- Tags:: #📚Books , [[Psychology]], [[Sociology]], [[Politics]] - Author:: [[Jonathan Haidt]] - Liked:: #4/5 - Link:: [The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (English Edition) eBook : Haidt, Jonathan: Amazon.es: Tienda Kindle](https://www.amazon.es/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion-ebook/dp/B0076O2VMI/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_es_ES=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=KEXXPCTUB5HS&keywords=the+righteous+mind&qid=1690090872&sprefix=the+righteous+mind%2Caps%2C108&sr=8-1) - Source date:: [[2012-03-29]] - Read date:: [[2019-01-01]] - Cover:: ![[cover_the_righteous_mind.png|100]] ## Why did I want to read it? Por esto mismo que cuenta Haidt. >Liberalism seemed so obviously ethical. Liberals marched for peace, workers' rights, civil rights, and secularism. The Republican Party was (as we saw it) the party of war, big business, racism, and evangelical Christianity. I could not understand how any thinking person would voluntarily embrace the party of evil, and so I and my fellow liberals looked for psychological explanations of conservatism, but not liberalism. We supported liberal policies because we saw the world clearly and wanted to help people, but they supported conservative policies out of pure self-interest (lower my taxes!) or thinly veiled racism (stop funding welfare programs for minorities!). (p. 126) > Why do rural and working-class Americans generally vote Republican when it is the Democratic Party that wants to redistribute money more evenly? (p. 15) ## What did I get out of it? Y wow! Hay respuestas! Para empezar que dar la turra moral no es un bug, es una feature: >human nature is not just intrinsically moral, it's also intrinsically moralistic, critical, and judgmental. (…) I want to show you that an obsession with righteousness (leading inevitably to self-righteousness) is the normal human condition. It is a feature of our evolutionary design, not a bug (p. XIII). Hay 3 ideas principales: - La moral es algo intuitivo (mezcla de nacimiento y cultural) para defender nuestras agendas que luego intentamos justificar post-hoc. Dice Haidt que "the take-home message of the book is ancient. It is the realization that **we are all self-righteous hypocrites.** (p. XVII)". - La moral tiene hasta 6 "receptores" distintos (como el gusto): cuidado/dolor, justicia, libertad, lealtad, autoridad y santidad. De aquí viene una de la ideas más interesantes del libro: los conservadores son capaces de apelar a esa víscera y estimular los seis receptores de la moral, mientras que los progresistas se centran solo dos (cuidado/dolor, y justicia). - Somos 90% monos (descendientes de ganadores que competían intra-grupo) y 10% abejas (superar el individualismo, pero intra-grupo. Una vez que pillamos la narrativa moral del grupo, no vemos otra). De estas tres, la más provocativa es claramente la segunda. ## La ventaja competitiva de los conservadores Si resulta que tu tienes reacciones viscerales a temas morales (que buscas luego racionalizar a posteriori haciendo unos loopings mentales que ni Hot-Wheels), pues los partidos políticos lo que van a buscar es activar eso: >Political parties and interest groups strive to make their concerns become current triggers of your moral modules. To get your vote, your money, or your time, they must activate at least one of your moral foundations. (p. 156) Al margen de los think-tanks, el Trumpismo, y la madre que los parió a todos, la explicaciones estándar de por qué hay gente que vota conservador (que era porque "están malitas" y tienen una gestión desadaptativa a la [[Uncertainty|incertidumbre]])… >I titled the essay "What Makes People Vote Republican?" I began by summarizing the standard explanations that psychologists had offered for decades: Conservatives are conservative because they were raised by overly strict parents, or because they are inordinately afraid of change, novelty, and complexity, or because they suffer from existential fears and therefore cling to a simple worldview with no shades of gray." (p. 191) …le sabían a poco a Haidt, que (exploró que había más (que son estos "sabores" de la moral): >They made it unnecessary for liberals to take conservative ideas seriously because these ideas are caused by bad childhoods or ugly personality traits. I suggested a very different approach: start by assuming that conservatives are just as sincere as liberals, and then use Moral Foundations Theory to understand the moral matrices of both sides. (p. 191) ¿Y qué pasa? Que no solo los conservadores le hablan más directamente a esa víscera... si no que son capaces de activar todos los sabores de la moral, mientras que el progresismo se centra especialmente en los cuidados/evitación del dolor y la justicia. Como resume muy bien [[Marc Giró]] en [este clip](https://twitter.com/manganxet/status/1663523929611223044?s=20) de [este episodio de "El Sentido de la Birra"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJarDeegxM4). ![[IMG_1621.jpeg|500]] Esto son los resultados del Moral Foundations Questionaire, que por un lado pregunta dónde te colocas en el espectro político, y por otro te pregunta tu identificación con distintas frases que estarían relacionadas con las 5 fundaciones de la moral. Con 132.000 sujetos en 2011. Es decir, que no es que la gente trabajadora vote en contra de sus propios intereses cuando vota conservador, si no que cuentan con una moral más diversa y que ha sido más activada. ¿La moraleja para la izquierda? > I advised Democats to stop dismissing conservatism as a pathology and start thinking about morality beyond care and fairness. I urged them to close the sacredness gap between the two parties by making greater use of the Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity foundations, not just in their "messaging," but in how they think about public policy and the best interests of the nation. (p. 194) ## Other notes ### Una buena referencia de [[Confirmation bias]] >[[Peter Wason]] \[1960\] called this phenomenon the confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out and interpret new evidence in ways that confirm what you already think. People are quite good at challenging statements made by other people, but if it’s your belief, then it’s your possession—your child, almost—and you want to protect it, not challenge it and risk losing it. (chapter 4) ^26844c De hecho, es peor: >Findings such as these led Wason to the conclusion that judgment and justification are separate processes. (chapter 2) (To be expanded)