Página InicialGruposDiscussãoMaisZeitgeist
Pesquisar O Sítio Web
Este sítio web usa «cookies» para fornecer os seus serviços, para melhorar o desempenho, para analítica e (se não estiver autenticado) para publicidade. Ao usar o LibraryThing está a reconhecer que leu e compreende os nossos Termos de Serviço e Política de Privacidade. A sua utilização deste sítio e serviços está sujeita a essas políticas e termos.
Hide this

Resultados dos Livros Google

Carregue numa fotografia para ir para os Livros Google.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are…
A carregar...

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion… (original 2012; edição 2013)

por Jonathan Haidt

MembrosCríticasPopularidadeAvaliação médiaMenções
2,245595,278 (4.05)82
A groundbreaking investigation into the origins of morality, which turns out to be the basis for religion and politics. The book explains the American culture wars and refutes the "New Atheists."
Membro:vrullan
Título:The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Vintage)
Autores:Jonathan Haidt
Informação:Vintage (2013), Edition: Reprint, Paperback, 528 pages
Colecções:Psicologia, Sociologia
Avaliação:
Etiquetas:Haidt, moral, conservatism, brain

Pormenores da obra

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion por Jonathan Haidt (2012)

Adicionado recentemente porOutOfTheBestBooks, Bombadil77, Clabuesch, PHalbrook, biblioteca privada, Gadi_Cohen, MarijanPrsa, royragsdale, Harlekuin, AliG3
A carregar...

Adira ao LibraryThing para descobrir se irá gostar deste livro.

Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro.

» Ver também 82 menções

Mostrando 1-5 de 59 (seguinte | mostrar todos)
A cautious 3 stars but probably more like 2.5.

I liked:

-- his concluding 2-3 chapters,
--his definition of morality,
--his interesting research on diversity and morals(made it worth looking at the 2016 election again),
--his trip to India and drawn conclusions,
--his point about bumper stickers,
-- his explanation of the "two sides," and
--his willingness to admit to changing his opinion/research conclusions.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way...

Haidt struggles. This book presents itself, in the beginning, as a non-fiction book proving just what it says it does in the subtitle. But then it becomes a ideology travelogue, detailing the author's journey from his early years in college to his current beliefs. Solely a presentation of firm, discovered facts this is not. And it irked me. I found myself making sure, more than once, that this was not self-published (It isn't) because it was so long, gave in to so many self-interested detours, and lacked so much direction.

That isn't to say that Haidt doesn't know what he's talking about, even though I think he is crucially wrong on three major points. He's well- and widely- read and does a fantastic job summarizing research. But it lacks polish and he's avoided at least 2-3 of the similarly-minded researchers that I know were studying and publishing about this topic around that same time. Good researchers don't do that. They address all the arguments and try to focus on why their research (not their mental journey) is unique. It is a valiant second attempt at publishing a book. But it could be better.

Side note: I was also interested on why more of his research on moral development didn't make it into his most recent book, [b:The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|36556202|The Coddling of the American Mind How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure|Jonathan Haidt|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1513836885l/36556202._SY75_.jpg|58291173] That being said, I still think that it is a fantastic book. Better editing, better writing, better direction. It just missed a couple of points that would have strengthened the argument. ( )
  OutOfTheBestBooks | Sep 24, 2021 |
The Righteous Mind is psychologist/ethicist Jonathan Haidt's attempt to understand and explain why humans can come to see things so differently from each other and, most importantly, to become so set in our ways that we see people who disagree with us on important matters as enemies and/or fools.

The book, for me, works best in its first half, as Haidt lays out his research and his theories about human perceptions, how we form opinions, and what drives our responses. Essentially, his theory, based on his research, comes down to his belief that our subconscious really provides the bulk of our opinions, which are generally pre-conceived rather than based on new information, and that our conscious mind is mostly responsible for coming up with rationalizations to fit those preconceptions. If you have ever read an essay or article by someone with an opinion that's the opposite of yours, for example, and found yourself actively looking for the faults in the logic rather than trying to learn from the author's experience or perceptions, you'll understand Heidt's basic idea. He calls the subconscious the "elephant," because it's so big and powerful, and the conscious mind the "rider," because it is only nominally able to steer the beast. All this makes for interesting, and somewhat convincing, information, although Haidt's habit of turning the narrative into a semi-memoir by relating his own progression through various theories ("First I thought this, and then I saw different research, so then I thought that.") was distracting to me.

As Haidt describes it (and again, he also details his research), most humans' perceptions of the world are based on five factors, what he calls "foundational concepts," but in different proportions for different people. He identifies these as "Care/Harm," "Fairness/Cheating," "Loyalty/Betrayal," "Authority/Subversion," "Sanctity/Degradation." He says that a major difference between how liberals and conservatives view the world is that Conservatives react strongly to all five of these foundations, but that liberals are driven chiefly by only two: Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating.

All that's all fine, and there are other interesting points made, as well, especially Haidt's description of the idea that group/societal evolution has gone hand in hand with individual human evolution. His ideas about the benefits of religion seem much more forced, however. And in the book's second half, he seems more to be trying to force all of the foregoing information over his own ideas of politics and culture. He begins doing things like describing another researcher's theory and then proceeding to further conclusions based on that theory as if we had reason to accept the theory as fact. Towards the end, I must admit, I began skimming. So I give the first half of this book 3.5 stars, and the second half 2 stars. I do give Haidt credit for clear writing, relatively free of doze-inducing scientific jargon. ( )
1 vote rocketjk | Aug 30, 2021 |
I found this book annoying. The author presents a conservative point of view, and I am a liberal, so that's that! But actually even if the book had presented a liberal point of view, I think I would find it almost as annoying. The fundamental problem is that the subject is profound but the book's approach is slipshod. Probably that is inevitable. It's not like we've really made any progress in the matter since e.g. Plato's Republic. There has been a lot of profound thought on the subject but mostly it just buries itself off lost on some side trail. So Haidt's book does have the advantage of being rather shotgun. It doesn't go deep so it doesn't get lost. It's superficial and casually inadequate about a broad range of important topics. Perhaps it will annoy all readers, but if it motivates folks to dig deeper, to probe various topics more thoroughly... well, that'd make it a valuable book, certainly!

The idea that conservatives have a broader more complete range of moral concerns than liberals, this is just sloppy. It's a kind of moral gerrymandering. It'd be pretty easy to chop up this moral territory and combine those moral territories to end up with a very differently voting moral Senate. This business of totaling up the scores to figure out who has more and who has less.... well, Haidt I presume has the conservative genetic pattern that drives for answers, while I have the liberal genetic pattern that is more comfortable with open questions and feels stifled by simplistic answers!

No doubt genetics is huge and we humans are built from a bunch of neural modules that somehow negotiate the illusion of an integral personhood. But the whole approach of evolutionary psychology... I find it dubious to the point of absurdity. The whole idea that our rationality is totally post hoc, that we just act on instinct and make up stories so we can look good... of course there is an element of truth in this, but take note: scientists are just as prone to this, no, actually more prone. Scientists like to take a superior pose and they generally get away with it. They exude this aura of knowing more than others, of understanding others better than those others understand themselves. Nothing actually fits the paradigm of evolutionary psychology better than evolutionary psychology itself. Can you imagine folks more like alpha chimps than people such as Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins or E. O. Wilson?

Anyway it's a useful enough book, if you can avoid two potential traps: don't let the sloppiness annoy you so much that you just throw the book into the trash before getting through it - it's a handy survey; don't get seduced by the easy logic into thinking anything here is worth adopting. This is huge and profoundly important territory, and this book is just a very high level jaunt through at perhaps high school level. ( )
  kukulaj | May 29, 2021 |
Halfway through this book, and incredibly frustrated with the rhetorical reaching Haidt undertakes in order to claim that everyone can be equally right and what might look like bigotry has to be something morally valid instead, I decided to search the book for the word "racism". It appears 5 times (in a discussion of divisiveness in American politics, let me remind you) and each time the context is that only a close-minded liberal would think anyone would be racist. Did not continue reading. ( )
  atheist_goat | May 9, 2021 |
Get to know the other side

This book has been a fantastic way to learn how to not only understand the other side but speak the same language. A world tour on moral psychology, Haidt makes it accessible. ( )
  SeekingApatheia | Apr 13, 2021 |
Mostrando 1-5 de 59 (seguinte | mostrar todos)
sem críticas | adicionar uma crítica
Tem de autenticar-se para poder editar dados do Conhecimento Comum.
Para mais ajuda veja a página de ajuda do Conhecimento Comum.
Título canónico
Título original
Títulos alternativos
Data da publicação original
Pessoas/Personagens
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Locais importantes
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Acontecimentos importantes
Filmes relacionados
Prémios e menções honrosas
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em russo. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Epígrafe
Dedicatória
Primeiras palavras
Citações
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
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 for conservatism, but not for liberalism.
In psychology, theories are cheap.
Libertarians are basically liberals who love markets and lack bleeding hearts.
When libertarians talk about the miracle of "spontaneous order" that emerges when people are allowed to make their own choices, the rest of us should listen.
Emphasizing differences makes many people more racist, not less.
Últimas palavras
Nota de desambiguação
Editores da Editora
Autores de citações elogiosas (normalmente na contracapa do livro)
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Língua original
DDC/MDS canónico
Canonical LCC
A groundbreaking investigation into the origins of morality, which turns out to be the basis for religion and politics. The book explains the American culture wars and refutes the "New Atheists."

Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas.

Descrição do livro
Resumo Haiku

Capas populares

Ligações Rápidas

Avaliação

Média: (4.05)
0.5
1 3
1.5
2 18
2.5 3
3 45
3.5 10
4 139
4.5 22
5 105

É você?

Torne-se num Autor LibraryThing.

 

Acerca | Contacto | LibraryThing.com | Privacidade/Termos | Ajuda/Perguntas Frequentes | Blogue | Loja | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliotecas Legadas | Primeiros Críticos | Conhecimento Comum | 162,470,935 livros! | Barra de topo: Sempre visível