The Righteous Mind - Jonathan Haidt and Liberal vs Conservative ethics

[whitecoast]

I've been engaging with some of Haidt's W.E.I.R.D.s on Sott and I tell ya, it's like we're using the same script (English) but speaking two completely different languages with it. It's not just that we disagree: we use the same kinds of points to make our arguments and counter-arguments, only... theirs are completely inverted! We're completely impervious to them, and vice versa. Two totally different value systems, and never the twain shall meet.

Do you have some examples of those interactions you feel like sharing? The bolded portion just seems to contradict Haidt's findings in that they're not exclusive value structures, per se. According to Haidt the liberal values are formed out a subset of the values that conservatives possess.

Could this Conservative-Liberal split be, more or less, the 'splitting of Earths' described in an old session? Where we're in '4D Earth' but observing and interacting with '3D Earth'? An early phase or manifestation of it perhaps?

I don't think it was described quite like that, but dang if we're not in Kansas anymore!

How do you define reality? Is reality defined by what we believe theoretically about the world, or by how we act in it (or perhaps more accurately how the world responds to our actions), or by the emotional bonds we have with others (to the extent that that is distinct from action or response to action)?? (Thinking of the pragmatists and existentialists here when defining truth/ethics). I ask this because it seems like they both matter somehow.

I ask for a particular reason. I practice strategic enclosure with many "normie" individuals who just would NOT be able to have a conversation about ufos, vaccines, Russia, etc., but I still hang out with them and enjoy their company and so on. We are a part of eachother's lives, although our views on reality are different in the higher echelons. But we both agree about the quality of the menu at the restaurant we're attending, the humor of the jokes shared, etc... all of which is much more immediate, concrete, and has greater intimacy. Ditto with some close family of mine also.

Jordan Peterson's insistence that we always tell the truth seems to lead to the result that such relationships would be under greater strain until they either break off (leading to fully separate realities) or converge further (leading to a more coherent shared reality). Gurdjieff's emphasis on external considering and practicing "smart insincerity" seems to create conditions where we can navigate more nimbly among people whose realities are more divergent from our own. These seems good in some situations but not others, since if people start lying to make things easier on themselves more often you end up with a totally fragmented and chaotic world like that in a 20th century pathocracy like Stalin's Soviet Union. Telling the truth as you see it leaves the door open for the best of a person to come forth, according to JP.

I worry sometimes about having certain relationships that are emotionally rewarding but sometimes lead to my listening frustratingly to off-the-cuff remarks that remind me of how small their worlds are. Do I risk dragging them into a reality they don't want? A part of me, for example, wonders if my hanging out with a more or less asleep person is the reason they are living in a reality where the evil Donald Trump got elected, or where Putin's Russia intervened in Syria and so led to that heartbreaking Netflix documentary that made them cry... The flip side, of course is, does my associating with them harm me as well somehow? Is my reality decaying into entropy in subtle ways by association with people who don't believe as I do about the world? To me I think the decisive point would be the energy draining aspect, and to what extent the association fulfills certain aims. But aims can be abstract things, and sometimes meaningless unless they have action in them. It's just sometimes hard for me to see how someone's beliefs about some obscure topic affect the day-to-day material/emotional interactions, unless we draw connections from Samenow about there being some fractal or self-similar patterns in all our actions, thoughts, and feelings, both world-altering or inconsequential.

A part of me also thought about certain people in reality acting as anchor points. Things have relative reality, and some are more real than others. I feel like I am less observable to the universe than Caesar or Putin or Laura by virtue of not having impacted or influenced people in as large a way as they have. But that I value and respect the work they do, and do my best to use them as examples, maybe adds to them, and in a way informs of my own reality also, similar to how migratory birds shape the air currents (or groove the information field a la morphic fields).

 

[luc]

Could this Conservative-Liberal split be, more or less, the 'splitting of Earths' described in an old session? Where we're in '4D Earth' but observing and interacting with '3D Earth'? An early phase or manifestation of it perhaps?

I don't think it was described quite like that, but dang if we're not in Kansas anymore!

Oh yeah, I've had similar thoughts. Watched mainstream news on TV the other day when we had a guest here and what struck me was not so much the usual amount of distortions and lies, but the overall "vibe" - the presenter, a famous TV anchor, almost seemed mentally retarded, literally! I thought "did the guy have a stroke or something?". It was so bizarre, like a window into a Zombie world.

On the other hand, I watched the latest Steven Crowder show that featured a brief Jordan Peterson interview. Think about Crowder what you like, but this show was VIBRANT, funny, intelligent - so, so different from what I've seen on mainstream TV. And while Crowder is a conservative, I found it fascinating how "cool" his show is - meaning, these are total hipsters! It's not like you have the stereotypical conservative guy in a suit there that nobody liked at school. No, these are the new "cool kids". Used to be that liberals were cool, now it's conservatives - at least in certain circles. And my prediction is that more and more kids will look up to people like Crowder and other conservative online personalities - while those on a downward path will get sucked into the liberal Zombie land even more.

I'd say we are witnessing an absolutely epic reality split here!

 

[luc]

I ask for a particular reason. I practice strategic enclosure with many "normie" individuals who just would NOT be able to have a conversation about ufos, vaccines, Russia, etc., but I still hang out with them and enjoy their company and so on. We are a part of eachother's lives, although our views on reality are different in the higher echelons. But we both agree about the quality of the menu at the restaurant we're attending, the humor of the jokes shared, etc... all of which is much more immediate, concrete, and has greater intimacy. Ditto with some close family of mine also.

Jordan Peterson's insistence that we always tell the truth seems to lead to the result that such relationships would be under greater strain until they either break off (leading to fully separate realities) or converge further (leading to a more coherent shared reality). Gurdjieff's emphasis on external considering and practicing "smart insincerity" seems to create conditions where we can navigate more nimbly among people whose realities are more divergent from our own. These seems good in some situations but not others, since if people start lying to make things easier on themselves more often you end up with a totally fragmented and chaotic world like that in a 20th century pathocracy like Stalin's Soviet Union. Telling the truth as you see it leaves the door open for the best of a person to come forth, according to JP.

It's a difficult one for sure. My current take on it is that the concept of strategic enclosure is tied to free will - that is, you don't just walk around screaming unpopular truths, because this would infringe on other people's free will. That includes your friends - just because someone says something about Putin, for example, without really being interested in the topic, doesn't give you the right to rant about the lies in the media. However, if someone genuinely asks you what you think about Putin and his actions, for example, I think JP's advice applies: tell the truth, or at least don't lie.

Thing is, the concept of "strategic enclosure" can also be abused and used as an excuse to lie for convenience. In the Putin example, if someone asks you, maybe you just lie to avoid an uncomfortable conversation. You may assume that the one who asks you is "not ready" or "reacts emotionally", but that's just an assumption; it's often surprising how people react when you calmly and privately discuss serious things. And even if he does react emotionally - if you have a solid friendship, it should tolerate some differences in opinions or even arguments. But if you constantly tell lies, then you live in a lie, get used to lying just to be nice, and your friendship is based on lies. That can't be good IMO. Or think about it this way: if you have a solid friendship, even if your friend thinks UFOs are ridiculous and teases you for believing in them, for example, this won't touch your friendship necessarily - your friend may go like "oh he's a great guy with a few strange interests and opinions". Obviously, it's also a matter of how you communicate your unpopular opinions when asked - discussing something carefully, calmly and seriously, while actually listening to the other person to figure out where he's coming from, can go a long way in showing that you are not crazy, even if you don't buy the official 9/11 story or think there is something to UFOs.

So I think it's a matter of external considering: are you just being triggered when a certain topic comes up and all you want to do is rant on? Or is someone genuinely asking you a question? I think a good rule of thump would be to do what "it" doesn't like: you feel the urge to rant? Don't. You feel the urge to lie just to make nice? Then tell the truth and see what happens. OSIT.

I worry sometimes about having certain relationships that are emotionally rewarding but sometimes lead to my listening frustratingly to off-the-cuff remarks that remind me of how small their worlds are. Do I risk dragging them into a reality they don't want? A part of me, for example, wonders if my hanging out with a more or less asleep person is the reason they are living in a reality where the evil Donald Trump got elected, or where Putin's Russia intervened in Syria and so led to that heartbreaking Netflix documentary that made them cry... The flip side, of course is, does my associating with them harm me as well somehow? Is my reality decaying into entropy in subtle ways by association with people who don't believe as I do about the world? To me I think the decisive point would be the energy draining aspect, and to what extent the association fulfills certain aims. But aims can be abstract things, and sometimes meaningless unless they have action in them. It's just sometimes hard for me to see how someone's beliefs about some obscure topic affect the day-to-day material/emotional interactions, unless we draw connections from Samenow about there being some fractal or self-similar patterns in all our actions, thoughts, and feelings, both world-altering or inconsequential.

I think it may be useful here to avoid "esoteric parlance" and make it concrete. I like how Jordan Peterson puts it with his rule "Make friends with people who want the best for you". Are your friends dragging you down or are they helping you reach your goals? Are they making you more successful, resilient, and motivated? Are they happy when you succeed or change for the better? Do they honestly support you? Is there a beneficial, reciprocal social contact that everyone benefits from? I think these kinds of questions might give some clues.

I could be wrong here of course, these are obviously difficult issues and I don't think there is any hard and fast rule that applies to every situation.

 

[Carl]

I've been engaging with some of Haidt's W.E.I.R.D.s on Sott and I tell ya, it's like we're using the same script (English) but speaking two completely different languages with it. It's not just that we disagree: we use the same kinds of points to make our arguments and counter-arguments, only... theirs are completely inverted! We're completely impervious to them, and vice versa. Two totally different value systems, and never the twain shall meet.

Could this Conservative-Liberal split be, more or less, the 'splitting of Earths' described in an old session? Where we're in '4D Earth' but observing and interacting with '3D Earth'? An early phase or manifestation of it perhaps?

I don't think it was described quite like that, but dang if we're not in Kansas anymore!

I'm not sure I feel very 4D, more like these people suddenly became 2D.

The other day I literally had someone say to me (a med student) that she simply could not understand my argument and there was "no discernible logic" to it, so we should just "agree to disagree". What had I said? Some convoluted and occult diatribe on a difficult topic?

No. All I had basically said was that Trump voters have their reasons, intelligence is fairly distributed between Left/Right, and just because she is a lefty who disagrees with Trump voters doesn't make them idiots. That we should treat each other as humans with different views and life experiences. So she should stop hating on Trump voters and brexiters and instead try to understand.

Apparently that is simply too much to comprehend, it's not even possible. I mean when did everyone completely lose their damn minds?
Why does EVERYBODY think they know it all, and have such an agenda?

I'm pretty happy to change my opinion based on new info. I do it pretty often. Sure I have biases and usual messed up behavior but at least I'm open to understand stuff.

Yet now the world feels suddenly filled with people who's brain just screams "transphobe, fascist!" on cue when threatened. And in reaction, the rise of a backlash of right wingers who are also very stuck in their own mental reality.

It really makes me want to get out of the West ASAP. I have lost actual friends and acquaintances to this ideological bullshit. Even had people I've known for years suddenly block all social media channels etc.

Especially it seems more and more that anybody who has had a university education is deeply, irredeemably tainted with an ideological viewpoint that they have never even examined - it was just downloaded and installed in them between 2014/15-present.

More and more I find myself longing for the company of basic, simple people. People who just watch sport and try to get on in life. Some good old common sense.

Among the people who care to even think or speak about the "bigger issues", all I find is idiocy.

 

[Jeffrey of Troy]

How do you define reality? Is reality defined by what we believe theoretically about the world, or by how we act in it (or perhaps more accurately how the world responds to our actions), or by the emotional bonds we have with others (to the extent that that is distinct from action or response to action)?? (Thinking of the pragmatists and existentialists here when defining truth/ethics). I ask this because it seems like they both matter somehow.

Like the tubes in NEO when he's in the egg?

I worry sometimes about having certain relationships that are emotionally rewarding but sometimes lead to my listening frustratingly to off-the-cuff remarks that remind me of how small their worlds are. Do I risk dragging them into a reality they don't want? A part of me, for example, wonders if my hanging out with a more or less asleep person is the reason they are living in a reality where the evil Donald Trump got elected, or where Putin's Russia intervened in Syria and so led to that heartbreaking Netflix documentary that made them cry... The flip side, of course is, does my associating with them harm me as well somehow? Is my reality decaying into entropy in subtle ways by association with people who don't believe as I do about the world? To me I think the decisive point would be the energy draining aspect, and to what extent the association fulfills certain aims. But aims can be abstract things, and sometimes meaningless unless they have action in them. It's just sometimes hard for me to see how someone's beliefs about some obscure topic affect the day-to-day material/emotional interactions, unless we draw connections from Samenow about there being some fractal or self-similar patterns in all our actions, thoughts, and feelings, both world-altering or inconsequential.

A part of me also thought about certain people in reality acting as anchor points. Things have relative reality, and some are more real than others. I feel like I am less observable to the universe than Caesar or Putin or Laura by virtue of not having impacted or influenced people in as large a way as they have. But that I value and respect the work they do, and do my best to use them as examples, maybe adds to them, and in a way informs of my own reality also, similar to how migratory birds shape the air currents (or groove the information field a la morphic fields).

I think it does harm you.

A friend is someone you like & can trust, and who shares your interests & your values. If these individuals don't share your values, but you are behaving in real life as though they are your friends anyway, it seems to me that diverts some of your life energy into something other than The Work / the "feat of perception" of seeing things objectively / graduating to 4th D STO.

But leaving behind what your machine is used to can feel like "jumping into an abyss", and only you can know when you feel ready to go.

 

[Jeffrey of Troy]

It's a difficult one for sure. My current take on it is that the concept of strategic enclosure is tied to free will - that is, you don't just walk around screaming unpopular truths, because this would infringe on other people's free will. That includes your friends - just because someone says something about Putin, for example, without really being interested in the topic, doesn't give you the right to rant about the lies in the media. However, if someone genuinely asks you what you think about Putin and his actions, for example, I think JP's advice applies: tell the truth, or at least don't lie.

Thing is, the concept of "strategic enclosure" can also be abused and used as an excuse to lie for convenience. In the Putin example, if someone asks you, maybe you just lie to avoid an uncomfortable conversation. You may assume that the one who asks you is "not ready" or "reacts emotionally", but that's just an assumption; it's often surprising how people react when you calmly and privately discuss serious things. And even if he does react emotionally - if you have a solid friendship, it should tolerate some differences in opinions or even arguments. But if you constantly tell lies, then you live in a lie, get used to lying just to be nice, and your friendship is based on lies. That can't be good IMO. Or think about it this way: if you have a solid friendship, even if your friend thinks UFOs are ridiculous and teases you for believing in them, for example, this won't touch your friendship necessarily - your friend may go like "oh he's a great guy with a few strange interests and opinions". Obviously, it's also a matter of how you communicate your unpopular opinions when asked - discussing something carefully, calmly and seriously, while actually listening to the other person to figure out where he's coming from, can go a long way in showing that you are not crazy, even if you don't buy the official 9/11 story or think there is something to UFOs.

On line and in real life, I follow this policy:

If they offer the lie, I respond by offering the truth. If they respond by not responding, or by offering the same lie again or another lie, I don't keep offering the truth, which they have clearly chosen to not accept.

I think it's within respecting free will to make it clear to others what choice they're making, so long as we don't cross into trying to make a choice for someone else.

It's possible to respect others' free will "too much" (especially in the current world, where so many seem to be asserting lies) by just not telling the truth. But that maybe harms yourself, by not making it clear to the universe what choice you're making; & maybe harms others, who might respond to being offered the truth something like "Ooh, what's that?" (even if they take some time to "decide" to come to that).

 

[Laura]

I've been engaging with some of Haidt's W.E.I.R.D.s on Sott and I tell ya, it's like we're using the same script (English) but speaking two completely different languages with it. It's not just that we disagree: we use the same kinds of points to make our arguments and counter-arguments, only... theirs are completely inverted! We're completely impervious to them, and vice versa. Two totally different value systems, and never the twain shall meet.

Could this Conservative-Liberal split be, more or less, the 'splitting of Earths' described in an old session? Where we're in '4D Earth' but observing and interacting with '3D Earth'? An early phase or manifestation of it perhaps?

I don't think it was described quite like that, but dang if we're not in Kansas anymore!

I'm not sure I feel very 4D, more like these people suddenly became 2D.

The other day I literally had someone say to me (a med student) that she simply could not understand my argument and there was "no discernible logic" to it, so we should just "agree to disagree". What had I said? Some convoluted and occult diatribe on a difficult topic?

No. All I had basically said was that Trump voters have their reasons, intelligence is fairly distributed between Left/Right, and just because she is a lefty who disagrees with Trump voters doesn't make them idiots. That we should treat each other as humans with different views and life experiences. So she should stop hating on Trump voters and brexiters and instead try to understand.

Apparently that is simply too much to comprehend, it's not even possible. I mean when did everyone completely lose their damn minds?
Why does EVERYBODY think they know it all, and have such an agenda?

I'm pretty happy to change my opinion based on new info. I do it pretty often. Sure I have biases and usual messed up behavior but at least I'm open to understand stuff.

Yet now the world feels suddenly filled with people who's brain just screams "transphobe, fascist!" on cue when threatened. And in reaction, the rise of a backlash of right wingers who are also very stuck in their own mental reality.

It really makes me want to get out of the West ASAP. I have lost actual friends and acquaintances to this ideological bullshit. Even had people I've known for years suddenly block all social media channels etc.

Especially it seems more and more that anybody who has had a university education is deeply, irredeemably tainted with an ideological viewpoint that they have never even examined - it was just downloaded and installed in them between 2014/15-present.

More and more I find myself longing for the company of basic, simple people. People who just watch sport and try to get on in life. Some good old common sense.

Among the people who care to even think or speak about the "bigger issues", all I find is idiocy.

You have sure said a mouthful there, Carl. My feelings exactly. In a session that was lost, but which I still remember, the Cs once said that the day would come when we would not want to leave our homes because of social turmoil. Well, I think that day is here. And I'm assuming that not wanting to leave one's home also means not wanting to have interactions with a LOT of people.

It's like Lobaczewki's discussion about "Hysterization". That was SOOO accurate. There is so much "selection and substitution" going on in people's heads that it is utterly horrifying. In fact, I'm not sure that Lobaczewski could have imagined how really bad it can get; it's like hysterization on steroids these days.

I'm really thankful for the Cs' warnings and for Lobaczewski's analysis and description; gads, can you imagine experiencing all this without having some insight and understanding? We would all think that WE were crazy.

 

[Carl]

You have sure said a mouthful there, Carl. My feelings exactly. In a session that was lost, but which I still remember, the Cs once said that the day would come when we would not want to leave our homes because of social turmoil. Well, I think that day is here. And I'm assuming that not wanting to leave one's home also means not wanting to have interactions with a LOT of people.

It's like Lobaczewki's discussion about "Hysterization". That was SOOO accurate. There is so much "selection and substitution" going on in people's heads that it is utterly horrifying. In fact, I'm not sure that Lobaczewski could have imagined how really bad it can get; it's like hysterization on steroids these days.

I'm really thankful for the Cs' warnings and for Lobaczewski's analysis and description; gads, can you imagine experiencing all this without having some insight and understanding? We would all think that WE were crazy.

It's interesting that for Lobaczewski, from his perspective as a student at least, the craziness started coming from Universities first. Very similar to what we are seeing here.

It's funny how the whole thing worked as well, and quite predictable in hindsight. While everyone is looking one way, worrying about fascist dystopia coming in the form of right-wing nationalism à la Nazi germany or V for Vendetta, the real menace sneaks in the back door disguised as liberal progressiveness.

For a while I thought there would be some decent backlash and common sense may actually prevail, but the recent C's session has me worried. I guess this is still open though.

How long before stuff like this becomes actual battles and people are dying?

http://<iframe width="560" height="...y; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[manitoban]

I'm really thankful for the Cs' warnings and for Lobaczewski's analysis and description; gads, can you imagine experiencing all this without having some insight and understanding? We would all think that WE were crazy.

Yes indeed! I think we are all experiencing the same things as Carl mentioned to varying degrees, and I can't even imagine how terrifying it would be without the knowledge that we have. And looking back, over the years, all the things the C's said have not only come true, but in an even more shocking way than we could ever have suspected.

As the C's have said repeatedly, knowledge protects and that's never been more true than it is now.

 

[Laura]

I'm really thankful for the Cs' warnings and for Lobaczewski's analysis and description; gads, can you imagine experiencing all this without having some insight and understanding? We would all think that WE were crazy.

Yes indeed! I think we are all experiencing the same things as Carl mentioned to varying degrees, and I can't even imagine how terrifying it would be without the knowledge that we have. And looking back, over the years, all the things the C's said have not only come true, but in an even more shocking way than we could ever have suspected.

As the C's have said repeatedly, knowledge protects and that's never been more true than it is now.

That "more shocking than we could have imagined" is a big 10-4! Looking back at the early days of the Cs experiment it's painful to see how naive we were. But, I guess the Cs took that into account and gave us as much as we could handle. They told us then that it was a ways off in the future, but looks like that future is here, now.

As I have said, the fact that the Cs world view/prediction has stood the test of time makes me hope that the positive things that they said are also accurate. And that's what keeps us going with the "knowledge input on a continuous basis".

 

[whitecoast]

Thanks for your thoughtful replies luc and Jeffrey of Troy. I do my best to respect the free will of others, consider their wishes, and so on. I'm usually pretty good at learning which friendships are draining and which are more energizing. I try and cut off as much dead wood as I can, but it's always a learning process I think.

 

[fabric]

What it suggests to me, though certainly Wilson nor Haidt would countenance such an idea, is SPIRITUAL influence. The Cs have said that "networking" is a 4D STO principle. They have said that humans on earth were originally in a network with 4D STO beings until "The Fall". They have also suggested that humans are fragments of a greater soul-type entity. Ra has referred to this as a "social memory COMPLEX". I once asked if the "gods" in mythology weren't symbols of these "higher beings" and that people were inclined to seek out their "soul family" to rejoin. Cs have talking about "connecting chakras". And finally, Gurdjieff talks about the "Esoteric group" as being one that acts as one, so to say.

Taking all this together suggests that the 6 foundation moral system is a consequence of this spiritual influence on humanity, that the evolution of GROUPS isn't so much evolution as an expression of spiritual connections at higher levels. The conflict within the individual isn't so much the conflict of double-mindedness due to evolution on the two tracks, but rather the conflict of the soul vs. the animal based body system.

I'd just add that in a sense, it's both evolution AND spiritual connection. In other words, I don't see anything wrong with Haidt's main story: selfishness was adaptive for the individual in the group, but groupishness helped certain groups outcompete those who couldn't bind together. The roadblock for Darwinists is where those new traits come from - what their true nature is. They just write them off as random mutations. But as Laura wrote above, it's actually the establishing of a connection to higher spiritual levels. At a certain evolutionary level, beings can access more possibilities, and then manifest them.

I’ve recently finished this book and I really enjoyed it. This point is interesting as I had similar thoughts about it. I tend towards that there would be elements of both as well. The question I had in my mind was whether if it was some genetic evolution that occurred first which ‘opened’ the connection or did the connection, as an element of our environment, or carry over from a 'pre-fall' state, influence our genetics to perceive that connection. Or perhaps both, where the need for the connection came out of growing populations and once that had been established, the connection itself further changing genetics. It seems early on that the 6 foundations present were necessary to allow the formations of groups. As groups grew, and had to deal with nature and the unknown, some type of belief system would have emerged from that, and turned into a religion, and with it the traits to allow them to form that spiritual connection (in addition to keeping the group together). Perhaps not at a deep level at first, but some connection nonetheless, from which things can further develop. A bit from Chapter 9:

Genes are constantly turning on and off in response to conditions such as stress, starvation, or sickness. Now imagine these dynamic genes building vehicles (people) who are hell-bent on exposing themselves to new climates, predators, parasites, food options, social structures, and forms of warfare. Imagine population densities skyrocketing during the Holocene, so that there are more people putting more genetic mutations into play. If genes and cultural adaptations coevolve in a “swirling waltz” (as Richerson and Boyd put it), and if the cultural partner suddenly starts dancing the jitterbug, the genes are going to pick up the pace too. 82 This is why genetic evolution kicked into overdrive in the Holocene era, pulling along mutations such as the lactose tolerance gene, or a gene that changed the blood of Tibetans so that they could live at high altitudes. 83 Genes for these recent traits and dozens of others have already been identified. 84 If genetic evolution was able to fine-tune our bones, teeth, skin, and metabolism in just a few thousand years as our diets and climates changed, how could genetic evolution not have tinkered with our brains and behaviors as our social environments underwent the most radical transformation in primate history?

[...]

For example, when a society becomes more hierarchical or entrepreneurial, or when a group takes up rice farming, herding, or trade, these changes alter human relationships in many ways, and reward very different sets of virtues. 85 Cultural change would happen very rapidly— the moral matrix constructed upon the six foundations can change radically within a few generations. But if that new moral matrix then stays somewhat steady for a few dozen generations, new selection pressures will apply and there could be some additional gene-culture coevolution. 86

Since our DNA are so sensitive to change, it seems that development would influence our genes to make adaptive changes in order to increase ‘receivership capability’. Not only that, it seems these changes happen much much faster than thought. He mentions within a few generations but what if it is within one’s lifetime? It appears the latest genetic research is leading towards showing that from the time you are born compared to time of death, your DNA will be different - taking into account one’s lifetime of influences (from environment to even ones thoughts) and the changes they can bring about.

Later in the book he talks about religion and its role in adaptation, which I think could be connected to the early spirituality. His explanation on early humans:

But now suppose that early humans, equipped with a hypersensitive agency detector, a new ability to engage in shared intentionality, and a love of stories, begin to talk about their many misperceptions. Suppose they begin attributing agency to the weather. (Thunder and lightning sure make it seem as though somebody up in the sky is angry at us.) Suppose a group of humans begins jointly creating a pantheon of invisible agents who cause the weather, and other assorted cases of good or bad fortune. Voilà— the birth of supernatural agents, not as an adaptation for anything but as a by-product of a cognitive module that is otherwise highly adaptive.

There we have how people might have begun to attribute some agency to unknown events. They did their best guess (turned out to be wrong) but that’s what they had. Even today, we still have things that can’t be explained, and it can be said that supernatural agents are attributed to them. Best guess we have is all we have until something better comes along to explain it. I think there lies the mechanism as to how it happens. As groups get together, bond, grow larger, the need to attribute meaning to events around them leads to theories to explain them and thus what is not understood is seen as supernatural.

He goes on to say:

Sosis’s findings support Atran and Henrich. Gods really do help groups cohere, succeed, and outcompete other groups. This is a form of group selection, but Atran and Henrich say it’s purely cultural group selection. Religions that do a better job of binding people together and suppressing selfishness spread at the expense of other religions, but not necessarily by killing off the losers.

[...]

Maypole dancing seems to have originated somewhere in the mists of pre-Christian northern Europe, and it is still done regularly in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Scandinavia, often as part of May Day festivities. Whatever its origins, it’s a great metaphor for the role that gods play in Wilson’s account of religion. Gods (like maypoles) are tools that let people bind themselves together as a community by circling around them. Once bound together by circling, these communities can function more effectively. As Wilson puts it: “Religions exist primarily for people to achieve together what they cannot achieve on their own.”

[...]

Gods and religions, in sum, are group-level adaptations for producing cohesiveness and trust. Like maypoles and beehives, they are created by the members of the group, and they then organize the activity of the group. Group-level adaptations, as Williams noted, imply a selection process operating at the group level. 47 And group selection can work very quickly (as in the case of those group-selected hens that became more peaceful in just a few generations). 48 Ten thousand years is plenty of time for gene-culture coevolution, including some genetic changes, to have occurred. 49 And 50,000 years is more than plenty of time for genes, brains, groups, and religions to have coevolved into a very tight embrace.

[...]

Wilson’s account, human minds and human religions have been coevolving (just like bees and their physical hives) for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. And if this is true, then we cannot expect people to abandon religion so easily. Of course people can and do forsake organized religions, which are extremely recent cultural innovations. But even those who reject all religions cannot shake the basic religious psychology of figure 11.2: doing linked to believing linked to belonging. Asking people to give up all forms of sacralized belonging and live in a world of purely “rational” beliefs might be like asking people to give up the Earth and live in colonies orbiting the moon.

I think he makes a good case for how religion is adaptive for maintaining cohesiveness and trust. But how does spirituality fit into it? If it started with attributing things external to us a source for things greater than ourselves, and religion allowed for better cohesion and shared beliefs, then the idea of wanting to connect to a ‘divine’ source might be adopted and shared. If adopted at the group level, then the ideas that are most useful in having a spiritual connection would be group selected and passed on.

So going back to the first idea (the 6 moral foundations were there always there, and were instrumental in how groups formed, grew and networked) then it seems likely that the spiritual influence of those foundations may have only existed in potential (however the genetic adaptive qualities of those foundations were what brought together groups) as carry over from after the fall.

I remember reading 'soul marries with genetics' in a session. So another question would be: were there any souled individuals that could incarnate at the time? Or, did group selection, through religion bring the genetic changes necessary to allow souled beings to join the group once there was enough development in man? I don’t know really, and it’s all speculation at this point – but I find it quite interesting. Ultimately, it seems our own self-interests were best served by service to our groups. Aligning your own gain with the gain of others, as Peterson says.

 

[Laura]

Well, I think that readers of Haidt should also read Stringer's book about the "Origin of our Species" and Gribbin's book "The Monkey Puzzle." One of the things that Gribbin recounts is the Neoteny theory of human origins and that is pretty fascinating.

 

[Ruth]

I've been engaging with some of Haidt's W.E.I.R.D.s on Sott and I tell ya, it's like we're using the same script (English) but speaking two completely different languages with it. It's not just that we disagree: we use the same kinds of points to make our arguments and counter-arguments, only... theirs are completely inverted! We're completely impervious to them, and vice versa. Two totally different value systems, and never the twain shall meet.

Could this Conservative-Liberal split be, more or less, the 'splitting of Earths' described in an old session? Where we're in '4D Earth' but observing and interacting with '3D Earth'? An early phase or manifestation of it perhaps?

I don't think it was described quite like that, but dang if we're not in Kansas anymore!

I think that a lot of the problems between the 'Liberal-Conservative' split (seen in politics, but also other areas!) is due to the rigidity of some people's belief systems. These people then set about trying to marginalize and dominate, by force if necessary, more open minded people. I don't think its limited to politics, the same thing can easily be seen in the vaccine movement. Or perhaps in any conflict?

Sadly, I don't think it's a 3D/4D split, more like a recipe for Armageddon. Found this older YouTube Jonathan Haidt presentation. The introduction is quite long - 9 minutes, before the main action starts.

 

[Ruth]

Ah, the The HEXACO Personality Inventory - Revised experience. I think it's me to a T, and I'm very glad employers don't get hold of it. I know what they would say. Here comes trouble! It would mean I would be forced to lie and I hate lying.

Up: Unconventiality: 5.0, Sincerity: 4.5, Prudence: 4.25
Down: Patience: 1.75, Forgiveness: 1.00, Sociability: 1.25, Agreeableness: 2.13, Extroversion: 2.25, Social self esteem: 2.50