The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • The #1 bestselling author of The Anxious Generation and acclaimed social psychologist challenges conventional thinking about morality, politics, and religion in a way that speaks to conservatives and liberals alike—a “landmark contribution to humanity’s understanding of itself” (The New York Times Book Review).
Drawing on his twenty-five years of groundbreaking research on moral psychology, Jonathan Haidt shows how moral judgments arise not from reason but from gut feelings. He shows why liberals, conservatives, and libertarians have such different intuitions about right and wrong, and he shows why each side is actually right about many of its central concerns.
In this subtle yet accessible book, Haidt gives you the key to understanding the miracle of human cooperation, as well as the curse of our eternal divisions and conflicts. If you’re ready to trade in anger for understanding, read The Righteous Mind.
BUY THE BOOK
Community Reviews
I like this book. Good intro into how the "stupid" political group thinks - whoever they might be.
Pro:
Very great writing. He is on point and describes his few studies in an interesting way. His arguments are very convincing and I do think this is a very important book to read for people who want to understand how the conservatives think. One of our biggest problems today is that some views are not accepted at universities. So when people say they are Republicans they have a much harder time getting a job there. Which is a huge problem. They are seen as being completely wrong. In reality they just have a different view on morality. Which, if you think about it, is a subjective topic, there is no right and wrong here. So how come a moral focus on protecting ingroup, family and family values is seen as morally wrong at most universities? Well, the fact is that we now have a huge problem. When only one side gets to speak up the other side will be ignored. And you will not get a good discussion of the topic and a very left leaning educational system with all its pluses and minuses. I say this as a neutral observer that would never vote Republican (they are not neutral) - still, this doesn't mean that I will tell people not to hire them at universities or newspapers. We need this conservative point of view in our daily life because we need all moral point of views to at the end come to the right conclusion (no pun intended) .
Con:
It's fairly short and focused on a few studies. The point is great but I still feel like the topic could have been much, much better explained in full on 200 more pages. It feels like he has some good points but still feels we have only uncovered like 20% of what makes people different politically. This is a problem with modern political science. I hope the topic is taken seriously and that we can soon build up a good model for it - very soon. Otherwise we will still walk in partial darkness besides a few small light sources as this one.
Pro:
Very great writing. He is on point and describes his few studies in an interesting way. His arguments are very convincing and I do think this is a very important book to read for people who want to understand how the conservatives think. One of our biggest problems today is that some views are not accepted at universities. So when people say they are Republicans they have a much harder time getting a job there. Which is a huge problem. They are seen as being completely wrong. In reality they just have a different view on morality. Which, if you think about it, is a subjective topic, there is no right and wrong here. So how come a moral focus on protecting ingroup, family and family values is seen as morally wrong at most universities? Well, the fact is that we now have a huge problem. When only one side gets to speak up the other side will be ignored. And you will not get a good discussion of the topic and a very left leaning educational system with all its pluses and minuses. I say this as a neutral observer that would never vote Republican (they are not neutral) - still, this doesn't mean that I will tell people not to hire them at universities or newspapers. We need this conservative point of view in our daily life because we need all moral point of views to at the end come to the right conclusion (no pun intended) .
Con:
It's fairly short and focused on a few studies. The point is great but I still feel like the topic could have been much, much better explained in full on 200 more pages. It feels like he has some good points but still feels we have only uncovered like 20% of what makes people different politically. This is a problem with modern political science. I hope the topic is taken seriously and that we can soon build up a good model for it - very soon. Otherwise we will still walk in partial darkness besides a few small light sources as this one.
A lot to think about in this book published 2012. The beginning research was all quite familiar to me - and resonated with my life experience- ideas of rewards and culture shaping our morality. Haidt carefully picks apart expectations of human behavior and in clear terms describes research to support or refute. His thesis rests on two primary pillars: the elephant and rider and the 5 components of moral foundations theory.
Human behavior (in this case moral psychology) depends on an elephant and its rider. The elephant is the emotional response to a situation and the rider, a rational guide. I've never ridden an elephant, but I strongly suspect that the rider has little control on the animal in most situations. Likewise our responses to stimuli: emotions first, thought later, if at all.
The moral foundations theory suggests that human nature uses five strands: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity. These titles seem logical and likely to be important to all people. The rub here for American political parties is that the two main parties openly appeal to different components of these five. Progressives tend to focus most of their attention on the care function, with a little fairness added, while the conservatives tend toward the use of all five, making their messages more powerful to the majority of voters.
Finally Haidt wraps up with the suggestion that humans are largely selfish, but to a small part 'groupish' and that we tend to want recognition for our actions. We want to be well thought of, and that altruism in its pure sense is a rare commodity among humans. We are hardwired to be part of a group, but to do so on our terms.
Lots to consider here, for sure.
Human behavior (in this case moral psychology) depends on an elephant and its rider. The elephant is the emotional response to a situation and the rider, a rational guide. I've never ridden an elephant, but I strongly suspect that the rider has little control on the animal in most situations. Likewise our responses to stimuli: emotions first, thought later, if at all.
The moral foundations theory suggests that human nature uses five strands: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity. These titles seem logical and likely to be important to all people. The rub here for American political parties is that the two main parties openly appeal to different components of these five. Progressives tend to focus most of their attention on the care function, with a little fairness added, while the conservatives tend toward the use of all five, making their messages more powerful to the majority of voters.
Finally Haidt wraps up with the suggestion that humans are largely selfish, but to a small part 'groupish' and that we tend to want recognition for our actions. We want to be well thought of, and that altruism in its pure sense is a rare commodity among humans. We are hardwired to be part of a group, but to do so on our terms.
Lots to consider here, for sure.
This is an excellent biological science and anthropology book about the development and driving force behind ethics, religion, politics, and tribalism. It will help you view your friends and family members of the other political party with increased understanding and respect. It appears to be mostly directed at United States liberals to help them understand the moral framework of United State conservatives, but it also provides an explanation of the liberal and libertarian framework to conservatives. It is based on controlled studies of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians in the US. There was a lot of information that was new to me, such as the effects of ethnic diversity and culture education. It is not condescending to any political party or religion, which is not the same as saying that everyone will like what Haidt says in this book. In fact, I predict people of both parties will find plenty to try to dispute.
For me, there were some problems with this book which are mostly outweighed by what it contributes. One is that this was written pre-Trump era and it won't help you contemplate the blatantly racist supporters and members of the administration. (Please don't deny these people exist, they have been very vocal in a number of places.) Two is that I think that Haidt goes too far in numerous places with his own policy analysis both in favor and against liberal or conservative beliefs. As a liberal myself, when he says that some policy provides money and therefore dampens the necessity of marriage, I think of people - mostly women- stuck in abusive marriages because they can't afford to get themselves and their children out. Also, there were comments about diversity and cultural education which, whether they are accurate or not, seem to need more context and balancing particularly now that we are facing so many problems with racism in our country.
Also, since a lot of conservatives claim that Christianity is the basis of their moral framework, I'd like to see what Jesus's moral matrix looks like. I think a lot of liberal Christians would think that Jesus's moral matrix would value Care-Harm more than Fairness-Cheating, but that might or might not be a biased view. (See figures 12.2-12.4, http://righteousmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Figures-for-The-Righteous-Mind.pdf)
I also strongly recommend Haidt's book "The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom," and you might want to read that one first since this book seemed to build on some ideas he fleshed out in there.
Bonus for my UVA friends- Haidt wrote this book while he was a professor at UVA and he uses UVA Wahoo fans as examples of the joys of groupish behavior.
For me, there were some problems with this book which are mostly outweighed by what it contributes. One is that this was written pre-Trump era and it won't help you contemplate the blatantly racist supporters and members of the administration. (Please don't deny these people exist, they have been very vocal in a number of places.) Two is that I think that Haidt goes too far in numerous places with his own policy analysis both in favor and against liberal or conservative beliefs. As a liberal myself, when he says that some policy provides money and therefore dampens the necessity of marriage, I think of people - mostly women- stuck in abusive marriages because they can't afford to get themselves and their children out. Also, there were comments about diversity and cultural education which, whether they are accurate or not, seem to need more context and balancing particularly now that we are facing so many problems with racism in our country.
Also, since a lot of conservatives claim that Christianity is the basis of their moral framework, I'd like to see what Jesus's moral matrix looks like. I think a lot of liberal Christians would think that Jesus's moral matrix would value Care-Harm more than Fairness-Cheating, but that might or might not be a biased view. (See figures 12.2-12.4, http://righteousmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Figures-for-The-Righteous-Mind.pdf)
I also strongly recommend Haidt's book "The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom," and you might want to read that one first since this book seemed to build on some ideas he fleshed out in there.
Bonus for my UVA friends- Haidt wrote this book while he was a professor at UVA and he uses UVA Wahoo fans as examples of the joys of groupish behavior.
See why thousands of readers are using Bookclubs to stay connected.