5.0 out of 5 stars Morality is the belief system that binds society together

M. · 19 September 2017

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } This was a book club choice, and one of the best that we have read in recent years. I would recommend it to everyone, but particularly those with strong and confirmed moral or political convictions. It will change your views about religion and politics, and hopefully make you more tolerant of other peoples perspectives. Here are my notes:Haidt: The Righteous MindOverallThis was one of our best recent book club choices. It was well written, clear and thought provoking. The main point of the book to me was to demonstrate that morality has a social purpose, as the foundation on which social capital is constructed. What matters is that people share the same moral values, not whether those values are “right or wrong”. It has changed my thinking, and I have bought copies for friends of mine to see if it can also change theirs.SynopsisThe book is divided into sections:• Section 1: Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning secondThe central metaphor is that the mind is like a rider on an elephant, whose job is to serve the elephant without much control of where the elephant is going. Traditionally Western philosophy separated the body and the mind, with the mind being the “ghost in the machine”, but according to Haidt the two are intimately connected. In fact morality is rooted in emotion and not in reason. We act first (the elephant moves), and justify our actions later (the rider).• Section 2: There’s more to morality than harm and fairnessThe central metaphor is like a tongue with six taste receptors. Morality has evolved to bind social groups together. Haidt identifies 6 different moral foundations, each of which has a role to play in addressing specific human behaviours:Care/Harm: evolved for the protection and care of vulnerable offspringFairness/Cheating: evolved to encourage sharing and punish cheatingLoyalty/Betrayal: evolved to bind people together in social groups and to punish defectorsAuthority/Subversion: evolved to bind people within a hierarchical social structure within the groupSanctity/Degradation: evolved to protect health by avoiding unsafe foods and encouraging hygienic practisesLiberty/Oppression: evolved to balance the personal freedom and group loyalty• Section 3: Morality binds and blindsThe central metaphor we are 90 percent bee and 10 percent chimp. We naturally tend to aggregate into large social groups bound by shared morals. In this context religion should not be seen as a parasitic meme, but as a social tool that binds people together into a cohesive and effective unit. Further, our political inclinations are a function of our individual sensitivities to each of the 6 moral foundations. Socialists are primarily driven by Care/Harm considerations for “social justice” and equality of outcomes. Conservatives are more concerned with maintaining social capital in an imperfect world where people cheat and exploit the system. Neither has a monopoly on righteousness, and each has their place in maintaining a balanced society.CritiqueI thought that this was an excellent book, grounded in science, which succeeds in its main argument that morality is an evolutionary adaptation whose purpose is to behind social groups together. I also very much enjoyed the description of how the field of moral psychology has developed over time. I have only a few points to discuss:1. Religion as a memeHaidt argues that the new Atheists are wrong in characterising Religion as a pernicious meme, and that instead it has a social purpose in binding people together into a cohesive whole. I think he overstates his case, and that his argument is not incompatible with that of the new atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens etc). Although the set of religions as a whole may well have a social purpose (religion has spontaneously evolved too often for it not to have some use), each individual religion can also be regarded as a meme that exploits humanity’s social needs to propagate itself. Thus when Haidt states that religions change over time to fit the needs of a changing society, the New Atheists would argue that the meme mutates and evolves with its host to ensure its continued propagation. It is merely a question of perspective.2. Moral foundations of political viewsAlthough, the conclusion of Haidt’s discussion of the moral foundations for Conservative and Liberal viewpoints is a refreshing call for tolerance, I thought that this was the weakest part of the book. His claim that political beliefs can be traced back to differing sensitivities to the 6 moral foundations mentioned above was justified by social surveys in which people were asked their political orientation and then asked to answer moral questionnaires. Conservatives and Liberals were then found to have different reactions to questions that targeted particular moral foundations. Correlation is not necessarily causation I thought that some of the graphs showed relatively weak relationships. In order for Haidt to be right the questions must be formulated so that the subject interprets them in the way intended, and that each question must target the intended moral foundation correctly. There is significant room for error and ambiguity there. His results seemed strong enough to draw general but not specific conclusions from.3. I have an old friend whose politics are different from mine (he is a lifelong Socialist), so I bought him a copy of the book in the hope that it would provide some perspective and allow us to better understand each other’s viewpoints. As I handed it over he took one look and said “Not bloody Haidt, I hated that book.” We continue to avoid discussing politics. I am pessimistic that Haidt’s call for political toleration will be heeded.OverallI thought that this was a terrific book, and one of the best we have read in a while.

5.0 out of 5 stars Charming the elephant

S. · 10 April 2012

The title of this astonishing book by Jonathan Haidt appears simple enough, and to be an unpalatable conclusion of any enquiry into the human condition. Who wants to think of themselves as righteous, let alone self-righteous? And who wants to read a book with the take-home message, however ancient, that "we are all self-righteous hypocrites"? Of course, when it comes to science, whether or not we like the conclusion has no bearing on its truth. But is it true? Insofar as I understand the arguments in the book (and Haidt provides copious references to the scientific literature), I'm persuaded by them (I'm also reassured that the author knows the difference between explanation and speculation). However, it should come as no surprise that any "portrait of human nature that is somewhat cynical" is not the whole story. Yes, we do "care a great deal more about appearance and reputation than about reality" and, yes, people are selfish, but it's also true that people are "groupish". I found this approach to understanding ultrasociality particularly fascinating, especially how it begins with cognitive psychology and then draws upon moral and political psychology.The three parts of the book deal with three principles of moral psychology: intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second; there's more to morality than harm and fairness; and morality binds and blinds. Alongside these principles come three striking metaphors: "the mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider's job is to serve the elephant"; "the righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors"; "human beings are 90 percent chimp and 10 percent bee".The first metaphor aids our understanding of a crucial fact, that the mind is more than just consciousness, and that what is going on outside of conscious awareness matters. The elephant (broadly speaking, unconscious automatic processes) came first in evolutionary history, long before the rider (conscious controlled processes) appeared on the scene. The rider evolved to serve the elephant, and one of its main jobs is "to be the full time in-house press secretary for the elephant". Hence we want to look good and will sometimes distort reality to preserve our reputations.Haidt argues "that the Humean model (reason is a servant) fits the facts better than the Platonic model (reason could and should rule) or the Jeffersonian model (head and heart are co-emperors)". However, Hume went too far in describing reason as the "slave" of the passions, since a slave is never supposed to question his master. "The rider-and-elephant metaphor works well here. The rider evolved to serve the elephant, but it's a dignified partnership, more like a lawyer serving a client than a slave serving a master." When it comes to designing an ethical society, the most important principle is to "make sure that everyone's reputation is on the line all the time", so that bad behaviour will always bring bad consequences. (Elephant and rider correspond to System 1 and System 2 in Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.)The second metaphor helps us get beyond "moral monism" - the attempt to ground all of morality on a single principle, such as avoiding harm. Haidt and his colleagues have developed an approach they call "Moral Foundations Theory", which seeks to explain how our various moral principles might have come about. There's no fixed number, but Haidt starts with five possible "taste receptors of the righteous mind": care, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. These correspond to five adaptive challenges: "caring for vulnerable children, forming partnerships with non-kin to reap the benefits of reciprocity, forming coalitions to compete with other coalitions, negotiating status hierarchies, and keeping oneself and one's kin free from parasites and pathogens".Although Haidt stresses that morality is rich and complex, he's not saying that "anything goes" or that all moral principles are equally good. His experience of living in India, where he studied a culture that was very different to that back home in America, was key to this broadening worldview. Just as we humans all have the same five taste receptors, but don't all like the same foods, so the same righteous mind can produce a range of moral judgements. "Moral Foundations Theory also tries to explain how that first draft gets revised during childhood to produce the diversity of moralities that we find across cultures - and across the political spectrum."The third metaphor shouldn't be taken too literally, and does not diminish the peculiar uniqueness of the human species. Indeed, Haidt was struck by a remark made by Michael Tomasello: "It is inconceivable that you would ever see two chimpanzees carrying a log together." As Haidt puts it, if you see one hundred insects working together toward a common goal, it's a sure bet they're siblings. "But when you see one hundred people working on a construction site or marching off to war, you'd be astonished if they all turned out to be members of one large family. Human beings are the world champions of cooperation beyond kinship, and we do it in large part by creating systems of formal and informal accountability." (Although Haidt doesn't cite The Company of Strangers: A Natural History of Economic Life (Revised Edition), Paul Seabright's book is another powerful argument celebrating human cooperation.)So, we're not always selfish hypocrites. "We also have the ability, under special circumstances, to shut down our petty selves and become like cells in a larger body, or like bees in a hive, working for the good of the group." This is good news, in that this aspect of our nature facilitates altruism and heroism, not so good in that it also makes possible war and genocide.I've barely touched on this book's subtitle - "why good people are divided by politics and religion" - or on the rather uncomfortable conclusion (for anyone on the left of American politics, like Haidt himself) that Republicans appeal to a broader range of moral foundations than do Democrats. There's so much to recommend that any synopsis will inevitably leave something interesting out. The author's ability to handle sometimes difficult arguments with clarity, humour and style is, however, a constant throughout. Making things more complex than we think they are is often necessary, but rarely rewarding. In the case of righteous anger, which often demands a black-and-white judgement ("we are right, they are wrong"), moving beyond simplicity turns out to be a good thing. Understanding the righteous mind is worth the effort, and may even be the first step to a better place.

How liberals and conservatives think

P.D. · 25 December 2023

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } As someone who sees themselves as a conservative with little background on the area of psychology I found this book very interesting.I would like to read it a second time, though, as there were a lot of new concepts to take in.Haidt, himself a liberal, puts forward his theories based on life experience and reading books from conservative authors. He draws his conclusions from Darwin, Shweder, Hume, Glaucon, Durkheim and others.His key points ideas include1. Intuition drives strategic reasoning2. His Moral Foundations Theory and how this explains the differences between liberals, libertarians and conservatives3. We are products of multi level (personal and group) selection - and how we are 90% chimps and 10% bees.My key takeaway, overall, is how liberals and conservatives have become evermore tribe like. So the next time we are next next to someone from the other ”side”, start by finding out what you both have in common - not what separates you.Very interesting and balanced read indeed.

A truly important book

J. · 6 June 2024

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

Fascinating read

J. · 7 May 2021

This is arguably one of the best books I have read all around. Although this book delves deep into psychology and psychological theory, it is written for any layperson. As someone with an undergrad in psychology, I remember reading quite a few of the experiments narrated in this book and can say Jonathan does a tremendous job distilling them and presenting them in simple terms. No concept is left unexplained and every idea presented is clearly linked to another, creating a long chain of interconnected concepts. Additionally, Jonathan makes sure that every point he makes is backed up with solid evidence, usually from 3 different perspectives. Each point is addressed with supporting evidence, a critical point-of-view, and then something in the middle of the two extremes. To me, this removed any doubt that his intentions were noble and as close to impartial as one can be.Each chapter ends with a clearly defined "In Sum" section. This helps identify the key points if they weren't explicitly clear to the reader. This was extremely helpful for me as I usually take notes while I read any significant book.To add to the overall feel of the book, I would recommend setting up an account on yourmorals.org (this is presented in the book). It certainly will help the reader with self-knowledge and help place themselves within the context of the book. This is important as the book attempts to help resolve polarization, therefore, knowing where you stand is helpful.

A PERFECT LECTURE FOR SUPPORT TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD

A.C. · 4 February 2024

It's a good complement with other books about the society. Very interesting.

Une belle découverte

O.F. · 18 October 2023

J’avais commencé à écouter la version audible de cet ouvrage. Son écoute m’a passionnée par l’exposé de la démarche de ce scientifique qui partage aussi ses doutes, ses succès, ses échecs, ses découvertes. Deux dimensions dans cet ouvrage: sur le contenu et sur la vie intellectuelle de son auteur de son intérêt pour la philosophie à son doctorat, ses premiers postes de chercheurs, ses collaborations internationales, etc. Avec une rare authenticité et presque un « roman policier » ou l’auteur nous amène à rechercher les indices (ici des évidences expérimentales) pour découvrir la vérité scientifique.