5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant! (Yet it still leaves me slightly disappointed)

G.J.C. · April 26, 2012

This is an unusually difficult review for me to write, because I have somewhat mixed feelings about this book. I wanted to love it; and I actually did end up loving it a whole lot, but not quite as much as I was hoping to for some reason. I'm a political scientist with a background in sociology and a strong interest in psychology; so, as you might imagine, I've always had a fascination with social psychology in general and political psychology in particular. I haven't yet had the opportunity to teach a course on political psychology; but I've wanted to for some time now. I devour everything I can get my hands on that deals with the underlying psychology of political affiliation, political decision making, and political violence. In the course of my study of the subject I have encountered the work of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt on several occasions (if you search online you can find videos of him giving talks on his subject of expertise; and he also has a website -- YourMorals.org -- that deals with his work); and I've been intrigued and impressed with his unique approach to understanding political affiliation, as well as with his calls for greater civility and a willingness to compromise in the political arena. So, when I saw that he had written a book on political psychology, I simply had to read it. I began reading with very high hopes. Not only was I expecting this book to unlock the mysteries of why some people are "conservative" and others are "liberal"; but I was also hoping that this would be the ideal text to assign my students if I ever taught a course on political psychology. Haidt's book lived up to my hopes and expectations in some ways, but not in others. I would definitely recommend it to political psychology students; but I'm not sure that I would want to use it as the primary text for teaching the subject.I really did love this book; but as I was reading it I kept getting the nagging feeling that something about it was just a bit off -- something that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Now I don't want to leave the wrong impression; so I want to say up front that this is a wonderful, well-written, thought-provoking book that everyone ought to read. I've given it five stars because I genuinely believe it's worthy of the highest possible rating. Haidt's theory of political affiliation is original -- one might even say radical -- flying in the face of much of the conventional wisdom within the social and behavioral sciences; but if you are willing to consider Haidt's argument with an open mind, it actually makes a whole lot of sense. So, when I say that something about this book felt a bit off to me, please don't interpret this as a criticism of Haidt's theory, his approach to the subject, or his writing style. This is a book that you really ought to read, and that you will probably enjoy. That said, I still felt slightly dissatisfied after reading it; but it was hard to say exactly why.After some reflection, I think that my dissatisfaction was due to three things. First, I felt that Haidt's argument was a bit anticlimactic. Haidt spends most of the book laying the foundations for his theory of political affiliation; and the theory he finally presents is, at least in my view, quite compelling. But, after all that setup, I was expecting more of a discussion of how this theory can be applied to help us understand why different people hold such radically differing views on such a wide range of political issues. But Haidt skimped on the application of his theory. The main insight that Haidt gives us into why some people are liberal while others are conservative or libertarian is that a combination of nature and nurture has predisposed some people to build their morality primarily on just three core principles -- care, liberty, and fairness -- while predisposing other people to build their morality on six principles -- care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity -- and still others to build their morality on a single principle -- liberty. As I'm sure you've guessed, those in the first group become liberals, those in the second group become conservatives, and those in the third group become libertarians. This is certainly an important insight; but I was hoping for more. For example, I wish Haidt had given us a bit more insight into how the three liberal values shape liberal policy positions, how the six conservative values shape conservative policy positions, and how the lone libertarian value shapes libertarian policy positions. He did briefly discuss some of the differences between liberal, conservative, and libertarian views of the economy; but he didn't really have all that much to say about the myriad other policy issues that liberals, conservatives, and libertarians routinely fight over -- e.g. abortion, equal pay, gay marriage, affirmative action, collective bargaining, voter access, immigration reform, taxes, entitlements, gun control, civil liberties, criminal justice, drug laws, military spending, the conduct of foreign policy, the appropriate use of military force, etc. Haidt's theory does provide a framework that can help us to understand why liberals, conservatives, and libertarians might take different positions on these issues; but he doesn't spell it out for us issue by issue. I really wish he had. I think it would have been very useful, and would have made his excellent book even better.Second, while I admired his efforts to treat liberals, conservatives, and libertarians with equal respect, and not to treat conservatism as if it were some sort of mental disorder (as many political psychologists are wont to do), I ultimately felt that he went a little too far in his efforts to be "fair and balanced", and ended up glossing over some of the biggest moral failings on the right (e.g. sexism, racism, homophobia, religious bigotry, jingoism, xenophobia, demagoguery, anti-intellectualism, and science denialism) in the interest of portraying conservative values as being just as legitimate as liberal values. Besides, the conservatism that Haidt found worthy of praise was old-fashioned Tory conservatism -- a cautious, genteel, intellectual form of conservatism based on the ideals of serious thinkers like Edmund Burke, who mainly just wanted to preserve society against the sort of chaos that often accompanies radical change -- which bears little resemblance to the "red meat" conservatism that prevails on the American right today. So, when Haidt advises us to pay attention to what conservatives have to teach us about what it takes to maintain a healthy, functioning society, he's really talking about old-school conservative intellectuals of the center-right, like George Will and Colin Powell, not the dogmatic culture warriors of the far-right, like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. In fact, Haidt has relatively little to say about the conservatism represented by the evangelical Religious Right or the Tea Party movement, where ideological zeal often manifests itself as an ugly form of demagoguery. It's almost as if he wants to sweep this under the rug so he can sell the idea that mutually respectful civil discourse and bipartisanship are actually possible in this day and age. I think this book would have been better if Haidt had stuck to trying to explain partisanship rather than trying to find a cure for it.And third, although I found Haidt's argument quite compelling, there are certain aspects of it that might alienate some readers, causing them to simply reject Haidt's conclusions out of hand without much critical thought. The last thing I would ever want to do in a classroom is to alienate any of my students so they stop listening to what I have to teach. So I'm more than a little reluctant to assign a highly controversial text that many students will likely have a knee-jerk reaction against. Why might this book be controversial? For one thing, Haidt's theory draws heavily on evolutionary psychology, which is rejected by many on both the right and the left. Many progressives decry evolutionary psychology as "politically incorrect" because it argues that much of human behavior -- including such things as gender differences, xenophobia, and aggression -- may be innate parts of human nature that can never be changed by social engineering. Many conservatives, on the other hand, reject evolutionary psychology because they don't believe in Darwinian evolution at all. So Haidt's use of evolutionary psychology may be enough to cause some readers to reject his argument outright. In addition to this, he bases much of his argument on the evolutionary principle of "group selection" -- a theory that has been pretty firmly rejected by biologists for several decades now, but which Haidt argues ought to be reconsidered. But perhaps the most controversial part of Haidt's argument is his treatment of religion. Haidt himself is an atheist; so he makes no pretense of actually believing that any religion is "true". He looks at religion purely from a psychological and sociological perspective in an attempt to figure out what function religion has played in human society throughout history. Yet he forcefully rejects the anti-religious fervor of the so-called "New Atheism" popularized over the past decade by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens, among others, with its assertion that religion is a dangerous "meme" -- a "virus of the mind" -- that is inherently harmful to human wellbeing. Haidt devotes an entire chapter to refuting the New Atheists' claims about religion, arguing that religion has actually been a force for good in the world which serves to strengthen social bonds and discourage individual selfishness, and that religion is actually a product of natural selection. So, his treatment of religion is unlikely to win Haidt any friends from among either the devoutly religious or the fervently irreligious. And, on top of all this, Haidt defends conservative values that many liberals find abhorrent, arguing that they are just as vital to the wellbeing of society as are liberal values. So, suffice it to say that this iconoclastic book is liable to alienate many different people for many different reasons. Haidt butchers a lot of sacred cows in these pages. So, I suspect that plenty of folks will simply reject everything that he has to say out of hand. While I am an advocate of open-minded critical inquiry, I'm also a pragmatist. I know that many of my students are not going to be as open-minded as I would like them to be; so, as an educator, I have to be sensitive to this if I want to help them learn. A little controversy in the classroom can be healthy; but too much can derail the entire lesson plan. I wouldn't want the class to get sidetracked by debates over tangential issues that are not directly relevant to the subject I'm trying to teach. So, if I were to teach a course on political psychology, I would be a bit hesitant to use this book as the main text for fear that students would get too distracted by some of its more controversial elements. However, I would consider using this book as a supplemental text, and would definitely put it on the recommended readings list.Anyway, these three problems are relatively minor, and do not detract from the overall quality of the book. They simply leave me ever-so-slightly dissatisfied, perhaps because my expectations were unreasonably high. I would certainly recommend Haidt's book. I really do feel that it deserves to be read and talked about. There's no doubt in my mind that it deserves a five-star rating. But I'm afraid that the five stars I give it will have to come with an asterisk.

5.0 out of 5 stars A great read about how our beliefs shape our behavior and thinking!

B. · February 18, 2023

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt is a thought-provoking and insightful book that explores the roots of human morality and the ways in which our political and religious beliefs shape our thinking and behavior.The book is divided into three parts. In the first part, Haidt introduces the idea of "moral foundations" - the basic principles that underlie our moral thinking. He argues that these foundations are innate and universal, and that they help to shape our political and religious beliefs.In the second part of the book, Haidt explores the ways in which our moral foundations influence our political and religious beliefs, and how this can lead to division and conflict. He argues that we tend to view the world through a particular moral lens, and that this can make it difficult to understand and empathize with those who hold different beliefs.In the final part of the book, Haidt offers practical advice for bridging these divides and finding common ground with those who hold different beliefs. He emphasizes the importance of empathy and understanding, and encourages readers to approach political and religious differences with an open mind.One of the strengths of the book is Haidt's engaging and accessible writing style. He has a talent for explaining complex ideas in clear and understandable language, making the book easy to follow and enjoyable to read. He also uses plenty of real-world examples and anecdotes to illustrate his points, which helps to keep the book grounded and relatable.Another strength of the book is its relevance to our current world. The political and religious divisions that Haidt describes are more relevant now than ever before, and his insights and advice are invaluable for anyone looking to navigate these complex and often fraught issues.However, the book is not without its limitations. Some readers may find Haidt's ideas to be overly reductionist, and his emphasis on evolutionary psychology may not resonate with everyone. Additionally, while Haidt's advice for finding common ground is valuable, it may not be applicable or accessible to everyone.Overall, The Righteous Mind is a thought-provoking and engaging book that offers valuable insights into the roots of human morality and the ways in which our beliefs shape our thinking and behavior. It is sure to be of interest to anyone looking to gain a deeper understanding of the complex issues that divide us, and is highly recommended for anyone looking to improve their ability to empathize with those who hold different beliefs.

A revelation

H.R. · February 21, 2013

This is a must for anybody interested in politics, psychology and philosophy. Haidt writes vividly in the style of a "cool" American professor, drawing on vast historical and academic knowledge as well as on personal experiences.His findings finally make sense of the great puzzles surrounding cultural clashes and political strife.Not exactly a book for the bedside table, but very good reading (your anti-Kant in every way;-)

How liberals and conservatives think

P.D. · December 25, 2023

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. · June 6, 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. · May 7, 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.

Morality is the belief system that binds society together

M. · September 19, 2017

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.