The Righteous Mind - Jonathan Haidt and Liberal vs Conservative ethics

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#1
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=sr_1_1


I just finished reading this book written and published before Trump's bid for the White House was even a glimmer. It sure proved to be prophetic! It's an entertaining and educational read. At the end, you understand completely why Haidt, who started as a liberal (US style) became more of a conservative.

From amazon:
As America descends deeper into polarization and paralysis, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has done the seemingly impossible—challenged conventional thinking about morality, politics, and religion in a way that speaks to everyone on the political spectrum. Drawing on his twenty five years of groundbreaking research on moral psychology, he 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.
Read the reviews at the link above. I agree with one of the reviewers that this book is a must read not only for helping to understand the world around, but for understanding the self. I came to understand why I have both liberal and conservative views. Apparently, liberals only operate on three modes of ethics while conservatives operate on six.

Haidt and associates also have a website: yourmorals.org where you can take all kinds of "tests" or participate in studies. You'll get immediate feedback about how you compare to liberals and conservatives.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#6
I remember this TED talk from awhile back. This has been a really interesting branch of psychology I've been following for awhile. For those of you who are interested in the Moral Foundations Test Haidt talks about in his talks, you can take the quiz at a website affiliated with Haidt and other social psychology researchers here: http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php. The quizzes themselves require email registration, which is fast and free.

According to Haidt, the main moral foundations in our psychology are those of Harm avoidance, caring about fairness, belief in in-group loyalty, difference and respect for authority, and emphasis on moral purity (i.e. disgust avoidance).

In the talk given, progressives typically score extremely high on harm and fairness, but much lower on loyalty, authority, and purity. Conservatives tended also to care much about harm and fairness also, but this was matched with their concern about loyalty, authority, and purity (unlike liberals who care much less about all 3 of those).

According to this article, libertarians also have a unique pattern of moral foundations. They match conservatives on harm and fairness, but match liberals on loyalty, authority, and purity. In effect, they tend to rely less on these instinctive moral foundations in general when constructing their worldview, and tend to opt for a more calculating, utilitarian one. Apparently some of these quizes do include a liberty/oppression parameter also, which libertarians tend to score higher on than progressives and conservatives.

I took the quiz on moral foundations, and I ended up matching the liberals on high harm, high fairness, and low loyalty; but I matched conservatives on high authority and high purity.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#7
One wonders, of course, if these "moral foundations" might reflect STS/STO orientations and/or possibilities of OP vs souled types?
 

gdpetti

Jedi Council Member
#8
whitecoast said:
According to Haidt, the main moral foundations in our psychology are those of Harm avoidance, caring about fairness, belief in in-group loyalty, difference and respect for authority, and emphasis on moral purity (i.e. disgust avoidance).
These words look/sound like trigger words in politics in recent decades... originally moral/religiously based, then that was turned to political use for riling up the masses for war... then more recent decades for in fighting between the two main oligarchic parties, the Dems and Repubs... there's another word for this but I can't think of it... like abortion for the Repubs for decades... but whenever they had the power in the WHite House and COngress to pass legislation to actually do what they said they would do, they didn't... because then the would lose the use of these trigger words.. to trigger emotional reactions... not really any different today with the two parties playing in DC.. outing each other to take down the system... these words imply the basic difference between the two main parties... the libertarians being the grey or middle ground of the independents. This seems like a basic political affiliation test.

You have to be asleep not to have a different opinion of the use of those latter words like 'difference and respect for authority'... 'moral purity'... sounds like the whole Jewish/Nazi belief system don't you think? The videos are probably not oriented this way, but that test/poll you posted sure speaks to this 'divide'... a manufactured one... still used today... with those button or trigger words used even more....
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#9
gdpetti said:
whitecoast said:
According to Haidt, the main moral foundations in our psychology are those of Harm avoidance, caring about fairness, belief in in-group loyalty, difference and respect for authority, and emphasis on moral purity (i.e. disgust avoidance).
These words look/sound like trigger words in politics in recent decades...
Seems to me like you may have been a little triggered yourself by those words. :P I think all the points you bring up seem to underscore how naturally and intuitively people judge the behavior of others according to these faculties. Obviously they can manifest differently at certain times and places. Fairness can mean desire for equal pay for everyone, regardless of the occupation ("each according to his abilities, each according to his needs"); it could also mean simply equality of opportunity. Loyalty to authority could mean being respectful to an election outcome, or simply the managers and executives above you in whatever your employment capacity. Purity could mean physical hygiene, as well as psychic. There certainly is a fair amount of cultural training that goes into determining how these faculties influence our moral judgment.

It should come as no surprise that these intuitive moral circuits can be hijacked by other parts of the brain for self-serving reasons, which imo is the textbook definition of paramoralistic reasoning. So these circuits on their own seem like they could be necessary but insufficient for striving for moral perfection (STO candidacy).

I feel like Lobaczewski could contribute a lot to this conversation, finding in his own research that the more psychologically complex a species becomes, the more diversity in psychological structure they can be between individuals.
 

genero81

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
#10
I started reading this book a couple of days ago. I will have to put it on hold while I read Peterson's 'Maps of Meaning' which I rented on Kindle. I only have until Feb. 26th to finish 'Maps' before it disappears. Of course Peterson addresses morality right off the bat in his book, so I suspect they will go together nicely.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#12
One of the interesting metaphors that Haidt uses is that of the rider/conscious mind on the elephant/emotions/subconscious and how our conscious mind is really occupied most of the time with justifying the way the elephant wants to go rather than guiding the elephant. This is rather different from Gurdjieff's analogy of the horse, cart, driver and master; it is rather more pessimistic. But, he takes his guidance from a lot of cognitive psychology studies and Porges Polyvagal Theory; he references Kahneman directly.

When we think about it, think about all we've learned from Raine, Samenow, etc., obviously it isn't TOTALLY hopeless, but I think he is definitely right for the most part; we've certainly observed it enough here on the forum: people get triggered and their clever intellect goes all out in justification. One has to be extremely ruthless with the self to have any hope of actually steering the elephant. Most people never steer the elephant at all, they simply spend their lives justifying what the elephant wants.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#13
Laura said:
One wonders, of course, if these "moral foundations" might reflect STS/STO orientations and/or possibilities of OP vs souled types?
We had a bit of conversation about this here the other day.

First, I want to make an observation: it seems that a lot of people are falling into despair at this point in time. I understand it and I battle it myself. And in my battle, I try to find what helps. That is one reason behind the recent reading recommendations most especially including this book AND the book "Healing Developmental Trauma" and the finding and experimenting with the NeurOptimal neurofeedback system. These seem like almost the final pieces in the puzzle for preparation for bigger changes including transiting through times of chaos (things are already chaotic).

It is in these times that we need more than ever to hang on to ourselves, our gains, our sanity, and each other. We don't want to give up and then find, on the other side (i.e. 5D), that we only had to hold on a little longer, have a little bit more faith in the process... I know I don't want any such regrets when I leave this body; that there was some little thing I could have done, but I gave up too soon.

In any event, as I said, I was thinking about this issue of ethics, the 6 flavors of ethical emotions and that it appears that the US style liberal of today has only two, possibly three tastebuds, which the conservative generally pings on all six, usually pretty equally. Could it be that the 2/3 systems that liberals seem to have (and Haidt talks about the genetic proclivity that a person has for one style or the other) are related to the body, as in being body centric? Their concern with "harm" and freedom from any authority just seem to me to be very selfish and ego-centered.

I dunno. I hope that a bunch of you get on with reading this and the other books and can engage in some discussion about them so we can sort the wheat from the chaff.

ADDED:

I've been fighting a godawful battle for health and enough energy to finish what I need to do in this life which can take some time yet, but I'm only as good as the support I get from all of you. I just can't do it alone. We are up against forces and intelligences that are way bigger than we are individually, and only together, as a sort of super-being connected by chakras etc, will we get through this.

Just remember the ship captain in the movie "Krakatoa" who took his ship straight into the WAVE. We have to do that.

Listen to the description in this clip and think of it as a metaphor for what we are going through:


https://youtu.be/BUlE4qO1veg
 
#14
Indeed, in the video he, (The Captain) says that the ship needs to be ANCHORED so that it is not broken apart...

If I understood clearly the name of this final game is to know how to very well ANCHOR our own vessels...

For what is to come... :cool2: :cool2: :cool2:

Thanks Laura!!!...
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
#15
Laura said:
One wonders, of course, if these "moral foundations" might reflect STS/STO orientations and/or possibilities of OP vs souled types?
I haven't read the book yet, just saw a few videos (parts). I thought the lack of "disgust" in liberal types is interesting, because as I understand it, this is something "directly felt moral disgust". Of course, the libs often call this "intolerant" because in their minds, fairness and freedom from harm trump everything. But maybe this disgust sensitivity is more like a functioning conscience and a "taste" for spiritual degeneration? Like, if you see a gay pride parade, you don't think "tolerance"; you are disgusted. When you hear about children being fed hormones because they claim do be transgender, you don't think "equal rights"; you are disgusted. And so on.

Of course, nobody is immune against the staggering amount of programming in our society, but at least some people may have some sort of a BS detection system (shades of the higher emotional center?) that might be helpful if listened to. Dunno, just some thoughts.
 
Top Bottom