The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
Jonathan Haidt (Author, Narrator) LLC Gildan Media (Publisher)
"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."
©2012 Jonathan Haidt 
2012 Gildan Media LLC
An interesting hypothesis explaining why America is so politically and religiously addicted. It is also explaining the ascendency of Trumpian beliefs together with the means of strengthening and enhancing them...what are your thoughts.
The book by the way can be obtained for free if you have not previously subscribed to the Audible trial.
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.i am incapable of affiliating with most groups. therefore i can & will not judge or assess the motives of others for entering arguments when a come-together would be more agreeable for everyone involved. i do not understand most people's reasoning - or do they have any at all? the hunger for power is an alien need to me. give me the peace train any day.
walklightly
Level 8
July 19, 2018
1
This is a REALLY interesting book. I cite it often in conversations about ideology. He describes 6 themes of moral beliefs, and their evolutionary basis. So, for example, we identify things as morally wrong when we find them yucky (e.g. eating certain types of animals or for some people, gay sex) because a healthy sense of disgust protected our ancestors from becoming ill from spoiled food.
People also value loyalty to a group or team, fairness, and care for others. I don’t remember the other two...
Conservatives tend to value all of these about equally, while liberals tend to value care for others above everything else.
A good example is the whole kneeling for the anthem debate. Liberals tend to perceive this as standing up for people who are disadvantaged. Conservatives tend to perceive it as being disloyal to the “team” (America).
A2Jennifer
Level 8
July 9, 2018
1
Great input, thank you. That you do not remember part - is that because it is badly written, bullshit or that you do not wish to acknowledge its correctnes?
@FrayedBear I read it 6 months ago. I probably remembered those because I associated them with specific issues.
Or, you know, because I read it 6 months ago.
@A2Jennifer Comprehended and lol to reading it 6 months ago. ?
Great book! I recommend it highly. Explains a lot but reads like a sociology text book, just a warning.
lerlo
Level 8
July 9, 2018
1
Thanks for the advice.
"Why do people so readily assume the worst about the motives of their fellow citizens?"
Because experience tends to to teach everyone the hard lesson the hard way that most other people are a shower of bastards who will stab you in the back while smiling to your face.
Therefore the safest default position is to assume the worst until proven otherwise.
This is true across all cultures, because humans are inherently selfish, altruism appears as a genetic trait in time of crisis to preserve the species, but if it comes to saving the species or saving your personal genetic line, ME FIRST will always win out.
Humanity has relied on this social superiority to survive and prosper, the rich need masses of poor to support them, self interest not altruism supports them in this, King, president, leader, priest, all titles because humans have children to support them in their old age, love binds them for survival not for any noble motive, being the dominator or the dominated is a way to survive.
Hence class, or cast or "know your place!"
This genetic and social conditioning is why communism always fails, we are not genetically prepositioned for equality.
Either on a Macro or microcosmic level we need social inferiors first, superiors second and enemies third in order to make sense of life.
Blessed is the pessimist for he shall never be disappointed, and will probably live quite a bit longer.
LenHazell53
Level 9
July 9, 2018
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
2991 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.