When the two teams are stable, and when the people on each team really are different from each other, in personality and in values, the lines harden and it’s hard to avoid demonizing the other side. Their beliefs are a threat to everything our side holds dear, so we can't compromise with them. Why even bother listening to them? All they do is lie, to cover up their true motives. This is why my goal in the book is not to get people to agree, it's to get people to stop the demonizing. My hope is that readers will find it easier to disagree more constructively, and therefore easier to negotiate, compromise, and coexist.
Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the Boston Globe. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
35 Comments
Add CommentWe are individuals, with more than two opinions. Having faith in the illusion of a false party platform does us a great disservice, as it gives us only two viable evils to vote for, for fear of the greater evil taking control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Republican party, known for its belief in smaller government, greatly expanded its size with the DEA and the DHS. The Democratic party does not escape unscathed for its transgressions against liberty, either.
I think the religious would do well to pay closer attention to the morals they hold dear. There are important lessons to be had when they recognize that Sodom was destroyed for having pride in their city without strengthening the poor ... true sodomy. When I hear them say they will deliver recovery, I hear them pretending they will raise everyone up to be rich. Their rhetoric, on the other hand, treats them like victims to be condemned for being so needy.
I fail to see where the science comes into this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific approach is an amoral one, not teaching partisans not to step on each other's 'sacred cows'.
There are no sacred cows, scientifically speaking.
But there is no lack of judgment for all concerned.
I like to imagine, instead, a world devoid of moralists.
I am so sick of liberals whining about conservative viewpoints, and equally sick of conservatives railing or mocking liberals. A curse on both your houses.
Or the so-called divide between mainstream Dems and mainstream Reps-- who leave us a choice between a Center-Right candidate in Obama and a Far-Right candidate in Romney.
My sense of this so-called 'cultural divide' is that it is little less than 'branding'. If you wish to wax scientific on it, maybe behavioral changes are administered to a docile population that mirror the Ford-Chevy split. It isn't a genuine difference, but those who own one or the other think it is. (Even more so with Priuses. See: Curb Your Enthusiasm.)
I would like to know why we automatically responded to September 11, 2001, with the blanket description of what happened as 'evil'. Can we measure such a thing?
Or does it really represent the indescribable?
More to the point, and the question that science hasn't asked since 2001 is this: Are we a PTSD nation?
Is the trauma of that event responsible for our national breakdown? Think of the suicides in our military now--nearly one a day. Think of the civilians eating themselves to death.
I think morality is our bogeyman. If it causes us to see one another as the enemy, rather than countryman, it should be sacked.
I think you will polarize a lot of the commentators here by using the word "sacred". I understand that you mean "of utmost importance" and "non-negotiable" by the word, but it is a primarily religious term. That said, I have to agree with many of your points. As a person who chooses to walk according to his own beliefs and who holds moral principles as being the guiding standards in life, I feel that society has spent so much time demeaning the moral character of each other that there is no longer any socially acceptable common ground on what is or is not moral. That is where a society becomes amoral and begins to break down. It has nothing to do with religious belief but with the desire to do that which is right and to resist doing that which is wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe see it all around us. The news is full of horrible crimes committed against innocent people with no remorse whatsoever. We see it in every level of society... amongst the politicians, amongst the religious leaders, amongst the rich and the poor. It knows no boundaries of ethnicity, creed, sex or political leaning.
It is a sign of the coming fall of western civilization... if we do not wake up and change our ways. But, as you say, we are selfish as individuals and will self justify our every action to satisfy our own base drives. There are people who still put the needs of others before there own needs but they are dying out. There are very few of the younger generation that think that way now. It is sad to know that my children will be living in a world that no longer works together but rather embraces anarchy.
Yes, I believe in God and I try to live a good life in accordance with the teaching of Jesus. Considering that He taught us to love one another and to seek peace and harmony, I do not see why there is so much objection to Him other than they know their own lives would not meet His standards. And they like the lives they live and do not want to feel convicted by a sense of what is right and what is wrong. They embrace anarchy so they will not need to change. Deny morality and everything is justifiable including those vicious crimes on others. I see little hope for us and it saddens me.
First off, almost no scientific value. I could've sounded this smart off the top of my head. Notice I said "sounded" not am actually. I might be, but writing an article about this topic wouldn't prove anything. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to EASILY see that Democratic states are more industrially developed. Just as states leaning more towards Republican seem to cater more towards rural living. Not that all the people in any given state are one or the other, just MORE LIKELY, that is all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll without doing any real research. Aren't I special?! LOL
The problem is that political parties have been elevated to the status of religions. More accurately, they have become cults. The two main tools of a cult are fear and isolation. You don't have to look too hard to see the fear. As for the isolation, that's something that we have done to ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I was growing up, my grandmother gave me her old TV. It was the kind with rotary dials for changing the channel. It had a coax connection, and when connected to the cable outlet in my room, I was able to get all the local channels, and a few of the cable ones. One of the channels I received clearly was Country Music Television. I was in no way a fan of country music, but in order to get from the channel I was on to the one I wanted to watch, sometimes I would flip past it. On one occasion, I saw a video that made me stop. (I was a teenage boy, and it was a Shania Twain video - do the math.) I listened to the song, and found I liked it. I would find myself turning to that station more often to try and catch it. In doing so, I was exposed to other videos, and while most of them I didn't care for, I did find some that I did like. Because of this, while I am still not a country music fan, I do have several artists that I still like.
That would never happen today. We have cable tv channels dedicated to one specific topic or viewpoint. We have programmable tv's and remotes that allow us to never even know other channels exist other than our favorites. We have the internet, which makes anything we want available any time we want. You never have to hear a song you don't like, or listen to a viewpoint that you disagree with. You can find someone who will confirm every single one of your beliefs, no matter how outlandish.
And thanks to the "political correctness" movement, we don't talk about our beliefs. Religion and politics have always been touchy subjects, but they are now practically taboo.
Our beliefs are never challenged, so we are constantly being nudged even farther to the extreme. We don't form informed opinions by researching all sides of an issue and then deciding for ourselves, we jump to a conclusion and then find evidence that supports that conclusion. This is how cult leaders operate, isolating you from anyone who will challenge your beliefs and insulating you with those who reinforce the beliefs of the cult. Somehow, we've managed to brainwash ourselves.
The headline is “How Science Explains America’s Great Moral Divide”. Perhaps a more accurate headline would have been “How a Psychologist Explains Politics in the US”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo the readers really consider psychology as a hard science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it's mostly fear driven on the right's side as scared of change and fight against real freedom for others.
vs progressives who know change is the natural way and little to be fearful from and fight for more freedom for everyone.
Of the 2 only progressives actually make the world better while the regressives fight to keep the past.
Examples are our progressive Americam forefathers vs the regressive tories.
Interestly the regressives now call themselves Tea Party members when in reality they are more tory like.
The other big factor is too many people will do, say, think anything to belong to a group.
[IMG]http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/User_0/Cartoons/NextDem_zps88a23245.jpg[/IMG]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishmm,doesn't work. Sorry about that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an independent, are progressives the ones who think it is ok to keep spending more resources than we have or is it the other ones? All change is not good and every idea is not affordable in the real world.
There are two kinds of people
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who work and take care of themselves
Those who do not work and expect others to take came of them
Those that do not work are becoming the majority
This is the end of the republic
Both partys pander because American sociaty has come to expect the fee lunch
Free health care
They think they deserve everything
And they all vote
Unfortunately, talking about morality does not make us moral beings
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article really bothers me, the left has pretty much run this country since the FDR era, and now that things are "changing" they don't like it, and want everyone to "get along". The population is aging (baby boomers are all over 50) and it is natural for people to become more conservative as they age, which has nothing to do with fear or not being compassionate, as this article purposely characterizes conservatives. People love to be on what they deem to be the "right side" and right now the "right side" is liberal. In the late 19th and early 20th century's is was the "right side" to be conservative. It's just a natural change like a pendulum, so why should we change the rules?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? There are ONLY your 2 neatly categorized types of people in society?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow sadly narrow minded your view of the world!
I thought the divide between left and right was caused by the fundamental belief of the left in social responsibility juxtaposed with the desire on the right to have sex with farm animals and close family members. It also doesn't help that the left believes that the best way to solve problems is through dialog, evidence based methodologies and working together while the right believes in begging a mythical bronze age being for special favors. Admittedly though, the right has an easier job of fixing the world’s problems, the left has no choice but to work at it while the right simply denies they exist and lives in delusion. It seems hard to reconcile the differences when one side feels the need to compensate everyone for the unfairness of reality and the other side has no clue what reality is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@tremain2004, "There are two kinds of people", Agreed. There are two kinds of people, those that put people into two groups and those that don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I understood from what you said was, you have your head crammed so far up some dark smelly place that you are incapable of thinking for yourself, instead you latch onto some right wing fanatic's sound-bites 'cause they sound like they was said by Jesus himself. Has it ever occurred to you to check the facts of your B.S.? Of course not.
I think the analogy between synagogues being forced to pay for pork lunches and sectarian institutions denying reproductive health benefits for their employees is deeply flawed. Nobody eats pork for health reasons, but only because they choose to. Further, what employees pay for anybody's lunch, anyway?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBirth control, on the other hand, is a public health issue. It is not fair to insist that employees sign onto restrictions on their health care simply because they end up with jobs working for religious hospitals, colleges, etc.
There's an underlying fabric of fatuousness underlying this whole enterprise. The "morality" that's under discussion here is a network of political contrivances, not a reflection of our innate moral senses. It's bred of fear, and the fear is in turn a political contrivance itself.
I found the issue of Catholic hospitals seeking an exemption bothersome as well, for many reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, the assumption made is that the hospitals took issue with contraception because of Church doctrine, rather than any bottom-line advantage given them.
I think the hierarchy waved a red herring to cut down on the money spent on women's prescriptions. Are Protestant institutions afforded the same protections from dispensing contraceptives? Are Jewish hospitals? Are public hospitals?
If we exempt institutions from medical obligations that others must supplement, where is the equity?
Are protecting rights or privileges?
Secondly, the First Amendment not only grants religion freedom; it forbids religious tyranny by forbidding the government from respecting any institution of religion. ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...")
Finally, and most importantly, I think it is our ignorance that threatens us today, and which is responsible for so much (so-called moral) attitude.
Because we have not studied our history as well as we should have, most of us have to learn what our forefathers knew: that it is simultaneously freedom of religion and freedom from religion that delivers one of the blessings of liberty we enjoy. ( The liberty to pray and the liberty to be free from prayer meetings.)
Unless and until we understand democracy and its rights, we will be jackasses to the jackals at whose blue and red altars we worship.
<I>SciAm</i> disporting itself like an evangelical subsidiary of <i>The Nation</i> for a continuous half-century can't possibly figure in the culture wars equation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a great deal of scientific analysis out there which goes much further than your interview indicates in explaining the biology of politics. I am surprised at how little the American scientific community has researched genetic and biological factors in political decisions. See Baron-Cohen's "The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty" to find an impressive start in this direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA philosophy is not just a laundry list of unconnected beliefs; Each side has their own internally coherant, stable and self-reinforcing model of the way the world works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn chapter 7 (The moral foundation of politics) Haight says:
“Everyone cares about fairness, but there are two major kinds. On the left, fairness often implies equality, but on the right it means proportionality – people should be rewarded in proportion to what they contribute, even if that guarentees unequal outcomes.”
...
I myself have NOT observed that “On the left, fairness often implies equality” of outcomes. Perhaps a handfull of communists believed that generations ago, far away across the planet but no-one I’ve ever met thinks it would be a good idea.
My left-leaning friends are just fine with unequal outcomes. What they do want to see is widely available opportunity… access… having a chance.
What anyone does with opportunity is up to the individual. We benefit from rewards earned by our own effort and skill. It is, however, profoundly unfair to condemn to eternal misery someone who was never allowed to compete in the first place, or who ran handicapped by illiteracy, bigotry, malnutrition or illness.
Republicans on the other hand seem to think it all comes down to motivation: They believe that many people will work hard and be productive if, and only if, the alternative is starvation. According to this world view BOTH eventual success AND opportunity in the first place are created by effort alone.
In this model of the world the Haitian economy is a mess because people have found a way to subsist with minimal effort. Stop enabling this and everyone will get up off their ass and get to work.
Romney’s magic formula for economic recovery is to make real the threat that your children will starve if you don’t hustle; In his worldview, that hustle is the ONLY missing element for economic recovery. This is the "work ethic" referenced by conservatives in many unlikely and inappropriate contexts.
Did you just say that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion? Then why did they pass the American Indian Religious Freedom Act? They're respecting the practice of religion for one race, instead of guaranteeing the freedom to use peyote for everyone on their religious journey. Congress, apparently, violates the Constitution all the time, like it's a guideline instead of the supreme law of the land.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou "do not see why there is so much objection to Him" and you hold up that we know that our own "lives would not meet His standards". How quaint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, we don't know that, and no we don't object to "him". Our problem is that we want our government to govern based on things we all believe in, such as morality, compassion, ethics, and fairness, even if we define these somewhat differently from person to person.
First of all, we're quite sure that there is no "Him", and we're quite sure therefore that "he" has no standards. But we can easily see that there are plenty of people out there, apparently including you, who feel it is their duty, even their divine right, to inform us of those standards, and even to use them in forming legislation with which to guide our lives. Superstition has no place in governance, as one can easily see in places where it is commonly used, such as in many Muslim countries.
We do not embrace anarchy nor deny morality. If anything, our morality, based on the golden rule, and ethics and fairness, is frequently stronger and more balanced that religious morality, based on the interpretation by self-appointed zealots, of hand-me-down, improperly translated mythology from the past few thousand years.
Thank you very much. I feel much better now.
He was on Moyers and Co. if anyone is interested in hearing him talk about his views. I find what he has to say interesting and true however I don't find he offers much hope for bringing the reds and blues in our nation together. Hard not to seriously dislike, if not demonize, people who want to take away rights you hold dear. I think this holds true for both sides. And when there actually is no middle ground, say between abortion and no abortion, I simply don't understand how we get around that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not say that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The First Amendment said it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm 76, a Vietnam military veteran. I grew up in the deep South and from childhood was a white gal who strongly supported civil rights--even got illegally arrested and kicked out of my state university. In 1957 when I turned 21 and was about to graduate from college (elsewhere), I refused to register as a Dixiecrat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy dad was an old time LaFollette Progressive, so I registered Republican, then A.G.C. (After the Goldwater Convention) I immediately resigned since it was obvious that the white sheet fanatics were rapidly switcherooing into the GOP. When that got worse and the GOP--formerly the hope of liberals and progressives--was taken over by the monopolists and oligarchs to become the Greedy Oil Punks, I became a Democrat. Did a lot of campaigning for a few real liberals (and for people who seemed to be but weren't) and became an Independent once again in 2009 at the age of 73. Now 76, I'm still looking for a Social Democrat grassroots party, but sad to say, the oligarchy of the 1% now owns us and I think this country has long passed the point of recovering its democracy--something that began to seem probably during Reagan's reign.
I might agree that the Repubs have become extremists, which he calls "pure", but they are highly impure extremists--religious fanatics and anarchist radicals--and have not only destroyed with propaganda the old honorable definition of "liberal" (generous, caring, warm-hearted) but also by their own actions the old honorable definition of "conservative" (cautious, rational, careful).
As for the Dems, to call that party "pure liberal" makes me laugh--or cry. Hagridden from the beginning by slaveowners and then Jim Crow Dixiecrats, they never had a liberal focus until LBJ, who almost immediately ruined it by a worthless war. They certainly aren't liberals now. For one thing their ultra-conciliatory demeanor reminds me of the conservatives of my growing up years, and Haidt seems to be ignoring the Blue Dogs, or DINOS (Democrats in Name Only's) who support the same extremist anarchy as the Tea Parties, only not quite so crudely. Wouldn't it be loverly if the Dems really were liberals--but it just isn't true.
This guy is either blind to history or a propagandist for the Karl Rovians. Whether knowingly or not, he spouts the same dumb party line.
The South usually has large school districts. Court ordered bussing sent children from neighborhood schools to distant schools in the name of integration. In New York the no Black Child from Mt. Vernon went a few blocks to the far superior schools of Scarsdale or Pelham.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe same law only affects part of the nation. The same people might vote for different candidates depending on their location and how a federal issue might affect them. In this state schools of education tell young men they should not enroll to be elementary education majors because no school will hire them. They will not bring in affirmative action dollars. Parents do not send their sons to college but to trade school unless their sons are good in science and math. Otherwise they can not get a job that requires a college education for more money. A trade school education pays more money.
For years Federal Money was distributed according to states according to population figures in the 1930s. As the South grew, its share of the pot became smaller and smaller. Thus a Liberal give back meant Federal Money to fight Poverty went to the wealthiest states. The War on Poverty gave money to the richest states.
So the word liberal came to define a movement that wanted to subject the South to rules it did not itself follow and to reap financial benefits at the expense of the South.
Let the Liberals in the 5 Boroughs of New York City along with Westchester and Nassau Counties adopt bussing to achieve full integration of their schools. At that point we will see how liberal they truly are in their hearts.
Haidt drew an analogy with the HHS mandate saying: "It's like forcing synagogues to buy pork lunches for their non-jewish employees."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel that this analogy is invalid and confusing. I would suggest the following analogy:
"Its like forcing synagogues who give coupons to their Jewish and non-Jewish employees that are good for one meal at a local restaurant, and then letting the employee choose whether to have a pork or kosher chicken meal.
In other words, the individual employee has a choice of what to eat; the employer does not dictate diet. The employer is not aware of what decision the employee makes. The synagogue pays the same amount for each coupon regardless of the employee's choice. Similarly, the HHS mandate calls on the religious employer to provide health care coverage at a standard fee set by the insurance company; it leaves the choice of whether to use birth control up to the employee. The employer pays the same amount, no matter what decision the employee makes. The employer doesn't even know what the employee's decision is.
Where do you get your statistics? The underpopulated states and the Southern states without doubt get the lion's share of federal entitlement monies --SO MUCH SO that I have heard many leftists (sarcastically more than seriously) saying it's too bad Lincoln just didn't let them try to make it on their own, and let them make a predictable shambles of a repeated attempt to govern anarchy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the scientific approach is an amoral one..." So what is the philosophy based on economics?? If you've ever been told that something which damages or hinders you or reduces your power as an individual is "necessary for business" - then you've seen the amorality of one type of economics. People are LESS moral when they make decisions and take actions which involve their economic status. Yet, one of our political parties bases its entire Raison d'être and it's entire Modus operandi on exactly that kind of economics-based thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may prefer "religious morality" - and if so, you're simply opting for a very unscientific and anti-rational set of beliefs based on one of the primitive societies of antiquity. You may also therefore prefer magical thinking and setting up unqualified individuals as "moral leaders" based on their imaginary talent for knowing what God thinks and intends for humanity.
At least, Science attempts to examine and evaluate phenomena known to be real and testable and to form testable hypothises before proclaiming conclusions. The agenda of scientists involves learning and discovering - for the purpose of finding better ways of dealing with reality. The morality of politics is simply to find that position which attracts the greatest gut reaction approval while demonizing and competing with a partly-imaginary "foe." The morality of both politics and religion involves the arrogance of assumptive superiority and the demand for loyalty from followers. Hmm, what would a rational person choose from among Science, Politics and Religion?
Hello There,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs people of Faith, we must not look to the world for hope but to Christ as Christians. Read the Bible excerpts several times a day, the Psalms, Proverbs and Gospels. Resist the temptation to depression and despair. Read Romans 5 on tribulation, Ephesians on armoring up, Galatians on virtues to practice and Philippians Chapter 4, and keep yourself doing what you can do. You might be greatly helped by reading N.T. Wright's book "Surprised by Hope" and the two others that go with it "Simply Christian" and "After You Believe." Go to a church with missions that live the Gospel in worship and outreach on social issues. Pray a lot, meditate on scripture. Focus on your own service in loving others in action and that is the best thing Christ needs all of us in Christian Church to do at this time. Lose your depression in loving service to others, become the future you want to see. God Bless you.
well said!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor context let me mention that my undergraduate degree was Physics. Many years ago, I might have responded as you did. However, since that time pshychology has gain more hard evidence and the hardest of the hard sciences, physics, has become less hard (consider the evidence for the Higgs).
I think this was a very good article, even if it points out what should be obvious. ("We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." -- Benjamin Franklin)
Another way to deescribe our current situation is:
what happened to calling them the "loyal opposition"?
Maybe we can unscramble the morass of moral differences by generalizing our mini commandments to reach a common ground;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) EXPLORE AND LEARN: from nature, from the past, and from each other.
(2)BE OF GOOD COUNCIL: respect the gift and diversity of language, endeavor not to mislead, teach others so that humanity can endure, progress, and prosper.
(3)BE A GOOD STEWARD: care for our planet and the environment that supports all life, respect the basic needs of others, all others, reproduce and consume within reason.