• In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

The Righteous Mind: Plato's Error

#169: Dec. - Mar. 2020 & #109: Jul. - Sept. 2012 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

The Righteous Mind: Plato's Error

Unread post

Before there was Descartes' error, there was Plato's error, as Jonathan Haidt would have it. Not reluctant to take on the big boys, Haidt in chapter 4 takes his charges against Plato a step further: Plato's assumptions about human nature and psychology are "just plain wrong." Plato insisted that reasoning can and should rule, while JH insists it "is not fit to rule; it was designed to seek justification, not truth." JH sides with Glaucon, a foil in a conversation in The Republic. Glaucon challenged Socrates' ideal of pure, reasoned justice ruling both society and individuals (under the tutelage of philosopher-kings). Glaucon's objection is based on realism, not idealism, as Haidt's are in the book thus far. Glaucon believes that only scrutiny by our fellow citizens, with the possibility of detection followed by shame and penalty, can ensure that people will act properly. JH praises Glaucon as the "guy who got it right--the guy who realized that the most important principle for designing an ethical society is to make sure that everyone's reputation is on the lime all the time, so that bad behavior will always have bad consequences."

Haidt then goes on to review for us the research showing "that moral thinking is more like a politician searching for votes than a scientist searching for truth." Again, no interest in endorsing an ideal, just in pinning down the reality.

I think there might be a significant difference in whether we use the word reason or reasoning. I'm convinced that our intuitions can partake of reason. Our reasoning is the gloss we put on those intuitions. We might then judge that gloss to be good reasoning or bad reasoning.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The Righteous Mind: Plato's Error

Unread post

DWill wrote: I think there might be a significant difference in whether we use the word reason or reasoning. I'm convinced that our intuitions can partake of reason. Our reasoning is the gloss we put on those intuitions. We might then judge that gloss to be good reasoning or bad reasoning.
I completely agree that we use reason as well as intuition to inform our decisions. Often they're on the same side. But sometimes they're not as with our basic attitude towards those who are different than us. Michael Shermer wrote a great piece a few years back when the comedian who played Kramer on Seinfeld went on his rant. Shermer's point was that we are all racist, but we use our intellect to override our basic evolutionary attitudes in that regard (or should at least).

"The answer is to be found in the difference between our conscious and unconscious attitudes and our public and private thoughts. Consciously and publicly, Richards is probably not a racist. But unconsciously and privately, he is. So am I. So are you."

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/nov/24 ... -shermer24
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The Righteous Mind: Plato's Error

Unread post

geo wrote: I completely agree that we use reason as well as intuition to inform our decisions. Often they're on the same side. But sometimes they're not as with our basic attitude towards those who are different than us. Michael Shermer wrote a great piece a few years back when the comedian who played Kramer on Seinfeld went on his rant. Shermer's point was that we are all racist, but we use our intellect to override our basic evolutionary attitudes in that regard (or should at least).

"The answer is to be found in the difference between our conscious and unconscious attitudes and our public and private thoughts. Consciously and publicly, Richards is probably not a racist. But unconsciously and privately, he is. So am I. So are you."

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/nov/24 ... -shermer24
In that same vein, geo, Haidt has a section on the Implicit Association Test, which measures our "implicit attitudes" regarding different social groups. It's available to take online, but I haven't had the nerve to do it yet. Haidt reports that most people turn out to have negative associations with many groups, even the elderly. If even such an innocuous group could produce such feelings, he says, imagine how much we prejudge when we think about our political enemies.

On the intuition-as-reason topic, there is of course Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, subtitled, "The Power of Thinking Without Thinking." He reinforces Haidt's belief that the elephant can be quite smart about things. Gladwell also shows how a lot can go wrong with the ability he calls "thin slicing," or drawing conclusions sometimes instantly from a tiny sample.
User avatar
Saffron

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I can has reading?
Posts: 2954
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:37 pm
15
Location: Randolph, VT
Has thanked: 474 times
Been thanked: 399 times
United States of America

Re: The Righteous Mind: Plato's Error

Unread post

DWill wrote: In that same vein, geo, Haidt has a section on the Implicit Association Test, which measures our "implicit attitudes" regarding different social groups. It's available to take online, but I haven't had the nerve to do it yet. Haidt reports that most people turn out to have negative associations with many groups, even the elderly. If even such an innocuous group could produce such feelings, he says, imagine how much we prejudge when we think about our political enemies.
I've done this a few months ago, it was my first encounter with Haidt. The outcome maybe not be as bad as you think, although the test itself is kinda hard. You have to press keys as fast as you can and the directions keep changing.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The Righteous Mind: Plato's Error

Unread post

I'm not sure I want to take the test either. Regarding negative associations with the elderly, I'll have to admit that when I lived in Florida, I found myself annoyed with old people quite a bit. It's actually a fairly prevalent attitude down in Florida where there is a high percentage of retirees. Younger folks do get fairly intolerant when they come across a "q-tip" driving slowly on the highway or blocking the grocery store aisles. On Election Day you learn never to vote first thing in the morning because that's when all the retirees show up en masse. I'm certainly not proud of my attitude and see it now for what it is--agism, a prejudicial attitude towards the elderly. The "thin-slicing" you're talking about sounds like intellectual laziness where we tend to form broad generalizations abut a group of people simply because it's our instinctive response. The lazy part is not thinking about it and not challenging ourselves. That's where an awareness of critical thinking and our tendency towards bias can make a big difference.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: The Righteous Mind: Plato's Error

Unread post

geo wrote:I'm not sure I want to take the test either. Regarding negative associations with the elderly, I'll have to admit that when I lived in Florida, I found myself annoyed with old people quite a bit. It's actually a fairly prevalent attitude down in Florida where there is a high percentage of retirees. Younger folks do get fairly intolerant when they come across a "q-tip" driving slowly on the highway or blocking the grocery store aisles. On Election Day you learn never to vote first thing in the morning because that's when all the retirees show up en masse. I'm certainly not proud of my attitude and see it now for what it is--agism, a prejudicial attitude towards the elderly.
I don't see that as some kind of moral failing. Elderly people are in fact slow, and apparently do in fact show up at the voting booth early. It doesn't mean you hate old people.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: The Righteous Mind: Plato's Error

Unread post

Dexter wrote:
geo wrote:I'm not sure I want to take the test either. Regarding negative associations with the elderly, I'll have to admit that when I lived in Florida, I found myself annoyed with old people quite a bit. It's actually a fairly prevalent attitude down in Florida where there is a high percentage of retirees. Younger folks do get fairly intolerant when they come across a "q-tip" driving slowly on the highway or blocking the grocery store aisles. On Election Day you learn never to vote first thing in the morning because that's when all the retirees show up en masse. I'm certainly not proud of my attitude and see it now for what it is--agism, a prejudicial attitude towards the elderly.
I don't see that as some kind of moral failing. Elderly people are in fact slow, and apparently do in fact show up at the voting booth early. It doesn't mean you hate old people.
Thanks, Dexter, that's kind of you to say so. Yeah, I didn't hate old people, more annoyed with them and tending to forget they are individuals with hopes and dreams and aspirations of their own. I didn't like Florida much for a lot of different reasons, mostly the heavy traffic and overdevelopment. The town where I used to live (Fort Myers) did not fare well during this recent economic downturn. A land developer who wrote a column in the local newspaper once said that the economy down there was "development-based." I emailed him after reading that, challenging this notion. I mean, how sustainable can that be? Not very, it turns out.

I remember once reading about an old lady who had to be rescued by helicopter because she turned down the wrong road and just kept driving. Even when the road turned into a dirt road and it must have been so obvious she was lost, she just kept going and ended up deep in the swamp with her car stuck. We kind of joke about that. Like isn't that so typical.

And once I turned up to vote at our local precinct and signed in, but after seeing how long the line was, I decided to come back later. Only when I came back, they wouldn't let me vote because I, in fact, had already signed in. I had a bloody fit ( a Donald Duck moment), but they still would not let me vote. One of the many aggravations of living down there.

I could go on. Don't get me started. I love North Carolina.
-Geo
Question everything
lindad_amato
Intelligent
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:13 pm
13
Location: Connecticut
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: The Righteous Mind: Plato's Error

Unread post

"Glaucon believes that only scrutiny by our fellow citizens, with the possibility of detection followed by shame and penalty, can ensure that people will act properly. JH praises Glaucon as the "guy who got it right--the guy who realized that the most important principle for designing an ethical society is to make sure that everyone's reputation is on the lime all the time, so that bad behavior will always have bad consequences."

I disagree with Haidt here and have not ploughed much further into the book because of this. It is not true, as is evidenced by the many acts of kindness and heroism in the world. Because of this reasoning I find Haidt to be fallable and that gives me great pause to be sympathetic to his thesis.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The Righteous Mind: Plato's Error

Unread post

lindad_amato wrote:"Glaucon believes that only scrutiny by our fellow citizens, with the possibility of detection followed by shame and penalty, can ensure that people will act properly. JH praises Glaucon as the "guy who got it right--the guy who realized that the most important principle for designing an ethical society is to make sure that everyone's reputation is on the lime all the time, so that bad behavior will always have bad consequences."

I disagree with Haidt here and have not ploughed much further into the book because of this. It is not true, as is evidenced by the many acts of kindness and heroism in the world. Because of this reasoning I find Haidt to be fallable and that gives me great pause to be sympathetic to his thesis.
But please do plow on. I think you might find something else to like. After all, any author is fallible. If we look closely, do we find that what Glaucon said about the necessary conditions for an ethical society mean that the kind of acts you mention shouldn't be happening? Acts of kindness or heroism tend to burnish reputation, although they don't need to be motivated by that. What Haidt is talking about is the temptation to do wrong and the brake put on that by the eyes that are upon us. It seems undeniable that normal social functioning means that we do care a great deal about how we look in others' eyes.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: The Righteous Mind: Plato's Error

Unread post

lindad_amato wrote:"Glaucon believes that only scrutiny by our fellow citizens, with the possibility of detection followed by shame and penalty, can ensure that people will act properly. JH praises Glaucon as the "guy who got it right--the guy who realized that the most important principle for designing an ethical society is to make sure that everyone's reputation is on the lime all the time, so that bad behavior will always have bad consequences."

I disagree with Haidt here and have not ploughed much further into the book because of this. It is not true, as is evidenced by the many acts of kindness and heroism in the world. Because of this reasoning I find Haidt to be fallable and that gives me great pause to be sympathetic to his thesis.
I didn't always agree with Haidt either, but I think I learned a lot from the book. I don't think he's making the claim that all kind acts are ultimately selfish. In fact you can say Haidt takes altruism more seriously than in standard Darwinian theory.
Locked

Return to “The Righteous Mind - by Jonathan Haidt”