The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt
The readers can download The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion Audiobook for free via Audible Free Trial.
Summary
Why can't our political leaders work together as threats loom and problems mount? Why do people so readily assume the worst about the motives of their fellow citizens?
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion is a captivating book that is easy to read but difficult to fully grasp. It delves into Moral Foundations Theory, a sociological concept developed by the author prior to the book, which explores 5 (later 6) distinct moral categories or receptors, such as harm, fairness, and sanctity. It examines how individuals on different ends of the political spectrum utilize these receptors to varying degrees. For example, liberals prioritize reducing harm, while conservatives emphasize respect for authority and tradition.
The remainder of the book expands upon Moral Foundations Theory, with the author openly acknowledging any missteps or gaps in the original version. One particularly compelling aspect is the exploration of fairness. Both conservatives and liberals place great importance on fairness, but their interpretations of this concept diverge significantly.
Another significant section of the book discusses "moral capital," which refers to the values that bind a society together. The author recognizes that conservatives generally excel in this regard compared to liberals.
To support the theory, the author incorporates a wealth of scientific evidence, drawing from fields like evolutionary biology, anthropology, and sociological experiments.
Despite the author's liberal background, he demonstrates a profound understanding and respect for conservatives and libertarians that has evolved over the years through his research. This unique perspective proves to be quite enlightening.
Given the current polarizing political climate, this book holds immense importance. It has the potential to foster mutual understanding and respect across all sides, even if reaching a middle ground seems unlikely. I give the book 4 stars because, in my opinion, the author occasionally oversimplifies certain concepts and sometimes provides conservatives with more credit than they deserve. However, overall, this book challenges my own beliefs and values in much-needed ways.
The narration of the audiobook is exceptional.
As a religious conservative, I found it surprising how insightful this liberal atheist was in "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion". While I don't see eye-to-eye with everything he presents, I do wholeheartedly agree with his primary arguments. He emphasizes the essential notion that both sides have valid perspectives, advocating for a more cooperative approach in America rather than being solely loyal to our respective parties. The author effectively backs up his viewpoints with scientific evidence, making for an engaging read!
I initially read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind in its physical form when it came out in 2012. About 9 months ago, I decided to get the audiobook version and found that listening to it alongside the online materials, as recommended by the narrator, made it just as easy to comprehend as the original book. In late 2013, another social psychologist named Joshua Greene released a book called Moral Tribes, which he intended as a challenge to some of Haidt's conclusions in The Righteous Mind.
The Righteous Mind is primarily based on well-documented, thoroughly analyzed studies conducted over several years. On the other hand, Moral Tribes seems to be a long, rambling argument that heavily relies on Greene's personal political philosophy. While both books have received high ratings from readers, it is clear that The Righteous Mind is far superior to Moral Tribes.
Both Haidt and Greene identify themselves as politically left-leaning and hold PhDs in social psychology. Although Haidt's book doesn't solely focus on political beliefs, it delves into six moral categories that different groups of people (referred to as "tribes" by Greene) adhere to. These moral categories do have implications for political philosophy, leading Haidt to discuss political differences in his interviews and speeches.
The Righteous Mind presents captivating studies on human beliefs about morality, making it an engaging and insightful book. Despite its political conclusions, it is an incredibly important work that helps us gain a better understanding of ourselves and others. Moreover, it offers guidance on how we can effectively collaborate despite our differences. I strongly believe that this book should be read by everyone, as it holds significant value.
Save yourself some time, because here's the gist: liberals dig diversity and aren't as affected by fear-driven manipulation, while conservatives prefer conformity and are more susceptible to fear-based manipulation. We've heard this before. The book essentially breaks it down for us. But what I really wanted was insight into how others develop their perspectives, so I could engage in meaningful conversations without dismissing them as brainless idiots. Sadly, this book didn't deliver on that front. Even after paying close attention to it, I still lack the necessary tools to truly comprehend my neighbors.
The author made the interesting decision to personally narrate his own book. Throughout the audio, his enthusiasm for certain sections often causes him to unintentionally mumble or run out of breath at the end of sentences. It's a shame because this issue could easily be fixed. The brilliance of the author's material is evident, and it seems he knows it so well that he overlooks the mumbled readings. But shouldn't there be an editor to insist on clearer diction and do retakes?
Right from the start, I noticed that Jonathan Haidt had a strong bias which made it difficult for me to continue listening to the rest of the chapter. The book claims to explore how people perceive religion, but it's evident that the author didn't put any effort into studying apologetics or hermeneutics. It's unsettling to see how readily he accepts the opinions of people who haven't really delved into the subject themselves. It seems intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
Haidt does a fantastic job in this book, demonstrating how our intuition often takes the lead in determining our stance on controversial and even trivial matters. He argues that we then use rationality as a tool to justify our decisions, rather than arriving at them solely through reason. Haidt also highlights that relying on gut instincts isn't always a negative thing; in fact, they can often be more authentic and reliable than purely rational judgments (if such judgments were even possible for most people). While rationality can moderate our intuition, Haidt emphasizes that if we truly want to change someone's mind, we must first address their intuition, rather than solely focusing on rational arguments. Understanding this can help diffuse heated arguments and prevent us from viewing our opponents as unintelligent or unwilling to accept our logic. This is definitely a must-read!
Before people start expressing their opinions in politics, they should definitely give this book a read. (Just kidding, free speech should never be restricted). However, it would be great if there was some kind of requirement that could reduce the hatred that has become so common in political circles. It was quite refreshing to be reminded that the opposing side is not inherently evil, but simply has a different approach to what they believe is morally right. It's fascinating to understand how our brains function in this area and how we can strive to be more reflective before our subconscious mind takes complete control. This book delves into the intriguing aspects of how we instinctively perceive and learn what is right and wrong.
If you're genuinely interested in comprehending the reasons behind why people who have different perspectives think the way they do, then this book is definitely worth your time. And just so you know, I'm not overly optimistic about the possibilities, as I've already predicted the headlines of the book reviews in two different publications. The New York Times will probably go with "Research reveals that liberals prioritize the well-being of others more than conservatives", while The National Review will likely choose "Research suggests that liberals have an imbalanced moral foundation".
Finally, this book provides a much-needed explanation for why someone like myself, who identifies as an economic conservative, libertarian, and recent follower of Christ, often finds themselves in moral conflicts.
Loading...
10 comments
Or use one of these social networks