Just finished this bad boy. What did I think of it?

[Anonymous No.19638634]

>part 1 is very content heavy but brings out good points about how people all have biases and make verdicts before providing arguments to fundament them logically
>part 1 also gives great insight on how people will act less accordingly to the data and more accordingly to public opinion when their verdicts are known

>part 2 is great fun that you breeze through and learn about the different biases that exist, how they are fundamented by moral psychology and evolutionary psychology
>you also learn about how different cultures and different political orientations are a result of the different biases that people have when triggered by a moral dilemma

>part 3 is a bit convoluted as it delves into group selection theory in order to explain how these biases (and thus morality) developed as a form of darwinian group natural selection, where groups that lacked morals were uncapable of amassing enough numbers and productivity in order to compete with less social groups — which the author considers a transition not very unlike the transition from single cell to multicell creatures. Still great fun

I loved this book, although it can be quite depressing at times. The political and social implications of morality being purely aesthetic and then justified ad hoc with token logical arguments are devastating. Also devastating is how hard it is to convince anyone of anything since reason simply does not work.

Anyone else read it? What did you think?

It is a great read for both Left and Right.

[Anonymous No.19638679]

>>19638634
It's on my to-read list

[Anonymous No.19638694]

Haidt is great. I recommend his "Coddling of the American Mind."

[Anonymous No.19638736]

>>19638634
>The political and social implications of morality being purely aesthetic and then justified ad hoc with token logical arguments are devastating.
Haidt gives very flimsy empirical support for this. A couple of heavily theory-laden psychological experiments are not enough to make such sweeping statements. He also has a very shallow understanding of moral philosophy, which is evident whenever he name drops Plato, Nietzsche or whoever else. Evolutionary psychology (when done by bestseller baiting popscientists) can explain and justify every behavior you can think of, all you need to do is conjure a story of how this behavior was once beneficial for our species. I don't remember much from the book, so I won't go into details, I only remember the general impression of not being very fucking impressed.

[Anonymous No.19638802]

>>19638694
Last time it got brought up on /lit/ people were really seething about it.

[Anonymous No.19638896]

>>19638736
I respectfully think you are poisoning the well.

Part 1 is very solid and convincing. More than twenty studies related and unrelated to moral judgements are presented across two decades, many cultures were tested and many researches approached the matter (Kohlberg, Scweder...). The evidence for the bias is overwhelming, even if the evolutionary psychology part does leave doubts.

Part 2 is where the book may fall flat and the presented thesis requires amendments before the part is even over (such as the differentiation of justice for liberals and conservatives). Although I believe that it is poisoning the well to say 'anything can be evolutionarily benefitial', because that is not the case.

Part 3 is more convincing, although the author has a humble approach to evolutionary psychology since he is not a biologist. He presents a very reasonable case for morality being benefitial to living beings and human societies, although the hypothesis of the social switch may be hard to prove and require more studies than 'it is the hormones / it is the neuron'.

I found that he was quite good with philosophy, in particular his reasonable approach to Kant and Bentham's systemic moralities, David Hume's argument for a more human and superfluous morality derived from the person's aesthetic sense, and also there is a great application of Durkheim's anthopological studies of morally conservative societies in comparison to Stuart Mill's damage-based morality that is prevalent in modern western rich countries.

[Anonymous No.19639017]

>>19638896
>Twenty studies (with the same assumptions) across two decades is "overwhelming evidence" (in social science no less)
>I somehow claimed that 'anything can be evolutionarily benefitial'
>He presents a very reasonable case for morality being benefitial to living beings and human societies
That's obvious and boring, what about his actual thesis that there are irreconcilable differences in the emotional basis of morality between populations? That's the one he's setting out to prove.
>he was quite good with philosophy because he made a couple of unwarranted connections based on shallow misreadings to support his claims, while being utterly unaware of his own implicit ethical assumptions
I respectfully (as respectfully as you can make such a claim) think that your lack of background knowledge and reading skills lead you to be overly impressed with this book. I'm not trying to start shit, I'm giving my opinion because you asked. The support for Haidt's central thesis is unconvincing and all his wide-spanning musings serve to hide this.

[Anonymous No.19639072]

>>19638634
I ignore evolutionary arguments as a matter of habit. As a field it is only good for post-hoc rationalization of the findings of empirical studies, and is pretty bad at making correct predictions. It is truly a field that tells you a lot more about the researchers than the subjects.

[Anonymous No.19639103]

>>19639072
It should make testable predictions, like "nausea during early pregnancy is there so the fetus isn't poisoned". You then hypothesize that tastes associated with poisons that are dangerous to the fetus but harmless to the mother will cause nausea and verify it. Otherwise it is ad hoc speculation, here, have my favorite illustration of this problem, worth a watch if you find evolutionary arguments convincing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94_omZ2RnfI

[Anonymous No.19639110]

>>19639017
He does prove it earlier in the book (part 1), before the emotional biases are even presented. By demonstrating how reason comes in an ad hoc fashion when one is presented with a moral dilemma, differences in judgement could only come from emotional biases that vary according to the culture of the person (as observed in the various mentioned studies in the USA, Europe, South America and India), being inate and proper to social class and caste clusters. These observations are not even Haidt's, but rather Schweder's.

If you are actually searching for the discussion regarding moralities between groups, Kohlberg vs. Schweder's debate is much more suitable. However, since you've poisoned the well stating that no proof of bias will ever be sufficient, I cannot possibly convince you otherwise. Yet by showing such disposition to disagree with me, you prove that the author's correct, since you've clearly decided that we are in opposition regarding the thesis and will even resort to attacking me, the author and the writing as long as you don't have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I am afraid you are being overly rigorous and demanding the author to spell it out to you.

Also, your claim that I have misrepresented you is rubbish:

>what I said: I believe that it is poisoning the well to say 'anything can be evolutionarily benefitial', because that is not the case.
>what you said: Evolutionary psychology (when done by bestseller baiting popscientists) can explain and justify every behavior you can think of

This is a direct quote from your previous post.

Nice try.

[Anonymous No.19639144]

>>19639072
>what is lactose tolerance
>what is domestication

Evolutionary theory is used from computer routines to bacteria farms, yet it will be /lit/ that disregards it for no other reason than imposing impossible standards of truth which they would not accept even if they were achieved.

You can choose to disregard all evolutionary arguments if you want for any reason that I'm sure makes sense to you. However, you will be obsolete and wrong. Evolutionary theory is incredibly useful.

[Anonymous No.19639158]

>>19638802
Why. I would assume it panders to their bias.

[Anonymous No.19639164]

>>19639144
Evolutionary psychology makes sense as a field, and I think it is inevitable that a lot of insights are going to come from it, but it seems difficult to differentiate specific theories from just-so stories.

[Anonymous No.19639176]

>>19639110
>This is a direct quote from your previous post.
See >>19639103 and l2read. You seriously cannot tell how these statements are different? Can you not see the difference between actual benefit of the behavior and an ad hoc explanation of how the behavior was supposedly beneficial? Are you dumb or are you playing dumb?
>I am afraid you are being overly rigorous and demanding the author to spell it out to you.
I'm afraid you have serious reading comprehension issues.
>He does prove it earlier in the book (part 1), before the emotional biases are even presented.
Emotional bias is part of his fucking thesis, so how can he prove his thesis before he introduces the concept? It's mind-boggling how confused you are. Seriously, you need to be more humble about your reading and reasoning skills, because they are abysmal. I won't even discuss details with you, because it will be tiring. Haidt failed to prove his thesis, but evidently he succeeded in fooling gullible, inattentive dolts into thinking that his scatterbrained and flimsy reasoning is tight.

[Anonymous No.19639189]

>>19639144
>Evolutionary theory
Not the same thing as the kind of ad hoc "explanations" that evolutionary (pop)psychology engages in. You're not even wrong, you just failed to understand the post you're quoting.

[Anonymous No.19639191]

>>19638634
Is this book leftwing or rightwing?
Or dare I say . . . nonpartisan?

[Anonymous No.19639207]

>>19639164
Evolutionary theory is much like the atoms were in 19th century. Technological applications that come from the supposition of evolutionary theory being correct are plenty and regularly applied. While all justification for biological evidence must be provided post hoc (which is obvious, since evolutionary justifications for why species are in the place they are must justify mutation distributions that happened in the past), one cannot deny how elegantly evolution justifies the prevalence of those mutations and how reliably (unlike it was claimed in posts beforehand) the geography can predict which mutations will be prevalent.

I don't know from where the hostility towards evolutionary theory comes from, if it is hostility towards evolution itself or against the applications of evolution (which concern genes of an individual) to larger groups as proposed by Darwin, which was passionately opposed in the 60s and 70s.

What cannot be changed is how effective the mathematical models that apply evolutionary theory are. You can choose to disregard evolution, however any hypothesis that you raise will be purposefully hijacked and even incomplete due to this.

[Anonymous No.19639218]

>>19639191
The author is left-wing, yet it is propaganda-free. It comes from a leftist who is genuinely trying to understand why people are right-wing and denounces his friends for not being able to conceive how 'right-wing people could exist'. He himself went through an arc where he noticed he lived in a bubble, even recognizing the merits of a right-wing society.

It is a good book about understanding political differences, even if the core message about irreconciliable differences in an irrational moralistic world may be grim.

I am a conservative and genuinely appreciated the writing. It is useful for all readers.

[Anonymous No.19639219]

>>19639207
Hmm perhaps you are right

[Anonymous No.19639233]

>>19638634
>Jewish guy says there are no objective morals and that it is all just emotions
>Midwits lap it up
Socrates was mocking this guy's ideas as retarded in the Bronze Age

[Anonymous No.19639236]

>>19638736
My Logic prof called Evolutionary Psychology the 'Just So stories of Academia'.

[Anonymous No.19639250]

>>19638896
>l
Pointing out weaknesses of position and knowledge in a presenter is not poisoning the well.

[Anonymous No.19639304]

>>19639218
If it's propaganda-free, I'll read it then. Thanks for the recommendation.

[Anonymous No.19639415]

>>19639176
Criticizing the author as a 'best seller baiting pop scientist' is not an argument.

Your complete quote:
>Evolutionary psychology (when done by bestseller baiting popscientists) can explain and justify every behavior you can think of, all you need to do is conjure a story of how this behavior was once beneficial for our species

Clearly attacking the author and poisoning the well. He is guilty of being popular? He is popular, therefore he cannot be right? What is the reasoning behind this fallacy — because that is what it is.

My criticism:
>Although I believe that it is poisoning the well to say 'anything can be evolutionarily benefitial', because that is not the case

Your defense:
>You seriously cannot tell how these statements are different? Can you not see the difference between actual benefit of the behavior and an ad hoc explanation of how the behavior was supposedly beneficial? Are you dumb or are you playing dumb?

Maybe we should invite Chekov to elaborate on why he hid a gun in his apartment in order to shoot his mistress, since it is clearly an impossible post hoc evidence of his guilt that he hid a gun in his apartment in order to benefit his intent of killing.

You lack the understanding of what constitutes evidence because in your world view, there would be no such thing as causality relations between a behavior and a phenomenon because causality must be verified post hoc. The entirety of evolution is based on such investigations. You see a species's trait as it is and search in the environment for a reason why such trait is benefitial in comparison to others.

Just admit you've misrepresented an entire field of research.

[Anonymous No.19639426]

>>19638694
Coddling is overwritten.
Important and undoubtedly true observation, but you could just read the original essay from which the book was developed out of to get the gist of the argument.

[Anonymous No.19639467]

>>19638634
It's a good book, but I first read it in 2016, and now I'm less convinced that the main difference between left and right wing people boils down to differences in moral foundations as Haidt calls it. Political preference is somewhat heritable, but particularly in our current environment, with high anxiety, constant propaganda, and deteriorated public life, I think a fair bit of where you end up in politics is circumstantial. I don't remember exactly how he argues for group selection, but usually group selection isn't very likely. Group selection on altruism, or cells in a body, can make sense because the organisms are closely related, thus the genes that are making them altruistic can survive. If you're in a tribal society and a crisis causes all the altruistic people to give up their life, then that gene goes away. So I don't find the comparison between multicellular life and societies very convincing. I have less of an issue with evolutionary psychology though. Plenty of people say crazy things and invoke evopsych, but also plenty of evopsych is obvious yet rejected by other academics because it upsets their woke sensibilities. Overall it's a good book, and worth a read. Haidt's ideas have substance to them and are worth considering.

[Anonymous No.19639472]

>>19638634
Why do people read shit like this?

[Anonymous No.19639480]

>>19639144
I assume anon only meant evolutionary psychology, which is about as useful as astrology.

[Anonymous No.19639757]

>>19639467
>where you end up in politics is circumstantial
The definitions are circumstantial too. Most American left wing affiliated people's positions in Europe would be considered right wing. A lot of right wing positions from the US would be Catholic or Protestant centrist parties' in Europe. Basic American patriotism [most free, richest, best country on earth] abroad is openly laughed at like a North Korean saying the same thing. Basic ideas like, "what is valuing freedom and individuality", have very different meanings in different places.

[Anonymous No.19639835]

>>19639415
You're really not the sharpest crayon in the box, are you? STILL incapable of understanding a simple distinction that other anons ITT grasped immediately and still inventing stupid shit I supposedly said. I'm done trying to explain simple tenets of critical thinking to you. I'll just note that this whole exchange is supremely ironic given the topic of the book that impressed you so much.

[Anonymous No.19640607]

>>19639467
>Political preference is somewhat heritable, but particularly in our current environment, with high anxiety, constant propaganda, and deteriorated public life, I think a fair bit of where you end up in politics is circumstantial.
This is something that gets constantly overlooked. The contemporary environment that humans inhabit is an anomaly. For most of human existence we inhabited close-knit tribal societies likely close to Dunbar's number in size. Civilization can be seen as a sort of domesticating process and human populations that have inhabited civilized societies for longer periods of time have have undergone these domesticative selective pressures to a greater extent. The selective pressures differ depending on the structure of the society and what traits it rewards.

[Anonymous No.19640699]

>>19639236
whats that supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.19640711]

>>19640699
>In science and philosophy, a just-so story is an untestable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative[1] nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the listener of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore and mythology (where they are known as etiological myths—see etiology). A less pejorative term is a pourquoi story, which has been used to describe usually more mythological or otherwise traditional examples of this genre, aimed at children.

>This phrase is a reference to Rudyard Kipling's 1902 Just So Stories, containing fictional and deliberately fanciful tales for children, in which the stories pretend to explain animal characteristics, such as the origin of the spots on the leopard.[2][3] It has been used to criticize evolutionary explanations of traits that have been proposed to be adaptations, particularly in the evolution–creation debates[4] and in debates regarding research methods in sociobiology[2] and evolutionary psychology.[1]

>However, the first widely acknowledged use of the phrase in the modern and pejorative sense seems to have originated in 1978 with Stephen Jay Gould, a prominent paleontologist and popular science writer.[5] Gould expressed deep skepticism as to whether evolutionary psychology could ever provide objective explanations for human behavior, even in principle; additionally, even if it were possible to do so, Gould did not think that it could be proven in a properly scientific way.[5] In the ensuing years many of Gould's conclusions have been challenged by Steve Stewart-Williams and others.

[Anonymous No.19640730]

Why are people allergic to applying evolution to the human mind? You think the human brain just sprang into existence by itself? That it's a complete tabula rasa? Because if not, you must concede that the parts of our brain that are innate are also the products of evolution, and it makes sense to try to look for any evolutionary reason for their existence.

[Anonymous No.19640738]

>>19640711
oh ok
That could apply to a lot of other academic findings, though. Especially within psychology.

[Anonymous No.19640812]

>>19640730
This was already addressed well ITT, we are not opposed to all evolutionary explanations, just the ones that are lousy.

[Anonymous No.19640822]

>>19640812
And how do you determine which ones are lousy?
>They do not have enough empirical support
again, almost all of psychology suffers from this, not just evopsych.

[Anonymous No.19640920]

>>19639158
It's not as good as "The Righteous Mind," wouldn't recommend. It's more polemic and irreverent and it sounded like the co-writer wrote most of it. Taking certain examples over concepts and research, et cetera.

[Anonymous No.19641003]

>>19640822
It's right in front of you ITT. Are you OP? You seem resistant to having things explained to you.

[Anonymous No.19641050]

>>19639480
Yes, I forgot a word. Sorry

[Anonymous No.19641057]

>>19641003
no i just dont want to scroll through the entire thread

[Anonymous No.19641064]

>>19641057
My mother once scrolled through an entire thread.