Scan barcode
sigo06's review against another edition
4.0
4.6 !
Very enjoyable insight on "the meaning of life" and happiness. I think the audio book version was perfect for the informational content - not bornong or dragging at all! Some of it was a little repetitive but still insightful.
Very enjoyable insight on "the meaning of life" and happiness. I think the audio book version was perfect for the informational content - not bornong or dragging at all! Some of it was a little repetitive but still insightful.
xcinnamonsugar's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
5.0
What a brilliant read. This comes across as a reference book with an impressively coherent structure. Haidt balances academic theory (philosophical, psychological and religious) with relatable anecdotes from daily life, making this digestible without over-simplifying his key ideas.
Beyond simply explaining the psychology of the self, this analysis extends to explore how it influences social relationships, politics, culture and religion. My mind is blown- it's one of those books that's made me see our world very differently.
Beyond simply explaining the psychology of the self, this analysis extends to explore how it influences social relationships, politics, culture and religion. My mind is blown- it's one of those books that's made me see our world very differently.
peterwainaina's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
4.25
gadicohen93's review against another edition
4.0
An ambitious book that harnesses a single metaphor, the Elephant and the Rider. The elephant is the gut, our emotional, instinctual selves, controlled by the rider.
One sunny weekend afternoon I just aimlessly walked through the upper Castro and listened to this. I’m not sure if Haidt truly reached a single earth-shattering insight here but I learned a lot from his discussion of research. For example, many moral arguments stem from gut reactions, with any reasoning serving as post-facto defense mechanism rather than an actual coherent logical proof — e.g. a harmless instance of consensual incest is universally seen as disgusting, but like, why, if nobody gets hurt? It’s helped me think about my own moral scruples and identify how they might actually be rooted in aesthetic concerns.
Just random notes:
The Buddhist meditation on decomposing bodies; our problems understanding delayed gratification or squashing the imp of the perverse. I liked Boetheus’s consolation of philosophy, which seemed to posit overcoming adversity as the meaning of life; I liked discussion of the effect of genetics on satisfaction, from studies of identical twins split at birth to how waves on right or left side of the brain might affect your affective style; meditation as a natural, free Prozac. I of course could relate to the criticism of naive realism, that the other side is “evil”, the myth that one is caught in a Manichean struggle with pure evil, in which the ends justify the means. The hedonic treadmill is an incredible metaphor for the idea that we always adapt to our circumstances, except maybe those of us who get plastic surgery, who end up happier. Of course, the idea of “flow” is well-known and powerful. I loved McAdams’ theory of personality — that it’s made up of three levels: a. general dispositional tendencies, such as Big Five traits; b. desires, beliefs, concerns, coping mechanisms; c. and narrative identity, or a person’s life stories. The serenity prayer: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I. cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference”. The theory that Group selection does not end conflict; it just pushes it up to the next outgroup.
One sunny weekend afternoon I just aimlessly walked through the upper Castro and listened to this. I’m not sure if Haidt truly reached a single earth-shattering insight here but I learned a lot from his discussion of research. For example, many moral arguments stem from gut reactions, with any reasoning serving as post-facto defense mechanism rather than an actual coherent logical proof — e.g. a harmless instance of consensual incest is universally seen as disgusting, but like, why, if nobody gets hurt? It’s helped me think about my own moral scruples and identify how they might actually be rooted in aesthetic concerns.
Just random notes:
The Buddhist meditation on decomposing bodies; our problems understanding delayed gratification or squashing the imp of the perverse. I liked Boetheus’s consolation of philosophy, which seemed to posit overcoming adversity as the meaning of life; I liked discussion of the effect of genetics on satisfaction, from studies of identical twins split at birth to how waves on right or left side of the brain might affect your affective style; meditation as a natural, free Prozac. I of course could relate to the criticism of naive realism, that the other side is “evil”, the myth that one is caught in a Manichean struggle with pure evil, in which the ends justify the means. The hedonic treadmill is an incredible metaphor for the idea that we always adapt to our circumstances, except maybe those of us who get plastic surgery, who end up happier. Of course, the idea of “flow” is well-known and powerful. I loved McAdams’ theory of personality — that it’s made up of three levels: a. general dispositional tendencies, such as Big Five traits; b. desires, beliefs, concerns, coping mechanisms; c. and narrative identity, or a person’s life stories. The serenity prayer: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I. cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference”. The theory that Group selection does not end conflict; it just pushes it up to the next outgroup.
savaging's review against another edition
1.0
I could probably give this book two stars if I hadn't just got my fill of evo-psy smarm from Steven Pinker. Haidt's got the same penchant to 1) explain away the cultural status quo as a natural consequence of biological human nature; 2) present all of his ideas as scientific consensus, when there are very few non-controversial conclusions in positive psychology (it's fine for him to stick with his theory, but his disinterest in bringing up these disagreements leaves me very distrustful of him); 3) make readers shudder a little bit when they recognize the writer is coming from a space of extreme privilege and remains ignorant of the lives that most people live. He tells us his story of being a kid in Scranton, existentially depressed even though he got to drive daddy's Thunderbird, but don't worry he's found meaning now. And you can too, if you find "love, work, and connection to something larger." That's all it takes, everyone -- what excuse could you have for being sad?
The fundamental flaw in the book is the ambiguity between being a science book and a self-help book. It's valuable to point out the science supporting the idea that most happiness depends on the genetic crapshoot, and explain why this is so. But once he begins to tell the losers of this gamble what they can do to be happy anyway, I found myself becoming a crank. It bleeds quickly into the idea that people who are unhappy are 1) a problem to be fixed, and 2) in some way guilty for being that problem. He suggests that Buddhism is right, except for that whole non-attachment thing, because actually people are happier if they have stable relationships. When the entire Buddhist insight, it seems, is that there is no such thing as a 'stable' relationship, and you have to learn how to find internal peace even when death or the other ways of leaving leave you lonely. And if you don't come to peace with that, well -- really, who can? Anyone think it might be fine to be sad about that?
Haidt follows Durkheim's idea that "freedom is hazardous to your health," showing how the more social, familial, religious constraints a person has on them the less likely they'll commit suicide. But if happiness is bought only with conformity, at what point does it become irrelevant to living a life? And what if suicide is driven also by persecution directed at nonconformists? A friend sent this timely article to me which further explains why a person would be distrustful of the pursuit of happiness: http://m.chronicle.com/article/HappinessIts-Discontents/144019/
I especially got irritated when Haidt ventured into his exploration of "divinity," as an essential piece for happiness, which he commonly equates with the purity ethic, with a Pinker-esque overemphasis on 'decency' and good manners. Though Haidt repeatedly shows that an ethic of purity is tied to racism and misogyny, he thinks it espouses a crucial 'moral dimension,' and without it it's like we're living in Flatland. He has nostalgia for the time when we had universal moral standards and people were afraid of what their neighbors would say if they stepped out of line. Haidt's happy world is achingly bland. Though he at least proposes we find some balance between keeping ourselves pure and not screwing over the oppressed, I find myself far more interested in all the activities he aligns with the Disgusting. Sex and death and bodies feel plenty sacred enough for me.
Large passages of the book are focused on the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. While I understand the importance of figuring this out, it seemed like a distraction from his topic. It felt like he couldn't create an entire book with his one overwrought metaphor (elephant/rider), and so he took sections from his previous book The Righteous Mind to fill out the pages. Follow that with some repetition of his original ideas, and call it a book.
The fundamental flaw in the book is the ambiguity between being a science book and a self-help book. It's valuable to point out the science supporting the idea that most happiness depends on the genetic crapshoot, and explain why this is so. But once he begins to tell the losers of this gamble what they can do to be happy anyway, I found myself becoming a crank. It bleeds quickly into the idea that people who are unhappy are 1) a problem to be fixed, and 2) in some way guilty for being that problem. He suggests that Buddhism is right, except for that whole non-attachment thing, because actually people are happier if they have stable relationships. When the entire Buddhist insight, it seems, is that there is no such thing as a 'stable' relationship, and you have to learn how to find internal peace even when death or the other ways of leaving leave you lonely. And if you don't come to peace with that, well -- really, who can? Anyone think it might be fine to be sad about that?
Haidt follows Durkheim's idea that "freedom is hazardous to your health," showing how the more social, familial, religious constraints a person has on them the less likely they'll commit suicide. But if happiness is bought only with conformity, at what point does it become irrelevant to living a life? And what if suicide is driven also by persecution directed at nonconformists? A friend sent this timely article to me which further explains why a person would be distrustful of the pursuit of happiness: http://m.chronicle.com/article/HappinessIts-Discontents/144019/
I especially got irritated when Haidt ventured into his exploration of "divinity," as an essential piece for happiness, which he commonly equates with the purity ethic, with a Pinker-esque overemphasis on 'decency' and good manners. Though Haidt repeatedly shows that an ethic of purity is tied to racism and misogyny, he thinks it espouses a crucial 'moral dimension,' and without it it's like we're living in Flatland. He has nostalgia for the time when we had universal moral standards and people were afraid of what their neighbors would say if they stepped out of line. Haidt's happy world is achingly bland. Though he at least proposes we find some balance between keeping ourselves pure and not screwing over the oppressed, I find myself far more interested in all the activities he aligns with the Disgusting. Sex and death and bodies feel plenty sacred enough for me.
Large passages of the book are focused on the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. While I understand the importance of figuring this out, it seemed like a distraction from his topic. It felt like he couldn't create an entire book with his one overwrought metaphor (elephant/rider), and so he took sections from his previous book The Righteous Mind to fill out the pages. Follow that with some repetition of his original ideas, and call it a book.
adriannelikestoread's review against another edition
Too slow as an audiobook. May try to read the physical copy at a later date.
olya_hakob's review against another edition
I would probably like it more if I hadn't already read the "Righteous mind". They have a huge overlap, which was a bit disappointing.