The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

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.

This is a superb book, one which everyone interested in politics, religion and human nature should read. Haidt studies moral psychology and utilizes its insights to help us understand why some of us tilt left and others tilt right, politically. The argument is presented with great lucidity and in military-instructor-education rhetoric. The principal principle of MIE is: ‘tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em; tell ‘em; tell ‘em what you told ‘em.’ This is common within the social sciences. The argument is outlined, then made, then summarized. This is very helpful when the material is complex, as it is here, and it helps you to both digest and remember. The key orientation is Humean. Hume said that the reason is, and always should be, the slave of the passions, a point that seems very counterintuitive for an Enlightenment thinker. Rather than substitute ‘emotions’ or ‘sentiments’ for ‘passions’, Haidt uses the word ‘intuitions’. Basically he is saying that our ‘gut sense’ on any issue is more important than the ratiocination which follows. That gut sense is the result of millions of prior experiences and observations that all come together to form an intuitive response to a given notion, proposition, experience, thought experiment, etc. When we then discuss the matter with another person, particularly one who takes a different approach, we consult our reason and personal/historical data sets for evidence and arguments that will enable us to win the discussion. The metaphor that he uses is a man riding an elephant. The elephant is our collective set of intuitions and the tiny rider is the Reason, which tries to influence the elephant, a weighty though not entirely impossible task. Basically, Haidt is using this metaphor to help us to understand where each of us is ‘coming from’ so that we might bring more understanding and empathy (rather than unsheathed daggers) to our discussions. The core of the argument is that we argue from moral matrices. Each of these matrices are the result of evolutionary experience. The privileging of a moral matrix (care & fairness, e.g., for liberals; loyalty vs. betrayal, e.g., for conservatives) is based on a matrix’s evolutionary importance. Caring for one’s children or for the other members of our tribe conferred an evolutionary advantage; being loyal to our tribe and preventing free riders conferred an evolutionary advantage, and so on. Haidt identifies six matrices and explains in detail how he arrived at these. The psychological research involved both dry neuroscience (constructing test instruments) and wet neuroscience (putting test subjects in fMRI machines and watching actual brain activity in real time/space). The important conclusion of this work is that, he argues, liberals tend to focus on just one matrix—care—while conservatives focus on a multiplicity of matrices, including loyalty, authority and sanctity. This is not argued simplistically. He points out, e.g., that ‘fairness’ is common to all of us, but that the left tends to stress equality (some even arguing for equality of result, not just opportunity), while the right tends to stress proportionality, i.e., those who work harder, contribute more, etc. should receive appropriate rewards, while slackers should receive less. Conservatives, he argues, have a stronger case to make, since they draw on a wider range of matrices. He argues his general points with great fairness and objectivity, acknowledging that he himself began as a liberal atheist but one who had life-changing experiences (doing research in India, studying Durkheim, etc.). His final recommendations with regard to how we might bridge our current political divide are well-meaning but less effective than the overall attempt to encourage understanding represented by his book (e.g., his hope that legislators might reside in Washington rather than in their home districts so that they might interact socially, as they once did). The political divide has, of course, deepened since 2012, when the book was first published. If you want to understand why people believe what they do, this is a wonderful place to start. Note that he even argues that certain elements of our political orientations are genetic. He also explains how the pop-psychological explanations which the left and right use to describe one another are not to be trusted, but shows—through his own test methods—that the right has a better understanding of the left than the left does of the right. Such passages will make the book controversial, but his overall tone of scientific goodwill will help keep the readers’ own passions in check and open to his point of view. Very highly recommended.

Wie politische Einstellungen, Parteien und Personen zu Hauptwerten verbunden sind, war die entscheidende Erkenntnis aus diesem Bucht. Das hilft enorm politische Debatten besser zu verstehen und aushalten zu können.

This is a brilliant book very insightful

Excellent livre de sociologie sur les comportements humains dans les relations interhumaines et sociales

This is easy to read yet very thought provoking. I found the arguments convincing and enjoyed his analogy of the elephant and it's rider, throughout the book. This is a book worth reading and certainly helped me to understand where 'the other side' may be coming from.

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.