalty, authority and sanctity, nor do I think I should. And placing such values at the same level as care, liberty and fairness in my opinion makes about as much sense as noticing that my neighbours house is on fire, running inside, and having a perfect balance between the desire to save their child and the desire to save their lamp.
Am I upset that I perceive my moral matrix to not have a perfect balance? No. Do I feel that I should attempt to find a balance? No. I feel that such a balance is not justified as those values are not equal. Comparatively speaking, I care very little about loyalty, authority and sanctity, nor do I think I should. And placing such values at the same level as care, liberty and fairness in my opinion makes about as much sense as noticing that my neighbours house is on fire, running inside, and having a perfect balance between the desire to save their child and the desire to save their lamp.
And yet the vast majority of people would call such a lack of nuance "stupid". So what new understanding has it provided? In what way is this book a solution to the problem of the great divide?
And yet the vast majority of people would call such a lack of nuance "stupid". So what new understanding has it provided? In what way is this book a solution to the problem of the great divide?
Well I already said that personally I didn't gain much from the book. However, the book has received mostly glowing reviews, while at the same time being panned by Hedges. I feel that most people choose non-fiction books (which have a political element) they will read based on whether they feel they will agree with the contents of the book. That seems like a terrible waste of time to me. But to answer your questions:
What does the book provide as a solution? It proposes that once people on both sides better understand where the other is coming from in terms of moral framework that they will be better able to work together towards effective solutions of problems. Does the book actually provide that? Beats me. I have long been able to work with people from the other side of the political spectrum, so it did not change the way I interact with people.
As for new understanding that the book provides...well I guess that would depend on what people have already read on the topic. This is not my field and I have no idea what has already existed in the popular literature. My overview on the book (keeping in mind that I read it when it came out and read it immediately after reading his previous book, so I am in a position where I have both forgotten much of the content, and may also confuse parts of the previous book with the book in question):
The book attempts to look at and explain moral behavior in the context of evolution (a line of study I support, but feel that it is most likely too early to consider the findings any better then tentative).
Haidt is a strong supporter of group selection along the lines of EO Wilson and DS Wilson. I am not, and their views on this topic are in the minority. Of course, they could end up being right...but I will not be holding my breath. So the question I ask myself is assuming Haidt is wrong about the influence of group selection, how much does it effect his thesis? I don't have the time to devote that kind of serious study of the book, so I have no idea. Maybe replacing kin selection (for example) for group selection will make no significant difference. Maybe it would make a huge difference.
However, regardless of the evolution argument, I accept that the findings showing that conservatives hold a moral matrix in which the six categories are in far better balance. I accept it because I believe two previous studies showed basically the same thing. And assuming this is true, I feel that is probably beneficial for people to know about and consider. Having said that, as I have said, I agree with that Haidt's liberal moral matrix is a good fit for my own views, and I largely dismiss three of his categories as, in my view, morally inferior to the other three (which is pretty convenient for me!). Understanding how other people view the world, does not mean that I should change my views to coincide with theirs.
It may be that humans that humans have evolved in communities where the six moral categories were beneficial. That by itself means nothing to me, and accepting what is "natural" instead of what is most beneficial at this time and place would be accepting the is/ought fallacy. I believe it may have been the philosopher Pigliucci who commented on Haidt's categories by saying that 3 of the categories are morally arbitrary and do not deserve the same status and consideration as the other 3. That is my opinion as well, although in defense of Haidt's book, I don't feel that it attempts to convey what is the correct level of consideration for each category, but instead what the statistics show is the reality of where different groups of people fall on the scale for the 6 categories.
I worry that what I have wrote makes it sound like I am negative towards the book when I am not (I am neutral). I think that it has some flaws, but I feel that it is a beneficial read, and I think that more people should read books that talk about the flaws in our reasoning process.