Subscribe for updates

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Jonathan Haidt, Righteous Minds - an update

Back in January of 2016, I posted a review here on Jonathan Haidt's book: The Righteous Mind :
https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-are-those-idiots-from-other.html

I have continued reading around and about him, and have stumbled on a few more things that I thought folks might find interesting. One of my problems with the book is that he explains the PROBLEM very well, but offers NOTHING that we can do about it.

Progressives and conservatives have the same moral values, but they put very different weights on them. Those values are, just as a refresher:


The five foundations of morality:
  • Harm / Care.
  • Fairness / Reciprocity.
  • In Group Loyalty. Only humans can form very large groups, which was a major step in enabling us to create civilization.
  • Authority / Respect.
  • Purity / Sanctity. Sex on the right, food on the left.
The key thing to remember here is that "he is NOT making this up". This is based on excellent research, corroborated by many others. 

BUT in the book, he presented NO idea on how we might overcome this tendency to divide us. People tend to fall down on a decision based on their leaning - the elephant is going there - your brain as the driver is not in charge. And when we are offered facts or opinions that run counter to the things we believe based on our moral values, we tend to reject them out of hand, with the result that our beliefs are even more entrenched. 

This is not a good way to achieve consensus and factual understanding of our problems and issues.

I just found a talk by Haidt (thank you Reddit) that presents some additional information and some recommendations on how we might actually start to bridge this gap in our society. He has 4 recommendations in there that hit me just right.


These are Jonathan Haidt's recommendations for bridging the divide between progressive and conservative morality values:  12/2016

1 - Reduce role of money in politics.
2 - Decentralize: Subsidiarity plus experimentalism
3 - Cut 2 years of high school math; replace with economics and statistics
4 - Increase viewpoint diversity in the academy: expose students to multiple moral matrices.
===============================
My comments: AMEN.

1 - money in politics - We want politicians amenable to the public, not the big corporations and wealthy only. The democracy is literally at risk if the rank and file feel that they are NOT represented. That is the whole genius of democracy: the sense that the government is responsive to my issues and concerns - plus protecting minority rights, of course. Overturn Citizens United by legislation. Reduce the funds required for campaigning at ALL levels by public funding, setting maximums, reducing time periods, etc. Some other form of democratic representation might even be called for at some point that can narrow the scope. See my suggestions here: https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2012/11/i-hate-elections.html
2 - decentralize. Haidt mentions Fractured Republic by Yuval Levin. Push responsibility down to the lowest level possible. And at the same time, subsidize more experiments on how we do things. I have not read that book yet, but the idea makes sense. Keep it as local as you can. Set guidelines and standards for broader areas, and have escape mechanisms where local control is abused, using audits, etc. It makes a lot of sense. People can also act a bit more civilly when they actually get to know each other - see M. Scott Peck on that one: The Different Drum.

3 - Cut 2 years of high school math; replace with economics and statistics
Amen again. I never did get much practical use out of trigonometry and solid geometry. I never took calculus, which they are pushing now at this level. These courses might be useful as a kind of test to see if you have the brain for math. I do not have a that kind of brain, and I suspect a lot of us do not. BUT economics and statistics, which I have had to learn on my own through reading, are almost essential to rational thought about our world. I would just caution that economics has to be more than a history overview course - it has to reach at least to Behavioral Economics so we understand the interplay of our psychological limitations and our economic decision making. People in elected offices make completely stupid claims daily about simple things like trade, the lump of labor fallacy, currency as wealth, etc. I am under the impression that most of them have no clue how currency exchange works around the world, let alone in the Fed. And most economic schools of thought are not science - they are more like religious beliefs. I would also be tempted to throw in a bit of psycho-social research on our fundamental tribal nature. But that might fit in the religious category below.

4 - Increase viewpoint diversity in the Academy. Absolutely. We need progressives and conservatives who can talk to each other civilly, and can challenge each other. We also need psychopaths and people with autism. (Look that one up!) We all have a key role to play in moving our society forward - we can’t get there if we are not all active participants. One way to begin is to expose students to the psycho - social research of the source of our moral values, and how to gain empathy with the other side. A nice course in polite civility as essential to communication might be a start. And I would do one on comparative religion if it were my dime. Way too many of us think that our view of the deity is the only viable one.

So there - a glimmer of a way forward. Haidt is working on a new book - I suspect he will have more suggestions in there.

What say you all about this approach? Any better ideas?

No comments:

Post a Comment