sourceType:: book author:: Jonathan Haidt sourcePublication:: The Righteous mind ref:: noteTitle:: Jonathan Haidt, the Righteous Mind (Book)
Jonathan Haidt, the Righteous Mind (Book)
fill in summary of book here
Humans have an inner lawyer, not scientist
notes to be organized:
Moral reasoning doesn’t improve moral behavior - it may in fact degrade it, actually, as the skilled reasoner can employ a powerful technique of of post-hoc justification. Moral philosophers are not better-behaved than other types of philosophers, even though they would be reasonably expected to have a better idea of preferred behavior.
To engender civility, good reasoning and truth-finding or balanced policy creation, put together intellectually and ideologically diverse groups where individuals can disconfirm each others’ claims while sharing a fate or common bond.
Intuitions can be shaped by rational reasoning - especially when those intuitions are developed within en environment of friendliness or surrounded by emotionally-compelling content (further clarification needed.) tags:
- nursery
Psychopaths reason, but don’t feel. And they are morally deficient. Babies feel, but don’t reason. They display burgeoning morality.
When in the presence of bad smells or tastes, people become more (negatively) judgemental.
Immorality makes people feel physically dirtier. When people have recently washed their hands or otherwise cleansed, their concern about guarding moral purity (especially around sexual topics) is increased. Even just standing near hand sanitizer can see this effect triggered. Helzer, Pizarro, 2011. Chenbo Zhong, 2010.
“If I feel good, then it must be the case that I like this thing. If I feel anything unpleasant, then it must be the case that I do not like it.” Jerry Clore “Affect as information”. 19.
This effect disappears when it is pointed out that an external factor caused the influence to the subject.
Affective reactions (like these above and other emotional reactions) are like horse blinders - they reduce the universe of alternatives available to thinking. The rider just doesn’t see anything off to the left once the elephant begins leaning right.
“Feeling” and “affect” is part of perception. It happens first and very quickly. It is very old (evolutionarily). It’s also linked to motivation. “Thinking” is rooted in language, newer (evolutionarily), slower and not tied to motivation. Re: motivation, it’s an adviser, not the leader.
Within seconds of meeting someone, your intuition/elephant begins deciding about them. Your following thoughts and actions are influenced by that initial reaction.
Brains constantly appraise: “Approach or avoid?”. Behavior is adjusted to get more good, less bad.
The basic theory of mind laid on in this book is idea of a rational rider on an emotional elephant. The rider can nudge and attempt to steer the elephant, but a lot of the time he’s just taken for a ride - and sometimes under the false impression that he is in control. Often the elephant will lean in one direction or the other, and then the rider is going off in that direction and only making minor corrections, but not deciding the greater direction.
first rule of moral psychology: intuitions come first, moral reasoning second.
The “mere exposure effect”: People will like nonsense words and pictograms that they’ve seen several times before. The brain decides that familiar is good, even when there is no consequential content, meaning or effect of the symbols.
Robert Zajonc, 1980s.
Talk to the elephant to change people’s minds. if you violate their intutions they’ll (irrationally, maybe) find an escape hatch to your argument.
moral reasoning is not a solo effort to figure out truth; its an intuition system attached to the social struggle to influence other people and win friends.
gut feeling judgements remain unchanged even when self-shown to be unfounded. gut feelings are the elephant, post-hoc justifications are the rider.
the rider evolved to serve the elephant.
mind model: rider: controlled process [on an] elephant, the automatic processes.