The more I read of Haidt's work (and not listen to him talk about his work, wherein he sounds more open-minded and less partisan), the less I think he has anything of any value to offer. Whatever he professes, he is a conservative with a definite bias.
Haidt proposes, in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, that there are just six “moral foundations” - care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity, and their multivariate manifestations generate the spectrum of moral behaviors in which humans seem to engage. According to Haidt, liberals are good at care and fairness, but conservatives are good at liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity, and they aren't to bad at care at fairness either.
He marshals the evidence to support his claims, but it feels like cherry-picking only the data that support his bias. There are equally strong data arguing opposite perspectives. In essence, I don't trust him.
That's my bias.
Authors@Google - Jonathan Haidt
In his new book, "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion", Jonathan Haidt explores the origins of morality and its basis in politics and religion. In this talk, given during his visit to the Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA, Jonathan provides an introduction to the core themes of the book, particularly as they apply to the "hive-like" mode of operation of Google, Zappos, and many other successful organizations. He investigates the question of why some successful organizations operate like wolf packs, others like beehives. And he links several theories from the natural sciences, religion, and philosophy to try to explain how and why humans can be far more "groupish" than "selfish".
Jonathan Haidt is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and a visiting professor of business ethics at New York University's Stern School of Business. He is the author of "The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom.
3 comments:
Liberals are just ga-ga over justice and fairness. And I think that that is true. Liberals are correct, I think, to believe that loyalty (which can contrast with fairness and be tribal) and authority (which can be an iron boot on one's neck) and liberty (which can be interpreted as independence in opposition to community) and sanctity (which easily becomes self-righteousness) are dicier qualities.
Justice and Fairness just seem like the basic and really foundational moral elements. But I would say that liberals should have better appreciation for responsibility (which is something conservatives are ga-ga about in the scope of liberty) and heirarchies of authority (complete egalitarianism is chaos) and should respect sanctity (it is a glue in keeping society safe and peaceful, if nothing else). As for loyalty, well, liberals will never be as gung-ho loyal as nutty conservatives. We liberals are cats; conservatives are dogs.
I'm not aware of others studying the issues that excite Heidt (and me). I don't see him as being biased. I'm surprised by your negative regard for the man and his work and his conclusions.
I'm with you, I don't trust him either. I was open toward him at first, because goodness knows we need some neutrality in politics! But it didn't take long to see that he has a definite bias. It was strange to me to learn that he went from liberal to conservative, since in my experience growth usually goes in the other direction. But then I read that he "converted" after 9/11 and I realized that fear can sometimes cause a regression to an earlier stage of growth. His analysis of conservative values around loyalty and regard for authority reminds me of questions about morality such as "Is it wrong to steal a medicine that would save your wife's life if you have no other way of obtaining it?" Those at earlier stages of moral development say yes, it would be wrong, whereas those at a higher stage of moral development would be able to make a more nuanced choice instead of blindly following authority at the expense of a life.
I read the "Happiness Hypothesis" and am halfway through "The Righteous Mind." My understanding is that Haidt is a liberal but wants to humanize conservatives, i.e. show that they have a value to society and aren't just a bunch of loonies. You all read him to be a conservative? What am I missing? Is there some plot twist at the end of the book?
Post a Comment