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

Author: Jonathan Haidt
All Hacker News 7
This Year Reddit 73
This Month Reddit 6

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


Review Date:


by Bluedevil1945   2018-03-19

Classic emotion.

People react first and then find a way to rationalize it. This book is real eye opener:

by unitedamerika   2018-03-19

They in this book. At work, and don't have it on me atm.

by swampswing   2018-03-19

If you are interested in the psychology or history of morality, check out the book: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion , by Jonathan Haidt. I just started it myself, but so far it has been fascinating.

My fear is actually the opposite of yours. That society and trans-humanism is domesticating humanity into creatures ill-suited for long term survive. Essentially that we are mentally going from proud, fierce wolves to fragile, little chihuahua incapable of surviving or functioning outside of the decadence of our technological bubble.

by BeetleB   2018-03-05
>Oddly before opening the article I had assumed it was about how moral "disgust" is positively correlated with left-leaning. But then the study was referring to digestive disgust which appears positively correlated with right-leaning.

Actually, even moral disgust is positively correlated with right leaning folks. The Righteous Mind ( is a great read that covers the research on the topic.

by Danihan   2018-01-07
To develop mental models you need to start at the ground floor, with understanding basic human nature.

by stonerbobo   2017-12-06

oh man.. just read /r/AskTrumpSupporters.. its depressing.

It really doesn't matter what arguments you make at all. Their intuitions come first, arguments come second. Intuition says Hillary is snobby/rich/evil and Trump is not, end of story.

There are people justifying Trump Jrs collusion with Russians! Anything can be justified with enough mental contortion and denial.

Really, the sooner you realize critical thinking means nothing to a huge group of people the better. Arguments don't form opinions, they are formed after the fact to justify them. Social pressures (what do my friends think?) & intuitions inform opinions.

EDIT: If this is interesting, checkout The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt . Its where i stole most of this from. Theres also other related stuf in behavioral econ & psychology - Thinking Fast & Slow by Daniel Kahneman , Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely . Its the tip of an iceberg

by Arguss   2017-12-06

Echoing the sentiments already said-- Sanders is a politician, not an intellectual.

In terms of book recommendations, I always recommend Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind , which goes into the moral foundations of liberals and conservatives, and can help you see things from another perspective.

In terms of liberal book recommendations, one book I really liked was American Progressivism: A Reader. It's a collection of speeches, essays, and letters written by progressives in the Progressive Era, and really gets at the core of what it means to be progressive, in a way that is not actually articulated all that much in modern times.

It also serves as a sort of history lesson, as a lot of the programs advocated for in the various speeches and essays were later adopted, forming the foundation of the American welfare state that exists today; hence you can see the thought behind these programs when they were first discussed.

by Arguss   2017-12-06

Yeah, I think that's the idea/justification on a sociological level.

In pre-antibacterial times, it made sense to be really weird about shellfish and pigs and poop, because that was a way of promoting hygiene, for example.

Similarly, we might say before birth control it made sense to slut-shame and regulate sexual interactions, to promote marriage and monogamy, because otherwise it was pretty likely you'd end up with a kid that didn't have a stable family to raise them. But now that sex is divorced from procreation, that sort of sociological justification falls apart.

For more information, check out the dude's book, The Righteous Mind . It's a good read.

by BeetleB   2017-10-23
>The purpose of moralizing is to shame those that ignore our struggle as living organisms.

So how is that working out?

Think of all the campaigns that have effected change. How often did shaming work? Sure, you have a few cases like the fight against Apartheid, but in general? Not effective.

Here's the thing. I'm as pro-science as they come. However, I've been blessed to come from communities that fall prey to anti-vaccine and other "nonsense". And one thing I know is that fact based ridicule and moralizing has a low success rate.

As someone who somewhat understands both communities, I am already not on your side. If a pro-vacciner like me is turned off by such rhetoric, imagine it from an anti-vacciner's side.

Think I'm an outlier? I'll hazard a guess that most pro-vacciners are close to someone who is not (family connections, etc).

There is comfort in being "right". But being "right" does not in itself translate to right outcomes.

The Righteous Mind ( is a very worthy read. A few things it points out:

1. On a polarized issue, facts will increase the polarization (and I'm guessing justifying shame with facts will exacerbate the issue)

2. To persuade someone, you will have a lot more success appealing to emotions than to the rational mind. This does not mean playing games where you manipulate people.

by beefman   2017-10-05
– Economics / sociology –

A Farewell to Alms

Cartesian Economics

The 10,000 Year Explosion

The Righteous Mind


– Philosophy –

Tao Te Ching


– Autobiography –

Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman

Recollections of Eugene Wigner

– Fiction –

Fahrenheit 451