BOOK SUMMARY 56 The Righteous Mind
·
Summary written by: Ronni Hendel-Giller
"Politics and religion are both expressions of our
underlying moral psychology, and an understanding of that psychology can help
to bring people together."
- The Righteous Mind, page xiv
Jonathan
Haidt opens The Righteous Mind by invoking Rodney King’s
question, “Can we all get along?” From there, using research representing a
wide range of fields including psychology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology,
anthropology and behavioral economics, he dives deep into all that lies behind
this deceptively simple question.
How do
we develop our sense of morality? What is the relationship between the rational
and the emotional—what role does intuition play in morality? What dominates our
morality—the individual or the collective? Why do different people (especially
liberals and conservatives) hold such a vastly different sense of what’s right
and what’s wrong—and why are each sure that they are right?
This
is a book full of exciting ideas, fascinating studies and great writing. Most
of the way through the book I found myself reading aloud to anyone willing to
listen! Here are just a few takeaways—things that struck me as meaningful.
The Golden Egg
Morality is broader than we think
"Moral
matrices bind people together and blind them to the coherence, or even
existence, of other matrices. This makes it very difficult for people to
consider the possibility that there might really be more than one form of moral
truth..."- The Righteous Mind, page 130
When
western liberals think about morality, they tend to consider only a couple of
different dimensions (what Haidt calls “matrices”), specifically whether
something causes harm and if it’s fair. Haidt argues that these are just two of
six “matrices”—and that the people (western liberals) who focus on these two
are in the vast minority globally. He uses the metaphor of taste receptors and
the palate of tastes—sweet, sour, bitter, etc. to suggest that there is an
equally rich palate of considerations that go into whether people consider
something moral.
The
“candidates” for these receptors or matrices are: care, fairness, loyalty,
authority and sanctity.
Put
this together with what you will momentarily read about in GEM #1 and you’ll
realize that our moral intuitions—especially if we are not western liberals—are
likely to also be formed because of a sense of disloyalty or loyalty, respect
or disrespect of authority or as either upholding or degrading sanctity. If you
happen to be a western liberal (in full transparency, a category I fit into
perfectly,) you’re far more likely to focus only on whether something causes
harm—or whether something is fair or just.
By
ignoring the palate of moral receptors, Haidt claims that western liberals
don’t understand what makes others, unlike them, tick. At the same time,
conservatives, who tend to operate with a broader moral palate, might
underestimate the depth of conviction around care and harm that drives the
liberal mind. The mix creates for distrust, misunderstanding, and partisanship.
Haidt
also points out that western liberals are the outliers—strongly suggesting that
liberals must see the broader palate to have greater influence in political
discourse.
Gem #1
Intuition first—reason second
"If
you want to change people’s minds, talk to the elephant first."- The Righteous Mind, page 57
One of
Jonathan’s Haidt’s best-known metaphors, first explored in a previous book and
expanded here, is that of the elephant and the rider. This book expands and
deepens that metaphor. The mind is divided into parts—the rider being the
“controlled processes” and the elephant being the “automatic processes.” The
rider evolved to serve the elephant.
This
means that when we have a moral intuition (our elephant at work), we will
quickly engage the rider to justify that intuition, to provide reasoning for
it. Our analytical justifications are there to explain what we intuitively
sensed. It’s hard to get us to change our minds with reason and analytical
arguments. And, we’re so good at this that our riders will work diligently to
justify any position that our elephants take.
The
way to change minds and influence people is by speaking to the elephant first.
Much
of what we do, in day to day life, is precisely the opposite. We argue and
reason with the rider—and very little changes and shifts. While I’m still
working on what it means to talk to the elephant, I’m sure that the first step
is recognizing the power of the elephant and seeing my own elephant and rider
at work.
Gem #2
We are both chimp and bee
"An
organization that takes advantage of our hivish nature can activate pride,
loyalty, and enthusiasm among its employees and then monitor them less
closely."- The Righteous Mind, page 275
Experiments
have shown that human toddlers are able to succeed on challenges that are
social in nature where chimps simply can’t—while, with tasks that are not
social in nature, the chimps and toddlers achieve similar results. In fact,
humans veered from other primates when they developed “shared
intentionality”—the ability to share a task—to truly work together. This was
the beginning of “groupishness.”
While
we are 90% chimp—meaning that we are very much shaped by competition leading to
looking after our self-interest—we are 10% bee. Bees are “ultrasocial” and we,
too, have an ultrasocial overlay. Our ultrasocial nature was shaped by
competition of groups with other groups. In order to survive we had to
transcend our selfishness and turn on the “hive switch” at which point we
entered an “all for one, one for all” mind-set—where the good of the group
trumped the good of the individual.
We can
use this recognition that we are not just chimp, but also bee—for good.
Organizations are often run on the underlying premise that people are all
chimp—after their self-interest alone. We design systems of carrots and sticks
to get the results we want. We don’t tap into our social nature to create
organizations that in which “hivish employees work harder, have more fun, and
are less likely to leave the company.”
Haidt
offers practical suggestions here that include creating a sense of common
values and identity, give people opportunities to play together (literarily to
move together,) and to focus on creating group—not individual—competition.
My
favorite books are the ones that challenge things I assume are true and help me
see the world I live in through different eyes. In particular, Jonathan Haidt’s
book helped me see opinions and views that I typically reject—especially those
grounded in moral intuitions—with greater openness.
I hope
that what I’ve shared here has interested you enough to explore his work more
deeply on your own—and find your own GEMs. Meanwhile, I’d love to hear what you
think about the GEMs I’ve shared. What surprises you? What intrigues you? What
challenges you?
No comments:
Post a Comment