Which of these two narratives most closely matches your political perspective?

Once upon a time people lived in societies that were unequal and oppressive, where the rich got richer and the poor got exploited. Chattel slavery, child labor, economic inequality, racism, sexism and discriminations of all types abounded until the liberal tradition of fairness, justice, care and equality brought about a free and fair society. And now conservatives want to turn back the clock in the name of greed and God.

Once upon a time people lived in societies that embraced values and tradition, where people took personal responsibility, worked hard, enjoyed the fruits of their labor and through charity helped those in need. Marriage, family, faith, honor, loyalty, sanctity, and respect for authority and the rule of law brought about a free and fair society. But then liberals came along and destroyed everything in the name of “progress” and utopian social engineering.

Although we may quibble over the details, political science research shows that the great majority of people fall on a left-right spectrum with these two grand narratives as bookends. And the story we tell about ourselves reflects the ancient tradition of “once upon a time things were bad, and now they’re good thanks to our party” or “once upon a time things were good, but now they’re bad thanks to the other party.” So consistent are we in our beliefs that if you hew to the first narrative, I predict you read the New York Times, listen to progressive talk radio, watch CNN, are pro-choice and anti-gun, adhere to separation of church and state, are in favor of universal health care, and vote for measures to redistribute wealth and tax the rich. If you lean toward the second narrative, I predict you read the Wall Street Journal, listen to conservative talk radio, watch Fox News, are pro-life and anti–gun control, believe America is a Christian nation that should not ban religious expressions in the public sphere, are against universal health care, and vote against measures to redistribute wealth and tax the rich.

Why are we so predictable and tribal in our politics? In his remarkably enlightening book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Pantheon, 2012), University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that to both liberals and conservatives, members of the other party are not just wrong; they are righteously wrong—morally suspect and even dangerous. “Our righteous minds made it possible for human beings,” Haidt argues, “to produce large cooperative groups, tribes, and nations without the glue of kinship. But at the same time, our righteous minds guarantee that our cooperative groups will always be cursed by moralistic strife.” Thus, he shows, morality binds us together into cohesive groups but blinds us to the ideas and motives of those in other groups.

The evolutionary Rubicon that our species crossed hundreds of thousands of years ago that led to the moral hive mind was a result of “shared intentionality,” which is “the ability to share mental representations of tasks that two or more of [our ancestors] were pursuing together. For example, while foraging, one person pulls down a branch while the other plucks the fruit, and they both share the meal.” Chimps tend not to display this behavior, Haidt says, but “when early humans began to share intentions, their ability to hunt, gather, raise children, and raid their neighbors increased exponentially. Everyone on the team now had a mental representation of the task, knew that his or her partners shared the same representation, knew when a partner had acted in a way that impeded success or that hogged the spoils, and reacted negatively to such violations.” Examples of modern political violations include Democrat John Kerry being accused of being a “flip-flopper” for changing his mind and Republican Mitt Romney declaring himself “severely conservative” when it was suggested he was wishy-washy in his party affiliation.

Our dual moral nature leads Haidt to conclude that we need both liberals and conservatives in competition to reach a livable middle ground. As philosopher John Stuart Mill noted a century and a half ago: “A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.”

This article was published in print as "The Science of Righteousness."

40 Comments

1. 1. Mythusmage 09:51 PM 5/15/12

   I'm convinced that life was a mixed bag and that things have improved and degraded. This puts me where?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. mallen10 03:37 PM 5/17/12

   This view certainly tracks with my life experiences and helps explain the dichotomy that exists on the local and national political scene. I certainly hope that John Stuart Mill is still right in "A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life".

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. rumdoodle 08:26 PM 5/18/12

   This article is peculiarly US centric. The two narratives, and context is particularly descriptive of the political navel gazing the US media exhibits to an immigrant like myself. I am not referring to the duality which is possibly a reasonable theory, but that if you attribute evolution to driving the partisanship here, then it does not explain to Americans the basis for political discourse in the rest of the world, in fact it it is rather parochial. (Scientific 'American' I suppose). Within the US media, papers and radio, there is a widespread misuse of words such as liberal, conservative, progressive, socialism, etc ..and many other terms that have a peculiar political meaning (in the US) , and not what the rest of the world may understand as their meanings. In Australia, the equivalent to Republicans are called "Liberals", and in the UK "Liberal Democrats" are possibly more akin to libertarians than Democrats. Substitution of a meaning of a word, ie 'conservative', with that of a party ie Republican and also for 'liberal' for Democrat somehow lends credibility to pseudo evolutionary postulation. There is quite a mundane explanation ( that people like to associate with others in a club (tribe, if you want to be contrived) , and there are many types of clubs ( football, creed, bankers, scientists......) some of which are passionate, but they don't need to be 'righteous' or somehow provide legitimacy to some inconsequential political manoevering such as is described by "flip-flopping" or "severely conservative". The media here takes themselves far too seriously. But is also fascinating and amusing to watch.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Edward Lowry 07:35 PM 5/19/12

   To suggest that there is anything scientific about Haidt's "GUARANTEE that our cooperative groups will ALWAYS be CURSED by moralistic strife"[emphasis added] seems unrealistic. While total elimination of strife is also unrealistic, his argument has the effect of counseling despair in dealing with problems which he has examined in superficial ways and where solutions, however partial, are urgently needed. Application of precautionary principles (such as: "When risking harm be careful") have substantial potential for getting broad acceptance and moderating
   moralistic strife, but his book seems to ignore them.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. gewhite 07:35 PM 5/23/12

   The Science of Righteousness
   
   I find the attempt to squeeze almost everyone into right or left camps regrettable. I do not believe either is necessarily "righteous." While there are, clearly, such divisions, they are not as rigid as the article suggests, nor are the reasons for the differing opinions as unreasoning as suggested. By the standards proposed, as Gilbert & Sullivan wrote, everyone, from birth, would be "either a little Liberal or else a Con-serva-tive."
   
   I fall generally in the conservative camp, but at least as much for pragmatic reasons as ideological.
   
   Certainly if we could give everyone all they want we probably would, but we can't.
   
   I believe that, as with Greece, we are spending, via borrowing, more money than can possibly be repaid. The only solution is inflation of the currency, thus penalizing those who have been frugal and saved their money - money that is becoming worth less and less, while those who spent every penny they ever had are not penalized by the depreciation of their savings, but are rewarded by being given benefits ranging from food stamps to mortgage relief.
   
   Socially I believe I am a moderate. I believe we can afford a safety net for those less- fortunate (though not necessarily for those less ambitious or more foolish- I own no guns - The chief reason I support the second amendment is that I believe in stability of rights and the Constitution offers that stability.
   
   Predictability - the rule of law over the unpredictable rule of whoever are the current men in power, is, I believe, important.
   
   I was an environmentalist before environmentalism was cool. The environmental religion has now gone so far beyond reason that I fall on the other side.
   
   In my experience, people do not fall into either the liberal or conservative camps through tribalism or inheritance. Two of my great grandfathers became wealthy during the post Civil War Gilded Age, and were by today's standards, conservatives. One was a member of the Union League Club. The other was by today's standards quite wealthy. Their offspring, my grandfather and grandmother, were raised in privilege but became very liberal, in fact in the 1940s joined the American Communist Party, complaining of the "idle rich" while living on inherited wealth from their parents. My father, their son, became a quite strong (though thoughtful) conservative. I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.
   
   Gordon White, Deltaville, VA
   
   
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Keenview 08:43 PM 5/25/12

   Resisting the temptation to quibble, I find that this analysis (opinion) fits my analogy that politics is like a teetertotter with some on the left end and some on the right end. Agreement moves the two towards the fulcrum, closer togetner, in balance. Desention moves them out causing more radical or violent motion. The more people there are on one end, the greater the move outward on the other end to compensate. My expectation is that as we learn how to better govern ourselves we will all reach the fulcurm and leave the teetertotter arm in arm, a united human world, but we cannot rush the process, it must evolve.
   
   Rumdoodle, I have never encountered any people less egocentic than Americans. I wonder, did you move to the United States to find fault with it?
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. dsarch@shaw.ca 01:40 PM 5/27/12

   Mr. Shermer,
   In your piece "The Science of Righteousness" (I see you later rethought the title but not the content), you have provided an excellent example of non-skeptical thinking. Was that your intention?
   ds
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. jtdwyer 09:14 AM 6/13/12

   How could I have been so naive as to have expected this article to at least to have been based on on some specific scientific research, rather than "political science research shows..."?
   
   Poppycock!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. Heteromeles 10:50 AM 6/13/12

   Um, my first reaction was that dualistic politics are so strongly embedded in the American system that the mere existence of any place that has multi-party elections gets conveniently forgotten by American theorists.
   
   In other words, this is a heap of steaming male bovine feces, to be both technical and blunt. BS (using Frankfurt's definition) is writing designed to impress, not be truthful, and this idea falls into that arena.
   
   I'm not denying that people tend to polarize. What I am strongly against are a couple of ideas:
   
   1. That evolution favors dualistic human relationships. Based on what grounds? In small bands, you've got the relatives you live with, your non-related enemies, the relatives you live with when you piss off the relatives you used lived with now that they're trying to kill you (most murder victims now their killers), the former non-related enemies who take you in because you married their sister, the non-related peacemaker who helps you heal the rift with your relatives, the non-related trading partner, and so on. In this wonderful sea of shifting, multipolar, human relations, where the hell is a two party dualism? While there are some paleoconservatives where I live, I think they are neanderthals politically, not biologically. Humans are much more sophisticated at relationships than our politics might suggest, and it takes a concerted effort by our leaders to get us to fall into party lines.
   
   2. Does our love of polarity have a biological basis, or is it taught? All of us went through basic logic early on, learning what "either or" meant. All of us Americans live in a society that sees black and white as racial stereotypes (really? What color is human skin: some shade of brown or tan, isn't it? When was the last time you looked before classifying?). Whatever our religious preference, all of us grew up in an innately Christian society that preaches good vs. evil, to the point where polytheistic pagan religions never entirely decondition their Christian converts from seeing the world this way.
   
   Is this biology, or is this culture? I'd argue that, in America, it's American culture, and America, nation of immigrants that it is, hasn't been around long enough to affect human evolution. As American scientists, we have to be extraordinarily careful about any claims that our prejudices have a biological basis, because they are so very, very seductive. In this case, I think a researcher got seduced, and the result is an evolutionary just-so story, not science.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. yarberry 11:57 AM 6/13/12

    What is with the title of this and the need to try and universalize things in terms of our limited western prespective? This does not describe human societies. Many cultures do not have this need for binary opposition and linear thinking.
    
    Change the title and just say, 'In my opinion American politics is based upon ...'. Then it works.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. Leroy 12:29 PM 6/13/12

    I think many of these comments are missing the point. Shermer is using American politics as an example through which to view human tribalism. He's not arguing that all of humanity break down along these same political lines issue by issue. He's simply advancing the idea that human tribalism has its roots in evolution and that political divides have their roots in tribalism. If we wish to grow beyond these political divides, it helps to be aware of our evolutionary history and how tribalism may be reenforcing irrational beliefs. This is, however, something that stupid morally suspect conservatives would never consider! That was a joke. :)

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. yarberry 01:20 PM 6/13/12

    Does human tribalism (whatever that may be) have its roots in evolution? What is our evolutionary history? Is it the same for all human societies? The author is really speaking to societies in the Western European history. But in good form we (western folk) like to assume that the world is like us.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. Martin Wirth 02:17 PM 6/13/12

    This is a happy achievement when I can be more skeptical than Michael Shermer.
    
    The suggested tribalism in American politics has less to do with evolution or any natural human tendency than with the combined effects of mass ignorance and delusional corporate propaganda. I would venture to assert that these so-called tribes are no more distinct than football teams. They play the same game by the same rules. Over the long run, the results are the same: football is played, beer is drunk, and cheerleaders are fleeced. Players are as interchangeable as Legos and as disposable as a styrofoam cup. They're not members of any tribe. They're commodities.
    
    You've been tricked, my friends, and for shame because you should know better.
    
    For one thing, the so-called tribes of which you speak are atomized into isolated singular or family units dispersed across socio-economic strata that inter-communicate solely in monetary terms. We don't forage or hunt together anymore. We rarely meet as humans outside of the business context except perhaps for a Sunday sermon. Even this is often hastily concluded at the behest of cranky children who are eager to resume an artificial existence in some video game. We have taught them well how to be ignorant cogs in the master's machine.
    
    The tribe is the precursor of a wider community. Members of a tribe value each other more than they value personal gain. America has no tribes unless you count natives or various groups of dedicated rebels against the corporate culture, a culture that has homogenized the wider society at the expense of its vitality, a culture that inculcates you with the illusion of dichotomy where none exists.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

14. 14. Cramer 02:45 PM 6/13/12

    I have always found it odd that conservatives have "respect for authority and the rule of law" when they only want to "limit the government" and remove "regulations." It's as if they believe that the only way to have solved the corruption in Chicago Police Department during the era of Al Capone was to eliminate the PD so Al Capone could do as he please to carry out his business (i.e. murder his competitors and anyone who stood in his way). Free markets -- right? [And please, don't bring up prohibition because the mob and PD corruption were not just a problem during Prohibition.]

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

15. 15. Cramer 03:01 PM 6/13/12

    I have always found it odd that conversatives have a "respect for authority and the rule of law" when their primary agenda is to "limit government" and "remove regulations."
    
    It's as if they believe that the solution to corrupion in the Chicago Police Department during the era of Al Capone should have been to eliminate the PD so Al could go about his business by murdering competitors or others who stood in his way of profits. [And please, don't bring up Prohibition because the mob and police corruption were not just problems during Prohibtion.] Free markets, right?
    
    I guess it just has to do with whom the laws protect and whom the laws hinder (like Al Capone). And that is why the middle class is disappearing. Look it up: how much wealth did the middle class lose as a result of the fraud-driven housing bubble? How much did the top 1% and the big banks GAIN (yes, not lose) as a result of that fraud-driven bubble? Now that's a real redistribution of wealth!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

16. 16. Cramer in reply to Cramer 03:02 PM 6/13/12

    Oops, thought my first post was lost, so I rewrote.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

17. 17. jgrosay 03:58 PM 6/13/12

    Both comments at the beginning of this short note about politics being tribal are biased, primitive, and with a lot of highly emotional content but almost no science or facts at all, they don't even describe the core beliefs of any political organization or group, and in some way the statements consider voters as stupids. As saint Paul very properly said: "Having arguments about words is worth for nothing and is catastrophic for the listeners". As with the never ending story of creationism-evolutionism, starting points for a discussion such as the ones initiating the note by M Shermer are good for nothing but for giving revenues to the writer. The most true affirmation that can be done about politics would be: "Politics is a fishy business".

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

18. 18. TTLG 04:48 PM 6/13/12

    Good book, with lots of good science behind it (over 50 pages of references to the science articles used). I also think that he made a good case for left-right thinking being a useful variation for humans. Not that I completely agree with everything. For one, I think he is overly attached to his six foundations for the liberal-conservative difference. I think these need a pretty major revision to accurately reflect reality. Still, I highly recommend it, especially for those who have fallen for the message put out by the organizations which seem to be intentionally attempting to demonize anyone who disagrees with their agenda.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

19. 19. pinetree in reply to Edward Lowry 04:51 PM 6/13/12

    The most difficult challenge arises not when wrong meets rights but when two rights collide. I believe that is the point that the article makes. After all, whoever started a war thinking in their own terms that they were wrong?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

20. 20. pinetree in reply to rumdoodle 04:58 PM 6/13/12

    Yes, this article is overly American centric. To imply that evolution specifically created the odd divides and bizarre world views defined by the mental conditioning of modern American politics is full of it. The US is amongst the most overtly propagandized nations on the planet, a sort of caricature of European cultural decline at the end of its 400 year run. But the creation of collective intellectualizations aka religion, ideology, and nationalism, is an undeniable reality of "civilized life" which ultimately is collective life. How odd in this country there is so much denying of collectively reality in favor of "individualistic" fantasies while in fact so forcefully trying to impose it in one style or the others.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

21. 21. pinetree 05:01 PM 6/13/12

    Ok, so much for carefully calibrated discussion. My side is right, yours is wrong. Got it? Just capitulate and we might let you live as our inferiors.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

22. 22. frankblank in reply to Mythusmage 05:05 PM 6/13/12

    In the bag -- Trying to fight your way out of a paper bag.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

23. 23. frankblank 05:13 PM 6/13/12

    So, tribalism is the reason US politics is tribal. Hmmmm.
    
    That said, the problem in the US is simply that the reactionaries want to live in a tiny tribe. You can see it in post after post: the so called "big tent" for them is their neighborhood, church, and people in their state who think like them, especially when the state is one of those with a dinky population smaller than Philadelphia's. Many Americans don't actually comprehend that we live in a country with 300+ million people and they therefore seem to find it easy to consign 30-40% of them to misery.
    
    Jeez. Even for the Chinese, that has become problematic. But not so much for many of our self-proclaimed "lovers of liberty."

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

24. 24. TobyNSaunders 06:27 PM 6/13/12

    But it isn't strictly tribal. The progressive stance really is, given the objective of promoting wellness & preventing suffering, better: there needn't be tribalism in order to understand how best to achieve the goal of ethics. Conservatives are especially tribal (the tribalism is part of Conservatism itself); we should get away from this 'everyone is equally stupid' claim because it's false. Tribalism is a problem, but it's clearly more a Conservative issue (presumably the Libertarians at SA wouldn't let that fact get published, or the hate mail would be too great or the lost ads would be too damaging or something...).

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

25. 25. TobyNSaunders 06:29 PM 6/13/12

    OH! Shermer wrote it! No wonder it presents that bogus 'both Liberals & Conservatives are equally stupid' claim; the guy is covering for Conservatives because he's too afraid of a slippery slope toward Communism if we act ethically.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

26. 26. Mythusmage 06:41 PM 6/13/12

    I note people responding to Michael's essay according to their prejudices, most notably attributing dualistic thinking when a close reading of what he said informs the reader of the fact that we tend to support what our friends believe, and oppose what those outside our circles espouse. This a habit and a practice which applies regardless of the political structure of the society in question. Thus, because some see Professor Shermer supporting American politics they fail to see how he has things of value to say about human nature across a spectrum of environments.
    
    In short, the critics are viewing Shermer's observations through a narrow prism, and this devalues what they have to say. By focusing on a narrow concern they ignore the broader picture and so lessen the impact of what they have to say. To sum up, they miss the forest for the trees

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

27. 27. S_Babylon 07:22 PM 6/13/12

    So, those who are morally impaired may have an advantage in directing social order of the hive mind? Interesting.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

28. 28. Squeedle in reply to Keenview 07:46 PM 6/13/12

    I vehemently disagree. Americans and American pop and media culture being so ubiquitous inflates the apparent egocentricity. I often find such statements coming from people who have very limited experience in the United States, consisting of a few visits, some reading, or having lived in one area of the US even if for a very long time.
    
    Having also traveled quite a lot, my impression is that this is a normal human trait, and that nearly everybody thinks the world revolves around them, their culture, and their point of view. Everything is filtered and judged through that perspective. Even basic day-to-day tasks that nobody should have an opinion about, I have observed people from other countries to put down one way over another, particularly from a foreign vistor.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

29. 29. Cramer in reply to Mythusmage 07:54 PM 6/13/12

    Mythusmage, because people post about one aspect of Michael's essay, doesn't mean that their comment is the entirety of their opinion and thoughts on the subject of why people become so entrenched in their own political beliefs. That's simply how of dialogue-style communication works -- nobody's writing a book here. [pot calling the kettle black???]
    
    Personally, I don't believe entrenchment in a political ideology is tribal anymore than having blue eyes vs brown eyes is tribal. There are many reasons how people come to their beliefs and why they don't change their beliefs. For example, one reason (maybe the most tribal reason and probably a small reason) why people are drawn to conservative political ideas is because they have labeled themselves personally conservative. I personally dress conservative (I have no piercings, tattoos, orange-died hair, or goth clothing); I am not promiscuous; I am conservative with my money; I am not a risk taker; I conserve energy (low carbon foot print); I want to conserve the environment. Wow, therefore, I must be a conservative. WRONG (regarding myself). But others combine that with a tribalism of treating "others" as the wrongdoers or evildoers (homosexuals, Muslims, etc), then they do become tribal.
    
    Liberalism is based on letting people have the freedom of living how they choose just as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. For example, people shouldn't be forced to follow the religious beliefs of others, such as is the law in Saudia Arabia (and many conservatives would like the Christian equivalent in America).

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

30. 30. ZB 08:54 PM 6/13/12

    The conclusion that “Our righteous minds made it possible for human beings to produce large cooperative groups, tribes, and nations without the glue of kinship".... with "the ability to share mental representations of tasks that two or more of [our ancestors] were pursuing together." seems to be pretty clear that the rightwing thinking is not only wrong but "righteously wrong".
    
    The rise of human civilization was based on people working together. The rightwing is doing everything they can to destroy that. Its much easier to exploit people when you divide them then when they work together.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

31. 31. RedWolfe53 09:37 PM 6/13/12

    I grant the two-pole model being discussed only a little validity, specific to this point in time in the ongoing history of American political thought. There is, currently, a high polarization in political discourse and perception, but not everyone can be fitted into a two-party system. The "independent" voters are the most numerous and fastest growing demographic because they don't want to be forced into the enforced bipolarization. The best solution for this would be the development of strong and significant third or fourth parties in the US. However, in a paroxismal clinging to the Federalists' fear of "fraction" the two-party system has artificially been proped up and promulgated for too long.
    
    I, personally, don't fully agree with either of the myths presented as the paradigm of left/right tribalism. For convenience, I am registered with one of the two parties, and actively work to pull it somewhat back towards "center" when I can. (To the extent that the party has had it's nose put out-of-joint at the county convention when votes on the platform were not passed "unanimously" as they wanted. It didn't really effect anything, but it felt good.)
    
    The American news/entertainment media complex (imitators of the power of the military/industrial complex) deliberately enforces the false dichotomy for its own aggrandizement. There used to be "moderate" commentators and outlets, but they have been marginalized and forced into obscurity. This article is merely more agitprop intended to enforce the idea that the bifurcation is "natural."

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

32. 32. Cramer in reply to RedWolfe53 12:20 AM 6/14/12

    Many people do not join a political party, not because they lack any ideological conviction, but because the parties are institutions run by politicians that are bought by corporations.
    
    The most reasonable splitting of a party into a 3rd party would be the split-up of the social conservatives and the libertarians in the Republican party. It still astounds me how any Christian could join forces with Ayn Rand loving, poor-people hating libertarians. Jesus was definitely a liberal (by any definition). Even the founding fathers were liberals in their time. They created the first democracy in history (I don't consider ancient Greece a real democracy). It was the Loyalists/Tories who were the conservatives.
    
    And the Catholic nuns and bishops definitely do NOT support the Ryan budget. He is definitely not a Christian by my definition (reward the wealthy, punish the poor -- yeah, Jesus would definitely advocate that).

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

33. 33. mormovies 02:14 PM 6/14/12

    This thread pretty much proves the author's theory. There is nothing U.S. or Western centric about this behavior. Just swap out 'politics' for any other cultural element- clothes, hair, religion, you name it. Humans are animals and act EXACTLY ALIKE. Culture is just window dressing. Tribalism results in factions. Deal with it. There is no 'correct' tribe.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

34. 34. mormovies 02:34 PM 6/14/12

    As American scientists, we have to be extraordinarily careful about any claims that our prejudices have a biological basis, because they are so very, very seductive. In this case, I think a researcher got seduced, and the result is an evolutionary just-so story, not science."
    
    Cultural Relativism is NOT science. There is human culture. The differences are so minuscule.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

35. 35. Cramer in reply to mormovies 03:40 PM 6/14/12

    Mormovies, so you have just decreed that prejudices do not have a biological basis (and science is not necessary for that decree)?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

36. 36. vincentwald 07:30 PM 6/15/12

    Your 'dual moral nature' theory of politics, and the comments to it so far, ignore other frameworks for analyzing political economy. Most significantly, Marxist theory does not depict societies beginning 'unequal and oppressive,' nor degenerating from 'social engineering.' (Whatever that is.) The first few pages of the 'Communist Manifesto' very cogently describe the history of the rise of the bourgeoisie as simultaneously the best and the worst thing that ever happened to the human race. In your scheme, Marx was simultaneously liberal and conservative; in fact, he fought both equally all his life.
    
    The liberal-conservative dichotomy is largely a description of the rhetoric different people use, and clarifies almost nothing fundamental about society and its choices. Therefore, it leaves us pretty helpless to pursue or oppose social change. Skeptics should look beyond these superficial categories if they want to discover the basis of social change and development, and therefore the means to effect change for the benefit of the vast majority of people.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

37. 37. bbremner 01:38 AM 6/19/12

    This is a very short and incomplete review of a very complex book. It is obvious that most of the commentors have absolutely no clue about what Haidt is saying. They saw this review as an opportunity to display their ignorance - they certainly did that well. Part of the reason Haidt discusses the liberal-conservative dichotomy is that most Westerners seem to believe in it. Haidt certainly doesn't. Haidt described five dimensions of morality because his data supported those. When, after collecting more data, his data showed that there were at least 6 dimensions, he amended his hypothesis. He is doing exactly the same thing as astronomers, physicists, chemists, etc. have been doing for hundreds of years. Astronomers etc. have gotten pretty good over the centuries, they have invented tools and procedures that actually work.
    
    Psychologists, anthropologists, etc. have been struggling in the realm of astrology and alchemy for a long time, maybe with their new tools of cognitive neurology, computers, and statistical techniques they will be getting their Newton or Darwin. It's probably not Lakoff or Haidt but perhaps soon.
    
    In any case, uninformed ideologues (part of the Righteous) who are convinced of the truth of their religion do nothing but muddy the waters as their black hatred seeps out of their mouths.
    
    Neither Shermer or Haidt has the final answer, but at least they are trying to reduce our uncertainty. Certainly not like many of the previous commentators.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

38. 38. Giborah 02:31 AM 6/29/12

    I dearly wish that thinkers like Michael Shermer, a smart guy and a good writer, wouldn't fall into the trap of using other people's designations for themselves when such designations are iffy at best and downright misleading at worst.
    
    Example from this article:
    
    "If you lean toward the second narrative, I predict you read the Wall Street Journal, listen to conservative talk radio, watch Fox News, are PRO-LIFE and anti–gun control, believe America is a Christian nation that should not ban religious expressions in the public sphere, are against universal health care, and vote against measures to redistribute wealth and tax the rich."
    
    Note that I put PRO-LIFE in CAPS to make my point. These people are NOT "pro-life" -- they are death-oriented -- militarists, gun-lovers. They believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth. They oppose funding pre-natal and post-natal care. They oppose early childhood education. They oppose family planning; some have mudered doctors who perform abortions. THEY call themselves "pro-life", but what they really want is to control women's bodies. They and their representatives in Congress and State legislatures consistently work to restrict or remove access to family planning, including prescription drugs.
    
    The point of all this is: Be carefulwhat language you use! The same arguments could be made for other terms in other contexts. Do not buy into someone else's terminology that may not represent your own beliefs -- especially not the convenient sound-bites created by the pop media.
    
    Think about the impression you want to leave on your readers!
    So Michael should have used one of the more accurate terms that actually describe what these people advocate and practice. "anti-abortion"

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

39. 39. RobLewis 02:48 AM 7/18/12

    While Haidt's work is interesting and explains some things, it suffers because he tacitly adopts conservative framing in delineating the characteristics he addresses. For example, he claims that, unlike liberals, conservatives value "sacredness"—never considering that liberal efforts to protect nature and the environment derive from a reverence for their inherent sacredness. And in awarding the civic virtue of respect for authority predominantly to the Right, he somehow manages to overlook the egregious and unprecedented disrespect and open hostility conservatives have displayed toward Barack Obama. Memo to Haidt: clear your own biases, then talk to us again.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

40. 40. David_Rogers_Hunt 11:53 PM 11/5/12

    My take is that personality archtypes are paramount in determining political ideologies. Following Myer-Briggs archetype analysis (www.keirsey.com) I see...
    
    NTs 05% population - libertarian
    NFs 10% population - empathic progressives
    SPs 40% population - pragmatists / anti-ideologues
    SJs 45% population - social conservatives
    
    NT's live to understand.
    NF's live to feel.
    SP's live to take action.
    SJ's live to serve.
    
    Extending what has already been said here, rational libertarians are the only ones who care one wit about process, or how some event happens. All that the other personalities care about is the result. If working hard and saving can get everyone what they want, then great. But if we can get what we want by magic, or by the government, then that's ok too. Rationals want to know how the goose can lay its golden eggs. Everyone else just wants the eggs, and more of 'em!
    
    The SP artisans covet flexibility and freedom of action above all else. In every negotiation they will insist that everything that everyone has is negotiable. No dogmatisms for them. Unfortunately, this means that they are as intolerant of inflexible liberty as they are of inflexible tyranny. SP's oppose all ideology on principle. Pun intended.
    
    The SJ guardian is always looking to authority to tell them what to do. They usually require outside validation for what is right and wrong. Once they have formed an opinion, they are the most reluctant to be open to new information. Any system that thinks of truth as provisional and subject to change is likely to make SJ's uncomfortable. Guardians often react as though offering someone temptation to engage in vice as little different from committing a violent act.
    
    The NF empaths believe deeply that so long as anyone suffers thru no fault of their own, that the world is unjust. They are often more concerned with the welfare of others who are in physical need, than they are with the welfare of those who are better off. Life boat ethics are basic ethical common sense to these guys. Most of all, NF's think of wealth as fixed or zero summed. Life boats again. Why worry about planting seeds next spring,... there are people starving and in immediate need this winter. When in conflict, these guys believe it is very important to build a consensus to resolve the problem. Ronald Reagan saying "Peace is not the absence of Conflict. It is the ability to handle conflict through peaceful means.", is largely a mystery to NFs, while being immediately apparent to NTs as obvious.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this