https://www.southwestern.edu/live/events/8542-the-roy-and-margaret-shilling-lecture-series

A Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics & Religion (Commentary)

This is a review and commentary of the book from Dr. Jonathan Haidt and his take on morality through the lens of a sociologist.

This book was extremely dense, and without surprise filled with applicable guides on how to navigate and traverse in a world of heated divisiveness. “The Righteous Mind” does an amazing job at deconstructing morals and allowing the reader to better understand how emotional intuitiveness holds dominance over our prefrontal cortex which allows us to think critically.

When diving into this article I recommends that you take these figures and lessons and apply them to your daily life. He suggests that we initiate a conversation over polarizing topics such as religion and politics. The goal would be to create empathy and understanding. Ultimately, he wants us to create a common ground for us to discover how our paths of thinking actually have points of conversion, and truly understand why we have genetic predispositions to think one way or another. Understanding is a realistic tool that can create “peace”.

Jonathon Haidt is one of my most endeared (social) psychologists. His ability to truly explore our social psychology in the cultural context is impressive for me as it helps us better understand ourselves, and how we interact with others. His innate ability to create such accurate and vivid analogies helps with the learning process as well. Otherwise, my monkey mind would only be able to grasp 10% or less with diminishing value. So, thank you Haidt.

If you do not know who Dr. Haidt is by now, you should check out this podcast between him and Joe Rogan. Joe does a great job at breaking barriers and getting a person to reveal who they are and what they stand for. You can watch that or part here:

We can start interpreting the book with the title:

Haidt carefully selected the word Righteous to convey the sense that not only is the human mind intrinsically moral but it’s also intrinsically moralistic, and judgmental.

The word righteous comes from the Norse word rettviss which means: just, upright, virtuous. Similarly, because of a religious context, the word is often used with the Hebrew etymology. Tsadiyq is often used to describe people who often act in accordance with Gods wishes. It is also an act of judgment from God and Gods peoples.

He goes on to say that our righteous mind is the exact reason that we have evolved to develop large communities without the need for kinship. Instead of, “wish[ing] for world peace,” instead, “yearn for a world in which competing ideologies are kept in balance, systems of accountability keep us all from getting away with too much, and fewer people believe that righteous ends justify violent means.”

I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, not to hate them, but to understand them. — Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Politicus, 1676

Analysis

Like I mentioned in the last book commentary, I will organize the analysis according to the layout of information found within the text. It made sense to have a numerical system for Jocko’s book, but Haidt cleverly uses a categorical display for his research, findings, and hypotheses. He groups all of the relevant points into easy to digest parts. Each part can be seen as a separate book according to Haidt, but each section builds on top of each other to create a coherent presentation of his findings on morality.

I truly hope you find this book as interesting and useful as I have. Just over the last couple of days, I use his simplistic analogies to help myself realize when emotional thinking is clouding my critical judgment. I can more easily disengage and reposition myself when making defenses over items that conflict against my logical or moral (emotional) reasoning. I’m a sucker for psychology and learning how we can apply that in a social setting makes me excited.

Anyway, let’s just dive right into it.

PART I Intuitions Come First, Strategic Reasoning Second

Central Metaphor: The mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant.

Where does morality come from?

Before we actually explored what morality was, in the book, he stressed the importance of understanding that morality differs culturally. Firmly understanding this basic truth allows us to explore where it actually comes from.

“Where does morality come from? | There are two obvious answers to this question: nature or nurture. If you pick nature then you’re a nativist. … if you believe that moral knowledge comes from nurture, then you are an empiricist.”

Haidt goes on to argue, “But this is a false choice.” We have a third option: rationalism. This was discovered by a moral psychology study in 1987 which focused on morality being developed by experience and proper time.

This is what Haidt is attempting to say about rationalism, once again using a beautifully articulate example, “ We grow into our rationality as caterpillars grow into butterflies. If the caterpillar eats enough leaves, it will (eventually) grow wings. And if the child gets enough experiences of turn-taking, sharing, and playground justice, it will (eventually) become a moral creature, able to use its rational capacities to solve even harder problems. Rationality is our nature, and good moral reasoning is the endpoint of development.”

Later in the chapter, he examines harm, disgust, and disrespect as tools used to define how we develop our sense of morality. Truriel discovered that children learn that harm is wrong. Although cultural significance plays a role in each child’s moral education, children play rules to prevent harm and can distinguish between moral and conventional rules. He later adds that we have an innate repulsion against things that disgust us and disrespect us. He uses, “cleanliness is next to holiness” and adds an interesting description between liberals and conservatives for a more secular perspective, “Liberals sometimes say that religious conservatives are sexual prudes for whom anything other than missionary-position intercourse within marriage is a sin. But conservatives can just as well make fun of liberal struggles to choose a balanced breakfast — balanced among moral concerns about free-range eggs, fair-trade coffee, naturalness, and a variety of toxins, some of which (such as genetically modified corn and soybeans) pose a greater threat spiritually than biologically. “

Take Aways: The moral domain varies from culture to culture. Western cultures tend to have a more narrow view on morality while socio-centric cultures, such that in Asia, broaden the domain to encompass more moral regulation. A “gut-feeling”, specifically towards disgust and disrespect manage to drive our reasoning, and moral reasoning is a post hoc fabrication. Lastly, the 1987 study on rationalism was an incomplete model. Children cannot construct moral guidelines on the experience of harm alone, instead of cultural significant plays a larger role than previously theorized.

The Intuitive Dog and its Rational Tail

One of the truths in psychology is that the mind is divided into multiple parts, that often conflict with one another.

We start this chapter talking about the models of the mind, here are the 3 ones highlighted by Haidt.

1. Plato: Reason should be the master, even if philosophers can only reach a high level of mastery.
2. Hume: Reason is and should be the servant of passion.
3. Jefferson: Reason and sentiment are and should be independent rulers like the emperors of Rome (easter western halves)

Justification vs Judgment

In this section, Haidt uses a story of incest as a question in his study for research. The often response is judgment with a “that’s just wrong,” followed by a slow and unsatisfactory justification such as, “well their two methods of birth control could fail, and the baby can be deformed.” Haidt finishes the section by stating, “The intuition launched the reasoning, but the intuition did not depend on the success or failure of the reasoning.”

How to Win An Argument

“The social intuitionist model offers an explanation of why moral and political arguments are so frustrating: because moral reasons are the tail wagged by the intuitive dog.” He makes a great example of why it is so challenging to persuade someone to share your perspective on a divisive topic such as politics. You cannot force a dog to become happy by wagging its tail, just as you cannot change someone’s mind by refuting their arguments and failing to find common ground.

Take Aways:

1. The mind is divided into two easy-to-digest parts. Haidt with his abundant ability to create perfect analogies created the Elephant (automatic, intuitive, emotional processes) and the Rider (logical reasoning and control processes). “The Rider has evolved to serve the Elephant.
2. The Rider is often observed failing to creat post hoc justification for the Elephant’s decision, specifically with disgust. The lack of explanation for the moral “dumbfoundedness” does not influence the decision of the Elephant.
3. “Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.” This is fitting to Hume’s intuitive social model.
4. Consequently, to successfully persuade someone of opposing beliefs, specifically in religion or politics, try talking to their elephant first. Otherwise, the comment will be counterargued to exhaustion. Even if your logical reasoning is superior, you’ll only infuriate them more and leave equally unsuccessful.

Elephants Rule

Brains Evaluate Instantly and Constantly

Brains have evolved to evaluate present situations with an instantaneous response. This found in flight or flight or as Haidt argues, “Avoid or Approach”. Our brains are equipped to do actions that benefit us and avoid actions that hurt us. Animals do this without cognitive reasoning, yet their survival proves to be prospering. Therefore, having a cognitive tool is not necessary to make critical decisions, but surely can be used as a great Advisor.

Morality can easily be swayed as demonstrated by Todorov with the IAT. Cleaning hands before taking a morality test would push subjects to repel immorality, as immorality is associated with dirtiness.

Babies & Psychopaths

This section is rather interesting to me as it emphasizes on neurology from a high-level perspective (a secret passion of mine). Psychopaths appear to have a genetic predisposition and no real nurturing correlation has been presented, according to Hare. Their innate capacity to reason (well, for the most part) with the inability to harbor emotions is a dangerous combination. Here the Rider is acting to serve the elephant but is not tasked with being a moral compass.

Babies have limited reasoning functionality and rely heavily on mirror-neurons to see how individuals are interacting with each other. Without any surprises, the elephant starts developing moral judgment long before logical reasoning can be formed. Intuition is the driving motor for our mind.

Brain Patterns & Open To Reasoning

When exposed to the Trolly Dilemma, Damasio, among many other recent studies, discovered neurons firing in regions of the brain commonly associated with emotional processing. This demonstrated that our emotions are correlated with moral judgment or instinctive decisions that people make.

Take Aways:

1. The brain evaluated instantly & constantly (with intuition).
2. Social and Political judgment can be dependant on flashes of intuitiveness.
3. Psychopaths are great with reasoning but fail to have much emotional, specifically pertaining to morals.
4. Babies, on the other hand, feel but fail to have the ability to reason critically.
5. Affective reactions in the brain are in the right place at the right time.

Vote for me (here’s why)

This chapter is rather interesting as it wraps up part 1, further proving that our reasoning consciousness is inferior to our Elephant. This chapter really applies to me specifically, and most of us. Our concern over others thoughts about us drives us to be socially accountable, or if malevolent (like I once was), deceitful.

Adding to Hares claim of psychopaths having an innate inability to genuinely feel Haidt discusses a sociometer. We, like politicians, care deeply what others think of us, and that’s why our obsession with polls manifests. Polls are like buttons that dump endorphins (good or bad) to the mind.

Confirmation bias is a tendency to seek or interpret data subjectively to adhere to our justification or reason of thinking, typically confirming your personal belief structure. Similarly, when the absence of oversight is combined with plausibility, most people will cheat. This will be relevant later in the series. I can attest to both though. We are all guilty (some more than others, like myself).

Rational Delusion

We often would say anything to support our team and confirm/ defend its core values and belief structure. Touting our political opinions is similar to badges in the military. It signifies camaraderie and ability to defend our group. Haidt even compares political praise is similar to a drug-addicted rat, “Like rats that cannot stop pressing a button, partisans may be simply unable to stop believing weird things. The partisan brain has been reinforced so many times for performing mental contortions that free it from unwanted beliefs. Extreme partisanship may be literally addictive.”

Confirmation bias is a built-in feature (argumentative mind), not a bug used that can be removed. Mercier summaries his study by saying, “skilled arguers…are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.”

However, we can use our confirmation bias productively, for the better of the collective. We can place argumentative minds with a group to disconfirm the claims of others while still cultivating an environment of common bonds, shared interests, and trust (all in ambition to interact civilly) we can produce groups yielding positive outcomes and ultimately produce good behavior.

Take Aways:

1. We are concerned with others opinions of us, specifically in a Sociocentric culture.
2. The Rider or conscious reasoning automatically defaults with justification to a decision much like a Press Secretary does with a presidents decision.
3. With help from our Rider or Press Secretary, we can cover our tracks by lying, cheating so effectively that we can begin to believe ourselves.
4. When we are asked, “Can I believe it?” we tend to say yes, and when asked, “Must I believe it?” we tend to say no.
5. We are groupish creatures, especially in politics (secular) and in religion. We deploy our Rider to support the team while also demonstrating our commitment to the team.

PART II There’s More to Morality than Harm and Fairness

Central Metaphor: The righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors.

Beyond WEIRD Morality

Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic: W.E.I.R.D.

“The WEIRDer you are, the more you see a world full of separate objects, rather than relationships”.

If we think back to the earlier chapters on this book and you will remember that the majority of the world does NOT satisfy the WEIRD parameters. Weird people think analytically (detaching the main object from its context, assigning it to a category and then assuming that the object inherits the categories characteristics.

This section of the book is illuminating the second principle of moral psychology: There’s more to morality than harm and fairness.

Three Ethics Are More Descriptive Than One

These additional ethics discovered on Haidt’s journey through the eastern culture are best described by Haidt, himself.

“The ethic of autonomy is based on the idea that people are, first and foremost, autonomous individuals with wants, needs, and preferences. …rights, liberty, and justice.” Think of educated college students in 2019 political climate.

“The ethic of community is based on the idea that people are, first and foremost, members of larger entities such as families, teams, armies, companies, tribes, and nations. These larger entities are more than the sum of the people who compose them; they are real, they matter, and they must be protected. …duty, hierarchy, respect, reputation, and patriotism.” Think of working-class individuals, specifically conservatives.

The ethic of divinity is based on the idea that people are, first and foremost, temporary vessels within which a divine soul has been implanted. People are not just animals with an extra serving of consciousness; they are children of God and should behave accordingly. The body is a temple, not a playground. …sanctity and sin, purity and pollution, elevation and degradation. Think of working-class individuals as well, specifically conservatives.

Stepping Out of the Matrix

This sub-section highlights the paradigm shift that Haidt experienced after living in Eastern cultures. His prior partisan mindset “(reject first, ask rhetorical questions later)” dissolved. Once gone, he could see conflicting yet “heartfelt” visions from policies demonstrated by liberals and conservatives from another perspective. The partisan anger dissipated and he was WOKE

Take Away:

1. “The WEIRDer you are, the more you perceive a world full of separate objects, rather than relationships.”
2. The moral domain varies from culture to culture.
3. “The moral domain is unusually narrow in WEIRD cultures, where it is largely limited to the ethics of autonomy (i.e., moral concerns about individuals harming, oppressing, or cheating other individuals). It is broader–including the ethics of community and divinity–in most other societies, and within religious and conservative moral matrices within WEIRD societies.”
4. The intellectually challenged can only perceive their moral matrices. Consequently, this blinds people from knowing that there might be more than one form of the moral truth for that particular problem in the subject.

Taste Buds of the Righteous Mind

In this section, Haidt highlights the neural programming system that we developed to be triggered with sweet foods. He states that the moral mind is similar to the tongue. In which, moral matrices may vary from culture-to-culture and each individual might prioritize one of the 6 receptors more than another.

Therefore, moral monism or the societal focus on a single receptor leads to unsatisfied societies on the verge of becoming inhumane.

Utilitarianism & Deontology

Bentham introduced the Principles of Moral Legislation, a principle on utilitarianism. He systematized the parameters needed to calculate utility, including the intensity, duration, and certainty of “hedons” (pleasures) and “dolors” (pains). This is meant to display the greater good, even if a few people get hurt along the way.

Deontology from the Greek word duty talks about justified logical reasoning for calculating high moral principle, never on post hoc intuitive gut feelings.

The Moral Foundation Theory

Now we’re getting somewhere. Like many animals, our brains have modules that are similar to switches. Haidt borrows the idea of “modularity” Dan Sperber, a cognitive anthropologist. He distinguishes between original triggers and current triggers of the module.

He concluded that even though we all obtain the same small set of cognitive modules, we can build conflicting moral matrices by moving the module based on our actions.

Take Away:

1. Hume and Mencius made the analogy of the mind is very similar to taste.
2. Individuals who have low empathy and higher likely hood to think systematically this “one-receptor” of morality can point to Deontology and utilitarianism.
3. Hume’s pluralist, sentimentalist, and naturalist approach to ethics is more promising than utilitarianism or deontology for modern moral psychology. As a first step in resuming Hume’s project, we should try to identify the taste receptors of the righteous mind.
4. Modularity can help us think about innate receptors, and how they produce a variety of initial perceptions that get developed in culturally variable ways.
5. Five good candidates for being taste receptors of the righteous mind are care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

The Moral Foundations of Politics

The 5 Foundations of the Moral Mind

Most scientists would say nativist have it wrong. We are not born hardwired, and for the most part, that’s correct. Here read this:

Nature bestows upon the newborn a considerably complex brain, but one that is best seen as prewired–flexible and subject to change–rather than hardwired, fixed, and immutable. — Gary Marcus

Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises…”Built-in” does not mean unmalleable; it means “organized in advance of experience.” — Gary Marcus

Here are the 5 foundations that construct our moral mind. It's great to imagine these foundations as not switches but modules you can slide up or down.

1 The Care/Harm Foundation

This obviously covers care for our members on society (and often strangers) and harm for ourselves and others.

This moral foundation is often at 100% for the matrices of liberals in America, whereas conservatives tend to have this module set low or to zero.

This is derived from our innate desire to care for our kin.

2 The Fairness/Cheating Foundation

There are two variations of fairness. Liberals think of equality, specifically the equality of outcome. Conservatives, however, believe that fairness is more of proportionality, reap what you sow, or karma would be good analogies.

3 Loyalty/Betrayal Foundations

We tend to love our teammates(loyalty) and hate those who betray us, even more so than our enemies. Even Dante’s Inferno reserved the innermost part of hell for those who commit treachery. This is reserved for individuals who betray their family, team, religion, and nation.

The left focuses more on universalism which makes it challenging to connect with those who rely heavily on the loyalty foundation (conservatives).

4 The Authority/Subversion Foundation

In many cultures languages are directly encoded with the need to submit to authority. They tend to have a formal and informal way of speaking. Even in English, although we don’t have that directly, we tend to say Miss/Mr before addressing the person of authority by their last name.

Human authority is not innately tyrannical, instead, we use authority to take on the responsibility to maintain order & justice.

5 The Sanctity/Degradation Foundation

Haidt explores this foundation perfectly here: “The ‘omnivore’s dilemma’ … is that omnivores must seek out and explore new potential foods while remaining wary of them until they are proven safe. | Omnivores, therefore, go through life with two competing motives: neophilia (an attraction to new things) and neophobia (fear of new things).”

The dichotomy of the sanctity foundation can be seen in a bad way such as something is dirty, polluted and likely to have a disease (disgust), or in a good way such as sacredness. The foundation is crucial, especially in non-secular cultures. When sacredness is desecrated you can expect the community to react swiftly, emotionally, and collectively.

Take Aways:

1. The Care/harm foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of caring for vulnerable children. It makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need; it makes us despise cruelty and want to care for those who are suffering.
2. The Fairness/cheating foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of reaping the rewards of cooperation without getting exploited. It makes us sensitive to indications that another person is likely to be a good (or bad) partner for collaboration and reciprocal altruism. It makes us want to shun or punish cheaters.
3. The Loyalty/betrayal foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forming and maintaining coalitions. It makes us sensitive to signs that another person is (or is not) a team player. It makes us trust and reward such people, and it makes us want to hurt, ostracize, or even kill those who betray us or our group.
4. The Authority/subversion foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forging relationships that will benefit us within social hierarchies. It makes us sensitive to signs of rank or status, and to signs that other people are (or are not) behaving properly, given their position.
5. The Sanctity/degradation foundation evolved initially in response to the adaptive challenge of the omnivore’s dilemma, and then to the broader challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites. It includes the behavioral immune system, which can make us wary of a diverse array of symbolic objects and threats. It makes it possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values — both positive and negative — which are important for binding groups together.

The Conservative Advantage

There is an assumption to be made, Republicans understand moral psychology better even if its on accident. They intuitively know that decisions are run by the elephant, not the rider.

Measuring Morals

ProjectImplicit.org; YourMorals.org;

What Makes People Vote Republican?

If we recall, liberals tend to have a more individualistic outlook with morals. Conservatives, however, prioritize tradition, loyalty, and sanctity.

The book Hierarchy in the Forest, Boehm stated that humans have an innate desire to follow hierarchies. Peterson addresses this often as well. It wasn’t until the last thousand years we began banding together as egalitarians. This sparked the resentment towards individuals who displayed any behavior of tyranny or totalitarianism.

We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor — The American Declaration of Independence.

Both ends of the political spectrum can resonate with this hatred of bullies and tyrants, just in slightly different manners. Liberals depend heavily on the Care/Harm foundation. Therefore, the liberty/oppression foundation catalyze the need to fight for human and civil rights, even going as far as wanting equality of outcome. The conservatives express this foundation in a similar sense expect protecting traditions and the group(America) rather than humanity (the remaining world or individual). If bumper stickers are like badges then don’t tread on me speaks volumes. Don’t tread on me, my business, or my nation with high taxes, nanny state, oppressive regulation, and UN. Both political parties feel the same foundation just place emphasis on different items.

Take Aways:

1. Republicans unintentionally grasp the Moral Foundation Theory better than Democrats; hitting every taste receptor. Therefore, is no surprise that they have been able to reach the nation better than Dems since the '80s.
2. Until Democrats understand the Durkheimian Vision and learn to differentiate a six-foundation morality vs a three -foundation morality they will not understand why working class citizens (or anyone for that matter) vote Republican, especially if the Democratic party is the one who wants to redistribute wealth more evenly.

PART III Morality Binds and Blinds

Central Metaphor: We Are 90 Percent Chimp and 10 Percent Bee.

Why Are We So Groupish?

Nativist has one thing right it that we are particularly selfish beings. Our neurological hardwiring made us exceptionally adept at promoting behaviors that benefit our personal interest while avoiding items that have the opposite effect. Nonetheless, our capacity to have the same approach for our “groups” proves that we may, in fact, have the ability to be good team players.

Victorious Tribes

This sections goes back to our primal mind and reminded me of the artificial intelligence projects that I work on. Like my programs, our minds too respond to positive and negative reinforcement. Except in the development of social virtues reinforcement was in the form of “praise and blame of our fellow men.”

Darwin understood the basic logic of today’s multi-level selection, otherwise perceived as group selection (from my understanding at least). Therefore, it’s not a stretch to suggest that group related adaptations groupish mentality can play a key role in the evolution of our righteous minds.

If group-related adaptions are reinforced by blame and praise, then it is not heresy to suggest that Tomasello was right. Our development to have shared intentionality was the cause of our first moral matrix. Further proving that we are innately groupish, veering from our primate relatives with the ability to share common interests.

Tomasello insinuates that language only became possible through shared intentionality. Going back to group selection, the catalyst for adoption is shared intentionality. This trait allowed communities to create defensible nests. Like bees, who create their nests out wax and wood, we construct our nest out of moral communities which derive from shared norms, institutions, and gods. Both the bee and the human will fight, kill, and die to defend their nests.

For you Dawrin nerds, this section may be interesting. Group selection favored those competitive pseudo-communities who discovered cultural innovations that facilitated the cooperation and coherence of larger groups. This is coming from “Tribal Instincts Hypothesis” proposed by P. Richerson and R. Boyd, two anthropologists.

What are “bumper stickers” again? If you said, “the sociological representation of a tribe,” then you are correct! He just mentioned this again so it must be significant, therefore I wrote on it again. WITH EMPHASIS THIS TIME.

More on the reason why Darwinism was successful is that the superior community started to self-domesticate by manipulating their surrounding to adapt to them.

Take Away:

1. Multi-Level selection proves that natural selection at multiple levels simultaneously. Haidt claims that multi-level selection explains why individuals lean either towards selfishness or groupishness.
2. Shared intentionality contributed to the production of moral matrices.
3. Taking a psychological perspective at the anthropology would help us understand why we are 90% chimp and 10% brain. There is a biological switch that activates that hivish mentality.

The Hive Switch

I’m going to leave this exert from the book here. Check it out and it will make sense in a sec

…”muscular bonding” … was a mechanism that evolved long before the beginning of recorded history for shutting down the self and creating a temporary superorganism.

This chapter a great attempt at persuading you to believe that we are conditional hive creatures. We have a biological switch that can be triggered IF the condition is met. If and ONLY if triggered, we can temporarily (and ecstatically) transcend beyond our own self-interest and become a superorganism.

He later claims that dancing in sync or doing simple dynamic stretching in the morning within a company can trigger the hive mentality and build a sense of more cohesive camaraderie. He also uses the Hauka form the All Black as an example.

All Blacks Performing the Haka

“Homo sapiens was really Homo duplex,” Durkheimian inferred, “a creature who exists at two levels: as an individual and as part of the larger society.”

The most important of these Durkheimian higher-level sentiments is “collective effervescence,” which describes the passion and ecstasy that group rituals can generate. As Durkheim put it:

The very act of congregating is an exceptionally powerful stimulant. Once the individuals are gathered together, a sort of electricity is generated from their closeness and quickly launches them to an extraordinary height of exaltation.

So Many Ways to Flip the Switch

These are the methods that can trigger the hivish mentality.

1. Awe in Nature

Two of aspects of nature catalyze the emotion of awe: Vastness, this which makes us feel insignificant or helpless, and a need for accommodation, that the internal desire to change the existing structure to assimilate to our experiences.

Standing on the bare ground, — my head bathed by the blithe air and uplifted into infinite space, — all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eyeball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or parcel of God. — R. Emerson

2. Durkheimogens

See above

We are conditional hive creatures. We are more likely to mirror and then empathize with others when they have conformed to our moral matrix than when they have violated it

Take Away:

1. Durkheim suggests that our homo-duplex nature allows us to experience our greatest joys when we can briefly transcend beyond our selfish world, and become, “simply a part of a whole.”
2. To facilitate the environment that can trigger the hive switch simply deploy synchronized movements, build “healthy” competitive competition between teams NOT individuals, and most importantly (in my opinion) encourages the similarities and avoid at all costs any divisiveness.

Religion Is a Team Sport

Haidt stressed this truth, “Religions are social facts. Religion cannot be studied in lone individuals any more than hivishness can be studied in lone bees.”

Scientists approach religion on the individual level monitoring individuals supernatural beliefs, rather than investigating the binding practices in their groups. A different perspective needs to be introduced. This model by many scientists is incomplete.

New Atheists Model vs Durkheimian Model

New atheists segregate three complementary aspects of religion and view each aspect independently, it’s not inaccurate it’s just incomplete. Combining all the aspects into one construct the psychology of religion which essentially states that beliefs and practices is ultimately to create a community.

Atheists Story of religion suggests that by-products come first and parasites come second, therefore our brain created a detention agency devise that is hypersensitive and finely tuned to stay alive rather than account for accuracy.

A better story of religion is that by-products come first and cultural group selection follows. Gods have culturally evolved to condemn selfish and divisive behaviors. This is something that I see as a new believer to Christ. Secular minds, do not cringe, it does not discredit my findings. This simply means that I take the objective facts and still decide to believe, for another time.

The New Atheist model is inaccurate. Dismissing the ritual practices as inefficient, and irrational is the central solution to one of the hardest problems humans faces: “Cooperation without kinship”. Working upon the sanctity foundation religion utilizes sacredness to bind people together and blinds them to the arbitrariness of the practice. No wonder I find catholicism rituals and the standing and seating at church so useless, yet the sense of community was stronger when completed.

Is God a Force of Good & Evil?

Just because an individual (or collective) believes in a religion, are they are now pure altruists? The logic says that individuals if subscribed to a religion that promotes generosity, should help members of their moral community, especially if their reputation can be enhanced.

It is religious belongingness that matters for neighborliness, not religious believing. — Putnam and Campbell

Successful religions allow for the selected group to more efficiently turn “resources into offspring.” Religion does a particularly good job at creating a collective function as groupishness, tribalism, nationalism. Religions are moral the exoskeletons of society.

Defining Morality at Last

Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make cooperative societies possible.

Take Away:

1. It is easy to misunderstand religion if you focus exclusively on a set of beliefs about supernatural agents. You can misinterpret those beliefs as parasites that exploit our hivish mentality or simply as a foolish delusion.
2. Taking both a Darwin approach to morality, as in multilevel selection and a Durkheimian approach to religion, that is to focus on the belonging, then we can obtain a completely new perspective. Religion is a fabrication used to bind our ancestors into coherent groups. Blinding occurs as a by-product by no longer being able to question the sacred text or the “word” of god.
3. This binding method used in religion can also be found, with minor adjustments, to politics as well.

Can’t We All Disagree More Constructively?

From Genes to Moral Matrices

Empiricist or not, you must agree that genes play a significant role in our personality. Neurology is the framework for our psychology, and that is biology. It is no shock that the brains fo conservatives and liberals differ, even if it’s only by a few genes.

Step 1: Genes Make Brains
Like artificial intelligence (my field of expertise) our brains developed neurotransmitters that reward and punish us when appropriately. Side note: neurology fascinates the F outta me because it is essentially a program, or a collection of programs that create our operating system. We understand enough to which we can take advantage of our system and self-program our mind. This is called Neuro-Linguistic Programming (“NLP” for short). Anyway, I digress. Glutamate and serotonin are hugely responsible for threats in fear and threats. Conservatives are therefore more fearful of threats such as disease (immigrants). Dopamine is correlated with openness to experience and happiness, which you guessed it, is associated with liberalism.

Step 2: Traits Guide Children Along Different Paths

McAdams talks about dispositions. How our genetic minds tend to guide us to situations which mirror those moral matrices of our mind.

Step 3: People Construct Life Narratives
People take step two and solidify it to create their narrative.

The human mind is a story processor, not a logic processor.

The Lefts Blind Spot: Moral Capital

As the population scales, moral entropy grows tangentially. Therefore, moral communities are fragile, they take tremendous effort to build yet they’re easy to destroy.

We must illuminate the significance of moral capital. Liberalism is not a great governing philosophy, Haidt argues. The left favors change, embrace freedom, and advocate for equal opportunity. They fail to listen to the other taste receptors of morality, inadvertently lowering their capital. Even though Conservatives are more effective at preserving moral capital, they often neglect to notice certain classes of victims, fail to limit the predations of certain powerful interests(like big corps), and disregard the need to change or update institutions as times change.

Solution: Yin and Two Yangs

Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers: ossification through too much discipline and reverence for tradition, on the one hand; on the other hand, dissolution, or subjection to foreign conquest, through the growth of an individualism and personal independence that makes cooperation impossible. — Bertrand Russell

Yin: Liberal Wisdom

1. Governments can and should restrain corporate superorganisms.
2. Some problems can truly be solved with top-down obligatory regulation.

Yang #1: Libertarian Wisdom

1. Markets Are Miraculous

Yang #2: Social Conservative Wisdom

1. Conservatives are not opposed to change, they simply become defensive when they believe that the moral exoskeleton of their institutions and traditions are at risk. They can better perceive moral capital than their liberal counterparts because they adhere to all 6 taste receptors of morality.
2. You Can’t Help the Bees by Destroying the Hive

To bridge the gap and generate moral capital while still binding individual groups we must emphasize our moral values, instead of emphasizing our differences.

Towards More Civil Politics

This section wraps up Part 3 beautifully. Haidt finishes by saying, “morality binds and blinds.” We are tribal beings, it is no surprise that we make argumentative statements using post hoc justification. When our sacred objects are attacked we defend, blindly.

We are blinded to believe that our side must win each battle and overlook that each team is composed of good people with valuable thoughts.

Therefore, he proposes that we first step back and wait before answering a question that stimulates the urge to defend. Then think of the six moral foundations, and try to figure out which one is most significant to the source of the controversy. Next, find common ground (or understanding). Jonathan finishes with, “If you really want to open their mind, you must open your heart first.”

Conclusion

This was a DENSE book. Each section was a hierarchy of subsections that went extremely granular. In the book Haidt summaries the main points worth remembering. All that just for these couple words:

1. We are a small rider (logical reasoning) on an elephant (emotional and intuitive consciousness). Our duty is the Rider is to serve the Elephant, even if that means post hoc justification. Thinking of this analogy during heated arguments will allow you to become more patient. Moral psychology is hugely based on emotional intuitiveness, not the Rider.
2. Moral Monists are inaccurate. Moral matrices vary from person to person as taste buds vary.
3. Humans are innately hivish when conditions are met. We have tendencies to focus on self-interests, specifically in survival, but group selection allowed us to transcend beyond our self-interest and become a part of a whole community. We do not simply have the capacity to be hivish we many of our cherished experiences are derived within a team.
4. The moral matrices is a set of different configurations of the available moral foundations like a dial going from 1–5. Understanding this truth allows us to find common ground with the intuitiveness rather than focus on the divisiveness using reasoning.

We’re all stuck here for a while, so let’s try to work it out.

He asks readers to use these lessons when seating next to someone with an opposing moral matrix. Explore commonalities and establish trust before discussing issues of morality. Find out which of the six foundations they express and then you can begin talking about morality. The conversation is best met with initial praise and sincere expression of interest.

I sprinkled my thoughts throughout the article. The book was so eloquently designed, and each mention of research was intentionally met to further back Haidt's claims towards morality. After reading section one I could notice my Elephant taking control and leading my strategic reasoning. Most times the elephant was correct. When the elephant was acting irrationally, I allowed the rider to take reins, with the purpose to propose an unbiased statement. The visualization of the six moral foundations helped me in understanding clients, members of my team, family (blood and proximity), and even strangers better and more comprehensively. I would wonder why (and how) such irrational arguments could be proposed without legitimate evidence to back claims. Recognizing that such topics like equality, abortion, and free-trade align with the foundations allowed me to become more cognizant of people rational (or lack of) behind such claims and arguments. Overall, making me more compassionate and relatable.

This was a phenomenal book. I am currently writing this at 2 am so the enthusiasm and brain power is diminishing exponentially with each passing minute. I will leave it as is.

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this article, make sure to applaud us down below! Would mean a lot to me and it helps other people see the story and connect with me if you have any questions about this article or suggestions for future books to be reviewed.

Connect with me:

Instagram| Twitter| YouTube| Group Chat

Written by: Angel Mondragon.