Take a photo of a barcode or cover
1.43k reviews for:
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
Jonathan Haidt
4.06 AVERAGE
1.43k reviews for:
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
Jonathan Haidt
4.06 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
dark
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
There was so much great information in this book, I'll need to listen to it again. If you really want to understand people, views, this is the book for you. I constantly try to understand why we're all different and try to see all views and opinions and understand people (and myself) better and I feel like Jonathan shaped it all in ways I could finally understand and pinpoint these similarities and differences.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I will give this book credit for making me think. I would frequently have to pause the audiobook and take notes.
In the final chapter, Haidt discusses the value of bipartisanship in policymaking, arguing that ideally, all ideologies would collaborate and balance each other out. Unfortunately, because this conclusion is buried in the last 10% of the book, many right-wing media outlets have used this book to suggest that conservatives are “scientifically proven” to be more moral than liberals. Without the context of the final chapter, the rest of the book often feels like a slog.
My main criticism is that I don’t think the earlier chapters adequately support the bipartisan message he ultimately promotes. Much of the book highlights the value of conservatism and religion while failing to equally recognize the strengths of liberalism and scientific thought.
Haidt proposes six dimensions of morality: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation.
He argues that liberals tend to prioritize care, fairness, and liberty while conservatives value all six equally.
I find this distinction thought-provoking, especially when it comes to party messaging. However, these dimensions were developed by Haidt and his team, and I don’t believe like they are as universal as he suggests. (For instance, where is truth/dishonesty? That is an important moral foundation for me.) It made me wonder what alternative dimensions other researchers might develop.
(Also…Haidt displays some phenomenal moments of white male privilege during his account of his time researching in India. He witness women and servants being mistreated, but then he culturally acclimated and saw the benefits of a moral matrix that prioritizes loyalty and authority. Which was then a pivoting point for him becoming conservative…. Yes, as a white man I’m sure that was a very positive experience for you.)
That said, I do think liberals could benefit from promoting more community centered ideas, and incorporating more messaging that resonates with the values of loyalty, authority, and sanctity to rally their base and reach a broader audience.
In the end, I’m unsure if this book is worth reading. While it raises some interesting points, it ultimately falls flat for me. I’ll need to read more about the left/right divide to better assess where this book stands in the broader conversation.
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
The author appears to have written this book to encourage liberals to better understand conservative voters-and perhaps the reverse, though I doubt many conservatives, especially those aligned with MAGA, would pick it up (this is my perspective, informed by years of discussion with such supporters). However, there are several areas where the book falls short.
First, the author seems to attribute issues in the medical industry, such as insurance problems and lack of competition, to liberal policies aimed at expanding access to basic services. In reality, the medical field is plagued by capitalistic monopolies and profit-driven motives that often exploit even basic human needs; this unchecked pursuit of profit is a fundamental problem; which he does mention but not in the same context. The author’s implicit faith in the 'invisible hand' of the market, without addressing the necessity of oversight and regulation, is a significant oversight.
Second, the book largely overlooks the ways in which religion has been complicit in historical injustices such as slavery, indigenous genocide, and colonialism. It is problematic to highlight the moral benefits of religion without acknowledging its substantial role in perpetuating hate and intolerance, particularly against women and people of color, throughout North American history.
I do appreciate the breaking down of morality into six categories. It genuinely helps me to seek out opportunities for discussion and frame these discussions with aspect the the other person values.
The six moral principles:
First, the author seems to attribute issues in the medical industry, such as insurance problems and lack of competition, to liberal policies aimed at expanding access to basic services. In reality, the medical field is plagued by capitalistic monopolies and profit-driven motives that often exploit even basic human needs; this unchecked pursuit of profit is a fundamental problem; which he does mention but not in the same context. The author’s implicit faith in the 'invisible hand' of the market, without addressing the necessity of oversight and regulation, is a significant oversight.
Second, the book largely overlooks the ways in which religion has been complicit in historical injustices such as slavery, indigenous genocide, and colonialism. It is problematic to highlight the moral benefits of religion without acknowledging its substantial role in perpetuating hate and intolerance, particularly against women and people of color, throughout North American history.
I do appreciate the breaking down of morality into six categories. It genuinely helps me to seek out opportunities for discussion and frame these discussions with aspect the the other person values.
The six moral principles:
- Care/harm
- Fairness/cheating
- Loyalty/betrayal
- Authority/subversion
- Sanctity/degradation
- Liberty/oppression
This is a fantastic 5 star book about moral psychology. But whenever there are attempts to apply it to politics and political ideology it seems to fall apart. And the existence of such large omissions regarding political issues on both the left and the right can’t help but give the impression that the book knows it is falling apart here, and so the less it can say before concluding and the sooner it can get back to the psychology sections the better.
Despite the psychology elements being some of the most interesting and well written science I’ve read in a popular book I’m just left thoroughly pissed off and can’t help but think the author crowbarred in the political angle of the book in order to increase sales. On no fewer than 3 occasions I almost threw the bastard out the window out of frustration.
Despite the psychology elements being some of the most interesting and well written science I’ve read in a popular book I’m just left thoroughly pissed off and can’t help but think the author crowbarred in the political angle of the book in order to increase sales. On no fewer than 3 occasions I almost threw the bastard out the window out of frustration.
I loved this book. The authors organization of the key points was really good, and made his arguments easy to follow and understand. While many books which tackle politics claim to be "fair and balanced", I felt like this was the first one I read which was fair and balanced. I recently read "Conflicted" and "Thinking in Bets" which compliment this books key points really well.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Great book and Haidt is amazing at diagnosing the problem but his solution is vague and idealistic to a point that almost takes away from the substance unintentionally. The build up is great, full of deep and nuanced analysis that avoids partisanship while still communicating the foundations and issues fluently. For such a deep exploration his final solution is almost voided by its vagueness. It builds up to try provide a satisfactory proposition but answers it with what feels like a surface level observation that could just as easily be made without majority of the text, or even by the reader when asked the question of the text. Haidt’s avoidance of partisan bias brings much substance to the discussion but in the end feels like a cop out- to clarify, I don't wish he proposed a solution from a partisan lenses but that he was more committed rounding out the book. The book took off and flew superbly but when it comes to the landing it's almost as if Haidt has left the cockpit. I never disagreed or felt criticized by Haidt's writing and found his approach to be insightful and introspective. But am left by the last couple pages feeling that what I felt was gonna finish as almost a 5 star read instead surmounted to a hollow conclusion that was no longer willing to deep dive into analysis and discussion. The text in hindsight feels like the perfect preface for someone else trying to approach and a find meaningful solution.
For so much amazing work in his approach, discussion and analysis I feel it has been so thoroughly drained in the last couple pages. Haidt gives you a powerful lens but then leaves you holding it without a clear target
For so much amazing work in his approach, discussion and analysis I feel it has been so thoroughly drained in the last couple pages. Haidt gives you a powerful lens but then leaves you holding it without a clear target
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Great way to learn and understand the morals of people and their groups. The book teaches why people feel so strongly in their beliefs and how to communicate with people in an increasingly divided world.