A Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics & Religion (Commentary)
By: Angel Mondragon
Tags: Culture, Morality, Politics, Psychology, Diversity

PART I Intuitions Come First, Strategic Reasoning Second

Central Metaphor: The mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant.

Where does morality come from?

Before we actually explored what morality was, in the book, he stressed the importance of understanding that morality differs culturally. Firmly understanding this basic truth allows us to explore where it actually comes from.

“Where does morality come from? | There are two obvious answers to this question: nature or nurture. If you pick nature then you’re a nativist. … if you believe that moral knowledge comes from nurture, then you are an empiricist.”

Haidt goes on to argue, “But this is a false choice.” We have a third option: rationalism. This was discovered by a moral psychology study in 1987 which focused on morality being developed by experience and proper time.

This is what Haidt is attempting to say about rationalism, once again using a beautifully articulate example, “ We grow into our rationality as caterpillars grow into butterflies. If the caterpillar eats enough leaves, it will (eventually) grow wings. And if the child gets enough experiences of turn-taking, sharing, and playground justice, it will (eventually) become a moral creature, able to use its rational capacities to solve even harder problems. Rationality is our nature, and good moral reasoning is the endpoint of development.”

Later in the chapter, he examines harm, disgust, and disrespect as tools used to define how we develop our sense of morality. Truriel discovered that children learn that harm is wrong. Although cultural significance plays a role in each child’s moral education, children play rules to prevent harm and can distinguish between moral and conventional rules. He later adds that we have an innate repulsion against things that disgust us and disrespect us. He uses, “cleanliness is next to holiness” and adds an interesting description between liberals and conservatives for a more secular perspective, “Liberals sometimes say that religious conservatives are sexual prudes for whom anything other than missionary-position intercourse within marriage is a sin. But conservatives can just as well make fun of liberal struggles to choose a balanced breakfast — balanced among moral concerns about free-range eggs, fair-trade coffee, naturalness, and a variety of toxins, some of which (such as genetically modified corn and soybeans) pose a greater threat spiritually than biologically. “

Take Aways: The moral domain varies from culture to culture. Western cultures tend to have a more narrow view on morality while socio-centric cultures, such that in Asia, broaden the domain to encompass more moral regulation. A “gut-feeling”, specifically towards disgust and disrespect manage to drive our reasoning, and moral reasoning is a post hoc fabrication. Lastly, the 1987 study on rationalism was an incomplete model. Children cannot construct moral guidelines on the experience of harm alone, instead of cultural significant plays a larger role than previously theorized.

The Intuitive Dog and its Rational Tail

One of the truths in psychology is that the mind is divided into multiple parts, that often conflict with one another.

We start this chapter talking about the models of the mind, here are the 3 ones highlighted by Haidt.

Plato: Reason should be the master, even if philosophers can only reach a high level of mastery. Hume: Reason is and should be the servant of passion. Jefferson: Reason and sentiment are and should be independent rulers like the emperors of Rome (easter western halves)

Justification vs Judgment

In this section, Haidt uses a story of incest as a question in his study for research. The often response is judgment with a “that’s just wrong,” followed by a slow and unsatisfactory justification such as, “well their two methods of birth control could fail, and the baby can be deformed.” Haidt finishes the section by stating, “The intuition launched the reasoning, but the intuition did not depend on the success or failure of the reasoning.”

How to Win An Argument

“The social intuitionist model offers an explanation of why moral and political arguments are so frustrating: because moral reasons are the tail wagged by the intuitive dog.” He makes a great example of why it is so challenging to persuade someone to share your perspective on a divisive topic such as politics. You cannot force a dog to become happy by wagging its tail, just as you cannot change someone’s mind by refuting their arguments and failing to find common ground.

Take Aways:

The mind is divided into two easy-to-digest parts. Haidt with his abundant ability to create perfect analogies created the Elephant (automatic, intuitive, emotional processes) and the Rider (logical reasoning and control processes). “The Rider has evolved to serve the Elephant. The Rider is often observed failing to creat post hoc justification for the Elephant’s decision, specifically with disgust. The lack of explanation for the moral “dumbfoundedness” does not influence the decision of the Elephant. “Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.” This is fitting to Hume’s intuitive social model. Consequently, to successfully persuade someone of opposing beliefs, specifically in religion or politics, try talking to their elephant first. Otherwise, the comment will be counterargued to exhaustion. Even if your logical reasoning is superior, you’ll only infuriate them more and leave equally unsuccessful.

Elephants Rule

Brains Evaluate Instantly and Constantly

Brains have evolved to evaluate present situations with an instantaneous response. This found in flight or flight or as Haidt argues, “Avoid or Approach”. Our brains are equipped to do actions that benefit us and avoid actions that hurt us. Animals do this without cognitive reasoning, yet their survival proves to be prospering. Therefore, having a cognitive tool is not necessary to make critical decisions, but surely can be used as a great Advisor.

Morality can easily be swayed as demonstrated by Todorov with the IAT. Cleaning hands before taking a morality test would push subjects to repel immorality, as immorality is associated with dirtiness.

Babies & Psychopaths

This section is rather interesting to me as it emphasizes on neurology from a high-level perspective (a secret passion of mine). Psychopaths appear to have a genetic predisposition and no real nurturing correlation has been presented, according to Hare. Their innate capacity to reason (well, for the most part) with the inability to harbor emotions is a dangerous combination. Here the Rider is acting to serve the elephant but is not tasked with being a moral compass.

Babies have limited reasoning functionality and rely heavily on mirror-neurons to see how individuals are interacting with each other. Without any surprises, the elephant starts developing moral judgment long before logical reasoning can be formed. Intuition is the driving motor for our mind.

Brain Patterns & Open To Reasoning

When exposed to the Trolly Dilemma, Damasio, among many other recent studies, discovered neurons firing in regions of the brain commonly associated with emotional processing. This demonstrated that our emotions are correlated with moral judgment or instinctive decisions that people make.

Take Aways:

The brain evaluated instantly & constantly (with intuition). Social and Political judgment can be dependant on flashes of intuitiveness. Psychopaths are great with reasoning but fail to have much emotional, specifically pertaining to morals. Babies, on the other hand, feel but fail to have the ability to reason critically. Affective reactions in the brain are in the right place at the right time.

Vote for me (here’s why)

This chapter is rather interesting as it wraps up part 1, further proving that our reasoning consciousness is inferior to our Elephant. This chapter really applies to me specifically, and most of us. Our concern over others thoughts about us drives us to be socially accountable, or if malevolent (like I once was), deceitful.

Adding to Hares claim of psychopaths having an innate inability to genuinely feel Haidt discusses a sociometer. We, like politicians, care deeply what others think of us, and that’s why our obsession with polls manifests. Polls are like buttons that dump endorphins (good or bad) to the mind.

Confirmation bias is a tendency to seek or interpret data subjectively to adhere to our justification or reason of thinking, typically confirming your personal belief structure. Similarly, when the absence of oversight is combined with plausibility, most people will cheat. This will be relevant later in the series. I can attest to both though. We are all guilty (some more than others, like myself).

Rational Delusion

We often would say anything to support our team and confirm/ defend its core values and belief structure. Touting our political opinions is similar to badges in the military. It signifies camaraderie and ability to defend our group. Haidt even compares political praise is similar to a drug-addicted rat, “Like rats that cannot stop pressing a button, partisans may be simply unable to stop believing weird things. The partisan brain has been reinforced so many times for performing mental contortions that free it from unwanted beliefs. Extreme partisanship may be literally addictive.”

Confirmation bias is a built-in feature (argumentative mind), not a bug used that can be removed. Mercier summaries his study by saying, “skilled arguers…are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.”

However, we can use our confirmation bias productively, for the better of the collective. We can place argumentative minds with a group to disconfirm the claims of others while still cultivating an environment of common bonds, shared interests, and trust (all in ambition to interact civilly) we can produce groups yielding positive outcomes and ultimately produce good behavior.

Take Aways: