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
Jsem odjakživa posedlá otázkou, proč mají lidé takové politické preference, jaké mají, a knížku Jonathana Haidta velmi vřele doporučuji všem, kteří to mají stejně. Nutno říct, že takovou otázku je třeba odlišit od problému, jaké politické preference jsou správné, a ačkoli obě otázky rozlišuje i Haidt, nejsem si jistá, jestli je rozdíl mezi nimi z textu patrný pokaždé tak, jak bych ráda. Haidtovo vysvětlení faktorů, které leží za konzervativním a liberálním pohledem na svět, tak nevyhnutelně čas od času působí jako obhajoba jedné či druhé strany nebo dokonce relativizace některých nežádoucích jevů v politice. To je ovšem v zásadě jeden z mála kritických bodů, které k Morálce lidské mysli mám - jinak jde o přiměřeně čtivou, ale především informačně bohatou knihu, za kterou leží spousta kvalitního a fascinujícího vědeckého výzkumu.
Výborné jsou jak kapitoly o emočním základu našeho rozhodování, tak kapitoly o pilířích konzervativního a liberálního pohledu na svět. Haidt identifikuje pět "základů morálky", na jejichž půdorysu se vyvíjejí naše politické názory: péče a újma, férovost a podvádění, loajalita a zrada, autorita a podvratnictví a posvátnost a znesvěcení. Zatímco liberálové zdůrazňují pouze první dvě dvojice, konzervativci mají svůj morální základ širší a zahrnují do něj všechny tyto hodnoty. Jako základní, neostrý a poněkud zjednodušený plán spektra je to podle mě perfektní podklad pro orientaci v politických preferencích jiných.
Když jsem knížku dočítala, měla jsem (jako člověk se spíš levicovými intuicemi) mnohem lepší představu o výhodách konzervatismu než dřív. To odpovídá perspektivě, ze které píše Haidt: perspektivě liberálního univerzitního studenta, kterému pravicové a konzervativní hodnoty připadají iracionální a nebezpečné. Haidtův závěr je nakonec jednoznačně vyrovnaný: explicitně hledá výhody obou stran a nestaví se ani na jednu z nich. Mám ale trochu pochybnosti, jestli pravičák, který knížku přečte, odejde se stejně pozměněným pohledem na věc, jako jsem odešla já. Je to dáno Haidtovým úhlem pohledu: jednoduše nemá stejnou potřebu vysvětlovat přitažlivost levicovosti, protože ta je jeho výchozím bodem.
90%!
Výborné jsou jak kapitoly o emočním základu našeho rozhodování, tak kapitoly o pilířích konzervativního a liberálního pohledu na svět. Haidt identifikuje pět "základů morálky", na jejichž půdorysu se vyvíjejí naše politické názory: péče a újma, férovost a podvádění, loajalita a zrada, autorita a podvratnictví a posvátnost a znesvěcení. Zatímco liberálové zdůrazňují pouze první dvě dvojice, konzervativci mají svůj morální základ širší a zahrnují do něj všechny tyto hodnoty. Jako základní, neostrý a poněkud zjednodušený plán spektra je to podle mě perfektní podklad pro orientaci v politických preferencích jiných.
Když jsem knížku dočítala, měla jsem (jako člověk se spíš levicovými intuicemi) mnohem lepší představu o výhodách konzervatismu než dřív. To odpovídá perspektivě, ze které píše Haidt: perspektivě liberálního univerzitního studenta, kterému pravicové a konzervativní hodnoty připadají iracionální a nebezpečné. Haidtův závěr je nakonec jednoznačně vyrovnaný: explicitně hledá výhody obou stran a nestaví se ani na jednu z nich. Mám ale trochu pochybnosti, jestli pravičák, který knížku přečte, odejde se stejně pozměněným pohledem na věc, jako jsem odešla já. Je to dáno Haidtovým úhlem pohledu: jednoduše nemá stejnou potřebu vysvětlovat přitažlivost levicovosti, protože ta je jeho výchozím bodem.
90%!
informative
reflective
slow-paced
This book is now required reading in my world. :) Haidt posits his own theory of moral psychology, navigating the space between Plato's view, in which the passions are the servants of Reason, and David Hume's teaching, that emotions rule over reason. He uses the metaphor of an elephant (emotions) and a rider (reason), in which the rider can make suggestions to the elephant, but if the elephant decides it's going (or not going) somewhere, all the rider can do is say "I meant to do that."
Haidt uses simple experiments and clear language to delineate the framework of morals that determine how we operate in relation to our world and other people. He also outlines the different moral undergirding for liberals and conservatives, explaining both why conservatives so often seem to have the moral high ground and how liberals can expand their appeal by including broader moral appeals in their messaging. Even if you think your political viewpoint has morality "right," this book is immensely enlightening of the other position.
Haidt uses simple experiments and clear language to delineate the framework of morals that determine how we operate in relation to our world and other people. He also outlines the different moral undergirding for liberals and conservatives, explaining both why conservatives so often seem to have the moral high ground and how liberals can expand their appeal by including broader moral appeals in their messaging. Even if you think your political viewpoint has morality "right," this book is immensely enlightening of the other position.
This book was recommended for those who enjoyed “The Coddling of the American Mind” and “Don’t Label Me” (which I highly recommend) and for me, it was a good recommendation. I’m struggling to be more patient and understanding of those who have radically differing viewpoints, politics, and religious persuasions from me, so I’m hoping that I can take deep breaths and keep the concepts I learned in books like this one in mind when I feel a need to react negatively to those around me. I actually also gained some unexpected perspective on the way some of my students might be hard wired that I’m hoping will help me reach them and become a better, more patient and understanding educator, too. The journey continues...
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I admit this book took quite a bit of concentration to get through. It took me a while to grasp the "rider/elephant = reason/instinct" analogy.
The 6 moral foundations and overview of social and moral capital were are also instructive. The following point, in particular highlighted for me a reason why liberal views are less common among older people and zealots, and why Trump's emphasis on the fear of losing traditions and institutions has been so successful:
>> "But their zeal to help victims, combined with their low scores on the Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity foundations, often lead them to push for changes that weaken groups, traditions, institutions, and moral capital."
I would be interested in an update to this book since it was published before 2016. The divisions have grown and are promoted by Trump as this feeds into his ability to fuel anger and fear, which fires up his base, as well as his opponents. I am always in search of differing viewpoints and appreciate the desire of Haidt to encourage open-mindedness. However, Trump has thrown the riders off his supporter's elephants entirely, and for me it is very hard to see any reasoning happening for those who follow him.
To that point ...
"That binding usually involves some blinding—once any person, book, or principle is declared sacred, then devotees can no longer question it or think clearly about it."
The 6 moral foundations and overview of social and moral capital were are also instructive. The following point, in particular highlighted for me a reason why liberal views are less common among older people and zealots, and why Trump's emphasis on the fear of losing traditions and institutions has been so successful:
>> "But their zeal to help victims, combined with their low scores on the Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity foundations, often lead them to push for changes that weaken groups, traditions, institutions, and moral capital."
I would be interested in an update to this book since it was published before 2016. The divisions have grown and are promoted by Trump as this feeds into his ability to fuel anger and fear, which fires up his base, as well as his opponents. I am always in search of differing viewpoints and appreciate the desire of Haidt to encourage open-mindedness. However, Trump has thrown the riders off his supporter's elephants entirely, and for me it is very hard to see any reasoning happening for those who follow him.
To that point ...
"That binding usually involves some blinding—once any person, book, or principle is declared sacred, then devotees can no longer question it or think clearly about it."
I really wanted to like this book more than I did. Haidt's research and writing about morality and why people behave the way they do in groups is interesting and pertinent to our divided political and social climate. He summarizes the moral frameworks of conservatives and liberals as well as their strengths and weaknesses. He also points out the need for both conservative and liberal viewpoints -- the yin and yang -- to create a strong society. I took issue with him pointing out that some societal aspects -- like ethnic/cultural diversity -- can actually harmful to the cohesiveness of societies. What does he propose as an alternative? He does not offer one. I also feel like this book didn't adequately address the values of people who are more moderate, like myself.
As a progressive pastor currently caught up in the debate about gay marriage, I read this book to help me understand the point of view and world view of people who oppose gay marriage. Haidt helped me to understand why it is difficult for me to understand these opposing arguments. I do not rely very much on the authority, loyalty, and sanctity moral foundations, or not nearly as much as my more conservative colleagues. I used this book as a basis for a sermon series at my church. I found it challenging and helpful.
I deducted a star because the talk around group selection was short and rushed for such a big claim, though it's still understandable for the nature of the book and Prof. Haidt's field. Nonetheless, it's a great book to simply understand human's motives and morality from an evolutionary point of view, I didn't like the genes decide where you'll lie politically but soon explained how predisposition doesn't mean predetermination, which goes perfectly with the book's point of view and his liberal author.
I started this book because we read portions of it in a class and honestly I DNF this book. Haidt has good intentions however a lot of his moral assumptions are backed by research done on people who are neurotypical. Haidt continually leaves out a are portion of society while claiming to understand society and their moralistic behaviours. Overall I think this book had potential but it’s just represents another case of a psych person trying to talk about things that are not in their locus of knowledge