The Righteous Mind

Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

De: Jonathan Haidt

Narrado por: Jonathan Haidt

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, and he explains why conservatives can navigate that map more skillfully than can liberals. 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 the accompanying reference guide.©2012 Jonathan Haidt (P)2012 Gildan Media LLC

Reseñas de la Crítica

"Haidt is looking for more than victory. He's looking for wisdom. That's what makes The Righteous Mind well worth reading…. a landmark contribution to humanity’s understanding of itself.” ( The New York Times Book Review)

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.

Exploring Emotion and Reason

Where does The Righteous Mind rank among all the audiobooks you’ve listened to so far?

This is a good audiobook.

What was one of the most memorable moments of The Righteous Mind?

I have enjoyed thinking about how some people are unable to grasp things not because they are stupid, but because they have already formed an idea about them.

What does Jonathan Haidt bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you just read the book?

The author is rare for being a good performer as well. Given the divisiveness the topic could engender in some, the open, thoughtful voice of the author lends an even tone that allows everyone to enjoy and learn.

What’s the most interesting tidbit you’ve picked up from this book?

The importance of emotion to reason.

How Not to Offend Our Secret Cows

Would you recommend this audiobook to a friend? If so, why?

Yes! Because the information is helpful.

What was the most compelling aspect of this narrative?

The narration of this Audible audiobook by the author is just OK, however I think it could have benefited from a professional reader/performer. Tone and tambour of professional voice and knowing when to put the proper inflectional twist can add life and interest when the facts become a bit dull.

What about Jonathan Haidt’s performance did you like?

The narration of this Audible audiobook by the author is just OK! He annunciated the words clearly and the meter moved along nicely. The voice is not unpleasant but it lacks liveliness.

Was there a moment in the book that particularly moved you?

Yes, the metaphor at the start of each of the three parts I found useful.

Any additional comments?

One of the biggest problems of the modern political scene is the right cannot seem to communicate with the left and the converse is also true. Whether we all get together at Thanksgiving, Christmas, or Easter or at an office gathering, we all have that certain relative or office friend you know you cannot discuss politics with, without sending them into what seems like a torrent angry words, bordering on foaming at the mouth, and an implacable wall of not hearing a word you say. This book written by, social and cultural psychologist, Ph.D. Jonathan Haidt, explains why certain issues are a “hot button issue” on either the right or the left. He does this by providing a metaphor for understanding the interaction of the unconscious mind and the conscious mind when it formulates its sense of right and wrong, known as morals in PART ONE of the book. This section is how the individual mind works. How it marries the emotional feeling unreasoning part of our brain with the rational conscious articulate part of our brain. In PART TWO, he provides a different metaphor to explain why morals have different priorities and vary in focus from person to person. Thus at the heart of any dispute between generally honest and moral people, a heated difference in approach can rise to the point where we stop listening to one another. By keeping in mind these differences in approach are not motivated by sinister concerns, we can overcome the divide, and perhaps work toward a common solution. In PART THREE, another metaphor provides a context in which we can understand that we behave differently when we act as an individual and when we act as a group. The emotional need to belong to a group for both survival and comfort is hard wired and can overcome our better individual judgment in the heat of collective passion of herd solidarity.

Unless you are academically inclined and enjoy reading about experiments designed to get at the root of what drives our behavior, this book can be a bit of a slog at times. However, considering the useful prospective I have extracted from this book and apply to both real life situations and evaluating written material, it is well worth the effort to master the material in this book. When you are on the receiving end of a relative’s diatribe of full troughed, “I hate all taxes and the government that imposes them – rant – rant- rant, there is not one good tax in the last 100 years;” to be able to stop and deflate that expansive gas bubble with one question was priceless. The individual on exhibit is not some cheap hearted, flinty, miserly person. He is in fact a good business man, loving husband, good father, and respected member of his community. But the moral imperative that drives his psyche are a desire to be fair and anger at cheating. When he is feed too many examples of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system, he becomes blinded to his desire to be fair, and totally ignores his sense of Christian caring and a desire to not harm others. What stopped this man’s rant you ask? I simply ask him if he would abolish the social security tax and move his then to be destitute parents in with him. All of a sudden government was not so bad. His blinders were off! We could then discuss rationally, like two human beings, flaws in government welfare policy that could do with some revision to ensure the taxes were going to the truly needy and deserving and the “free riders” were driven out. The reverse of this example is also true. Among some of my leftward leaning friends, when they get their hair on fire over the evil selfish greedy right, “shredding of the social safety net to line their already rich pockets;” I know their moral imperative is driven by a sense of caring for others and to prevent harm from happening to the unfortunate good people. With them, I simply reach into my experience bag from when I was a workers compensation claims adjustor, for an example of a claimant who would use crutches to go into a scheduled medical examination, then exit the exam, toss his crutches into his truck bed, and then drove to a farm where he returned to roofing the barn. I then ask, “Is it fair to allow the undeserving to steal benefits intended for the truly needy from the system?” All of a sudden the flaming hair goes out and a more reasonable tone replaces empty rhetoric.

What this book did for me? It made me aware that there are two or more sides to most issues. Opponents need not be demonized as evil or stupid just because they differ in your approach to an issue. In recognizing the moral underpinning of their argument and granting their motivation the respect it deserve for their position, I am able to do two things. One is to disrupt the blind rant that really says, “NO ONE LISTENS TO MY MORAL OUTRAGE!” Two lay the basis for dialog when the fires of rage have been quenched. When you recognize the moral underpinning of the rage, you defuse it by in effect saying, “I recognize the morality of your position now let’s talk about a practical solutions like human beings.” Then I am more likely to garner respect and a willingness to hear where I am coming from, and be open to what I am saying. The book “Think Like a Freak” by Ph.D. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, (reviewed elsewhere) addresses these same problems using the term incentives and persuasion as tools for change.

Finally, the book makes clear, that people who keep on hitting the key moral receptors that drive an angry reaction are looking to drive movements and form an unreasoning mass in a slavish hive like mentality against a target of rage. When we unconsciously allow ourselves to be manipulated in such a way, it does not lead to good public policy, or privet dispute resolution.

By using the tools this book provides it has made me a much better consumer of thoughts and ideas, either oral or written. It has also made me better at persuasion when I disagree with those thoughts or ideas. Our moral values are our personal sacred cows. The quickest way to produce discord in the society is to offend others sacred cows. When you offend another’s sacred cow you offend their personhood and foreclose dialog.

In writing this review I hope to persuade the reader/listener to get this book and consume the content. I have done so by providing two storytelling examples of how the book has benefited me. Hopefully, I have piqued your interest to learn more about the various receptors that underpin our moral values and that drive our action and conversation in life. When confronted with an individual in the throes of moral outrage we have a choice. We can throw the bucket of gas of our own moral outrage on the conflagration and burn it all down; or we can choose the bucket of, “I hear your moral outrage” provide recognition and reason to it, then extinguish the flames and engage in dialog. It has worked for me and I cordially invite you to see if it will work for you. I highly recommend the take away from this book even as I acknowledge a wish it could have been as entertaining in its presentation.

Personal note: I have both the audio and hardback book. I prefer the cover art on the version published in the United Kingdom’s version in 2012. The cover on the US version in 2013 is plain, dull, and a bit pedantic. The British version will poke you right in the eye. At the bottom of the US Amazon page select United Kingdom to get to the British Amazon. Once there look up 2012 hardback version of “The Righteous Mind” and you will see what I am talking about. They also show the US 2013 version so you can compare the two’s cover art and make up your own mind.

Helps liberals make sense of conservative morality

This is a fascinating book that is easy to get through but challenging to fully absorb. It begins with Moral Foundations Theory, a sociological theory devised by the author several years before the book which involves 5 (later 6) different moral categories or receptors (such as harm, fairness, and sanctity) and how people on different ends of the political spectrum use each of these receptors to a greater or lesser extent. To use an obvious example, liberals care a great deal about reducing harm while conservatives care a good deal about respect for authority and tradition.

The rest of the book expands upon Moral Foundations Theory. The author is not afraid to admit when the original version of his theory was wrong or incomplete. To me the most important part of the book was the discussion of fairness. Conservatives and Liberals place extremely high importance on fairness, but they have nearly opposite notions of what fairness means.

Another important section of the book for me was the discussion of "moral capital". Essentially that is the values that hold a society together, and the author recognizes that conservatives are generally more successful at this than liberals.

The author uses a good deal of science to back up his theory, everything from evolutionary biology to anthropology to sociological experiments.

The author claims to have a liberal background, but he makes it clear how over the years his research allowed him to have a greater understanding and respect for conservatives and libertarians. I found this perspective personally quite helpful.

This is an extremely important book in today's divisive political climate. I think it has great potential to help people on all sides understand and respect each other a little more, even if we are unlikely to come to much middle ground. I only give the book 4 stars because in my view sometimes the author oversimplifies things, and sometimes I feel that he gives conservatives more credit than they deserve. But overall this book challenges my own beliefs and values in much needed ways.

The narrator is excellent.

Enlightening

What made the experience of listening to The Righteous Mind the most enjoyable?

The book is really fascinating and I owned a hard copy already. The fact that it was performed by the author, I found really satisfying and unassuming. I will listen again at least once because it's dense and I desire to know the material well enough to disseminate. The graphs in the hard copy are useful, but I found some of the key ones online for sharing purposes, and they aren't indispensable. Great book.

No more headaches

Once you understand how deeply rooted political positions are in a person's psychopathology, you can avoid a long and wasted effort in explaining your position to an opponent. Can't rewire another being - Especially if they are high in neuroticism. After reading this my blood pressure won't boil when I can't comprehend why someone else can't comprehend what I'm telling them. Dr. Haidt did a fantastic job with the narration. Can't wait to listen to it again.

The tail wags the dog

I think this is probably one of the best books I've read. The epiphanies I had while reading this were numerous. The research he performed and conclusions reached had always felt innate to me, but I neither had the ability to concisely form a hypothesis, nor knowledge to explain it. Jonathan as the narrator is also clear and easy to listen too. The book flows well and I appreciate after every chapter he reviews what he set out to do, and how he accomplished that goal.

Super helpful and deep dive into motivations

Many statements of the author will raise your ire, as he outlines the benefits and some limitations of liberal, conservative, and libertarian viewpoints. You will probably either love or hate him frequently referring to Darwin and evolution, but stick with it because the payoff in insight is far more than worth being a bit offended here and there.

I wish everyone would read this book

In the current climate of division I wish everyone both on the left and the right would read this book. It explains a lot of things that puzzled me for a long time. It helps to understand the other side. It promotes civility and understanding. it offers suggestions for building a cooperative public discourse. Thank you Mr Haidt

Mind-Bending and Full Of Hope

This book has relieved a lot of fear, anxiety, and disappointment for me. I'm hopeful many people will read it and we will learn a way out of our polarized society.