You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
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
challenging
informative
reflective
Lots of self reflection. Uncomfortable and deeply important.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I appreciated a lot of the analogous methods Jonathan used to describe his various viewpoints of why our political system is polarized. He brings up thought provoking analyses on how each polar end views their moral standings and extrapolates on the commonalities of each. I appreciated his ability to not provide ANY bias to this half of the book-- something that is rare. He simply looked at why the GOP is (for example) more likely to be pro-gun and why the DNC supports helping migrants. Where did this all start? Why is it so solidified today?
The second half of the book was a little more dry but the point was made. How did humans develop religion, why did we do it, and how has it transformed into today? It can all be found here.
Overall this book was a pleasure to read and I strongly encourage everyone to read at least the first section of the book about politics. It helps open one's eyes to why the 'other side' thinks/acts/reacts the way they do to political triggers.
The second half of the book was a little more dry but the point was made. How did humans develop religion, why did we do it, and how has it transformed into today? It can all be found here.
Overall this book was a pleasure to read and I strongly encourage everyone to read at least the first section of the book about politics. It helps open one's eyes to why the 'other side' thinks/acts/reacts the way they do to political triggers.
How can I not fall in love with a book that pushes me to look at the world in a different way; a book that made me feel a little uncomfortable. This is definitely one such book. Very briefly, it tries to understand human morality in terms of evolutionary traits, reduce them to six basic factors, and then tries to map our political inclinations into this six-dimensional space. It also tries to understand our religiosity in terms of these basic moral traits. His arguments are strong and convincing, but it can easily rub against the grain of your political beliefs, especially if you have a left leaning like many of us. However, that is the whole point of this book – to look at our political belief systems in terms of our human nature, as a scientist, and not as a political partisan. It made me better understand why I believe what I believe, and reduced the certainly I earlier had that my decisions were based on impeccable reasoning. In that sense it is a very humbling experience to confront the evidence and realize that we are not as smart as we think. I can see why some people read it as a justification of the conservative agenda, but I didn’t have that problem. I didn’t feel that the author is taking a particular side other than exposing what he has discovered. The book may also help dispel the often held notion that the people on the other side of the political spectrum are either stupid or evil.
I don’t think these six attributes he discovered are truly sacrosanct. Maybe these are not the real categories, maybe there are more than six of them, but that is really not that important. What is important is that this is a very plausible way of understanding the moral, political, and religious differences we see in the world. I am also not convinced by his argument about why he believes that these traits evolved genetically and not memetically through culture. Either way, the conclusions do not change. I also felt his attack on the neo-atheist group (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens etc.) was unnecessary. The only difference of opinion between them is whether religion could have played some useful role in our evolution or not. Once again, whichever side you take on this debate, the conclusions do not change.
This book is often used by the neo-conservative groups to advance their agenda. I think it is wise not to let that cause an allergic reaction. There is enough good thinking here, and we should be able to ignore the political intentions of some group, or even that of the author, if he has one, and focus on the argument it presents.
I don’t think these six attributes he discovered are truly sacrosanct. Maybe these are not the real categories, maybe there are more than six of them, but that is really not that important. What is important is that this is a very plausible way of understanding the moral, political, and religious differences we see in the world. I am also not convinced by his argument about why he believes that these traits evolved genetically and not memetically through culture. Either way, the conclusions do not change. I also felt his attack on the neo-atheist group (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens etc.) was unnecessary. The only difference of opinion between them is whether religion could have played some useful role in our evolution or not. Once again, whichever side you take on this debate, the conclusions do not change.
This book is often used by the neo-conservative groups to advance their agenda. I think it is wise not to let that cause an allergic reaction. There is enough good thinking here, and we should be able to ignore the political intentions of some group, or even that of the author, if he has one, and focus on the argument it presents.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Alarm bells started ringing in chapter 1 about the author's perspective. But I really wanted to give it a chance. The US-centric Republican evangelical view of free markets and conservative morality. A shame as I had high hopes.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
slow-paced