Re: Ch. 4: Vote for Me (Here's Why)
And I think the structure of his argument is very logical and clear and builds up as he goes along. He's a good teacher.
Blaise Pascal wasn't on board with supreme reason: “The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart." Religion also typically claims a power beyond reason, which would be faith. Perhaps since science has remade the world, and the method of science is associated with reason, what Haidt says is true. But it's hard for me to completely accept the generalization.
So in this book, he adds to the value of our groupish nature in claiming that not only will we be happier, but our political discourse will become more reasoned only through sitting down with well-intentioned people and hashing out our views. This reminds me of the intent behind Better Angels, which you might have heard of. It's a red-blue reconciliation movement. I read an article about it that confirmed that meetings of reds and blues result in civil discussion. However, there is such significant self-selection (i.e., these are folks willing to come to the table) that the writer wondered if the movement can have a wide effect.
My impression of sociocentric cultures is that homogeneity is needed first. Then, maybe, there can be more consensus on values and norms. Looking at our fractious origins (as Woodard did), I'm not sure we'll ever be like that. It seems we used our Constitution and our e pluribus unum
ethos to keep civil agreement intact. Whether that might now be failing us is worrying people more and more.
Can you guess what public figure I was thinking of when I came to this passage"