Surprise

Sexual minorities systematically hold more liberal views, in all conceivable areas of life. https://t.co/RANdE2SWSK pic.twitter.com/rN8HdnaxeO

— Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf) November 18, 2020

IDW Names

About @JonHaidt, by @bariweiss https://t.co/wnlRz2ZPfE

— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) October 8, 2020

Haidt Without a Solution

From 2018: Polarised: The psychology of tribalism, with Jonathan Haidt (alt)

A True-Believer in Liberalism

If we take what he says in the interview at face value, and not as duplicitous subversion. Liberalism enables the culture war and has no solution for it, unless being disposed by its principles to favor the SJW side over the illiberal side is a solution.

My thanks to @Peter_Wehner, who interviewed me for @TheAtlantic and did a better job of making sense of my work, and linking it to today, than I could have done myselfhttps://t.co/tNRDGYdgfH

— Jonathan Haidt (@JonHaidt) May 24, 2020

So what is Haidt hoping for? The political equivalent of Newton’s third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Haidt put it this way: “Since we already see signs that most Americans are exhausted by this culture war, [my hope is] that this year or into next year will be kind of a pit of despair or a pit of darkness—and then we’ll emerge from it.”He continued, “I need to read up on how the religious wars ended in Europe, but my second- or thirdhand understanding is that it wasn’t that Europeans reached some profoundly enlightened view; they just got exhausted, and they realized, you know, we’ve got to stop this. And so that is actually my main source of hope, that things are so bad now and the fact that we can’t even confront a pandemic because of our polarization. We can’t share facts, we can’t share strategies, we can’t coordinate behavior because of our polarization. I think this will become increasingly clear.”

Haidt should read a bit more then, especially about the Peace of Westphalia, which was closer to a "live and let live" solution, with limited protection of the rights of Christian minorities. We're not going to get that with the blue-red conflict in the U.S., not without a hot war first.

Jonathan Haidt, "Two Incompatible Values at American Universities"

Related:

More with Jonathan Haidt

Any Hope for the Millenials?

How Millennials Became ‘Generation Meh’ by Teresa Mull
With nothing to rebel against, we've lost our edge.

A r-selected population? Or should one reduce political conflict, as Jonathan Haidt does, to individuals with competing personality traits that are somehow equal in value and goodness, with the corollary that millenials have come to possess a set of certain traits but lack [many] others? I prefer a more classical analysis: what has been generated is a soft, pampered, dulled male population that has been successfully pacified and emasculated. There is nothing to "rebel" against because someone in such a condition is unable to perceive the evils that exist and to take action against those evils. "When liberty is taken away, no one will miss it."

Is this the natural consequence of urbanization or the intended outcome of a deliberate program by the state to preserve its power against all possible threats (including the people)? The cause does make a difference in how we respond to the problem.

The incorporation and application of feminism as state ideology by those holding political and economic power, leading to a soft matriarchy over education and increasingly the government bureaucracies and the judiciary, expedites the emasculation even more.
But generation Z may turn out to be more based than the millenials, especially if we help to make it so.

More on Jonathan Haidt

I was spurred to post this by the following:
Enter the Elephant
Nate Hagens, The Oil Drum
In the Happiness Hypothesis, psychology professor Jonathan Haidt compares human brain/behavior to a man riding an elephant. There exists a complex choreography between our newer rational cortex (the 'man'), and our older, more primitive brain structures (the 'elephant').

A conflict between the higher and lower parts of man. The ancients talked about it, Christians taught us that the source of the conflict was the lack of harmony between man and God. What is new is the 20th ce materialistic spin put on this, and the split between the "rational" part of the brain from the more primitive parts which we share in common with less advanced animals. (And inherited, according to evolution, from our less advanced progenitors.)

There is an earlier post about Haidt here.

More links:
Jon Haidt's Home Page
The Happiness Hypothesis - Jonathan Haidt

Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives

The 10 principles from ancient wisdom

As collected by Jonathan Haidt in The Happiness Hypothesis. From the abstract:ethics

1. “The Divided Self:” Small Rider, Large Elephant
Before Freud, both Plato and Buddha described the divided self. To Plato, the psyche was a charioteer, our reason, guiding the wild horses of our passions. Freud’s update depicted ego as a carriage driver, id as the wild beasts pulling the carriage and the superego as the driver’s father who tells him what he’s doing wrong. Perhaps Buddha’s simple metaphor of the split mind – as a rational rider atop an irrational elephant – is the most useful. The brain has two hemispheres with different strengths. Split-brain research says the left brain will conceive a likely story to explain behavior, though it isn’t privy to accurate data. It does this in a matter-of-fact way, with no idea that it is concocting a tale. This brain
module maintains a running, convincing dialogue as part of the “makes sense” function of thought and reason. We rarely feel a need to go beyond a plausible explanation. The human brain evolved slowly from a merely reactive organ into a useful tool for reasoning and planning. With the brain’s expansion to house the intellect, we gained a greater range and deeper capacity for emotions, located, scientists say, in the orbitofrontal cortex. Patients who sustained damage to this part of the brain could still reason and remember things, but they could no longer make decisions, so their lives unraveled. They lost the emotional reaction that gives choices their different weights.

Reason, the rider, is a “controlled process.” “Automatic processes,” or the elephant, are responsible for most physical, emotional and mental functions. Mental intrusions are a by-product of automatic processes. So much of what pops into our heads at inopportune moments is sexual or aggressive, so Freud concluded that our unconscious is dark and menacing. Recent research has a more innocent explanation: automatic processes issue these mental intrusions all the time, but the ones that stick in our minds and threaten to become obsessive are the ones we find most shocking. Some of these thoughts may indicate unconscious truths, but they do not necessarily do so.

Reasoning does not cause behavior. Moral arguments, like aesthetic preferences, are
rooted in strong feelings. Skillful refutation rarely changes someone’s mind, because in these matters, the elephant rules. The rider who offers advice or alternatives, or argues against desire, can influence behavior, but progress is made by the elephant.

Genes play a large role in determining if your disposition is happy or prone to depression. This is your basic, habitual “affectivestyle.”Adjusting it can be a good start to elevating your level of happiness. You cannot win against the elephant, but you can reshape your behavior gradually with meditation, cognitive therapy or some antidepressants. If the thought of losing brings more unhappiness than the thought of winning brings happiness, then the remedy is to let go of those thoughts and desires. Meditation helps tame the elephant and train the mind to focus. It particularly helps quell persistent anger, fear and depression.

2. “Changing Your Mind”
Aaron Beck developed cognitive therapy to counter Freud’s view that adult conflicts are rooted in childhood. His approach is effective in combating depression, anxiety and negative mental habits. We always tell ourselves stories. Beck says depressed people’s stories magnify and personalize setbacks in a way that perpetuates depression. Cognitive therapy emphasizes awareness and modification of internal dialogues to be more positive. With it, you literally change your mind to reap the benefits of a more positive outlook. For some, medication is a necessary shortcut to reframing the world in a positive light.

3. “Reciprocity with a Vengeance”
Language may have evolved to enable gossip, the sharing of social information, because success in social hierarchies depends on social skills. Gossip sparks a “tit-for-tat” reflex. If someone passes on good gossip, you feel a slight pressure to reciprocate. Actually, the Golden Rule is embedded deep in our behavioral makeup, extending family loyalty to a larger social group. We are social creatures, and reciprocity is a part of the glue that binds us, the basis for gossip as well as some sales techniques. “Tit for tat” is a strategy for cooperating. Yet, several studies show that when there is no consequence, people will act selfishly and greedily. For most, the appearance of fairness suffices, true or not. It is all too human to be aware of others’ shortcomings and fail to see your own. Extend that tendency to a group and it’s easy to see why social harmony is so elusive. Just as threatening an individual’s self-esteem leads to violence and cruelty, group idealism that promotes moral superiority breeds many of the world’s atrocities. This happens when people buy into the myth that pure evil exists.

4. “The Faults of Others”
Judgmentalism leads to conflict, anger and pain, yet it is the mind’s prevailing characteristic, with the elephant constantly evaluating likes and dislikes. You cannot resolve to be less judgmental, but with meditation or cognitive therapy,you can gradually tame yourelephant to be less so. Cognitive therapy helps people recognize and modify distorted thoughts. We all have ideas of how the world “should” be; cognitive therapy posits that these “should” statements offer a wealth of insight into our personal biases and judgments.

5. “The Pursuit of Happiness”
Positive psychology’s “happiness formula” says happiness is the sum of your genetic
happiness setpoint, your life conditions and your voluntary activities. Though your basic setpoint is genetic, other factors for happiness include strong interpersonal bonds, and religious or spiritual affiliation of some sort, even if just a sense of wonder about nature. We feel pleasure with each step toward meeting a goal. Yet, once we achieve the goal, we quickly set new goals. Happiness following accomplishment is sweet, but short-lived. At some point, we become accustomed to change, no matter how great, and return to our habitual affective personality style. While you work to adjust your happiness setpoint, you can also shape some external factors to influence your happiness level. For instance, reduce noise in your environment. Lessen any sense of shame. Build relationships. Improve your control over stress-causing conditions. You cannot change some factors (gender, age, race) that influence your happiness and some things that you could change usually remain stable for many years (marital status, career). Voluntary activities, like learning a new skill or
going on vacation, provide the sense of change and progress needed to sustain happiness. We need to feel we are making progress without adapting or getting bored. We engage with life through goals. We need to “make things happen.” Positive
psychologists say that the pleasurable feeling of “flow” comes when you immerse
yourself in a challenge that matches your abilities. In the experience of flow, elephant
and rider are in perfect accord. Pleasures have a strong sensory, emotional component, and are fleeting. By contrast, lasting gratification comes through mastery and progress. People with more self-direction – or with work that is in harmony with their strengths – derive more pleasure from their work.

6. “Love and Attachments”
We are social creatures and need personal connections to feel happy. Our childhood
parent-child attachment styles set the pattern for our adult emotional attachments.
Understanding your emotional patterns can help you influence them. Random acts of
kindness can improve your positive feelings. Using your strengths to improve your
relationships and express gratitude has a positive influence on your happiness setpoint.

7. “The Uses of Adversity”
Trying to make sense of tragedy is human. Unconsciously, we believe in reciprocity and want to believe that tragedy befalls those who somehow had it coming. Experience says differently. This need to wring sense from a situation can lead to wrong conclusions, but it is how humans synthesize traumas. Common wisdom says adversity teaches resilience, but those who have optimistic tendencies are likelier to benefit. Optimists generally rise to the challenge of severe stress by marshalling hidden resources. You don’t need to be an optimist to respond beneficially to trauma, but you do need to make sense of it. Writing, putting the causes and consequences of traumatic events into words, can help you discern what the event means to you. Often a connection to a more spiritual outlook helps reframe trauma into meaningful events that hold the seeds of healing.

8. “The Felicity of Virtue”
The “virtue hypothesis” claims that living a virtuous life makes you happier. All the
greats believed it: Epicurus, Buddha, Ben Franklin, even Machiavelli, though he would argue that the appearance of virtue is enough. Sages imparted ancient wisdom with an emotional component – using stories and heroes – to appeal directly to the elephant. But there is no short-cut. Building virtue requires patient, diligent habit over time. Science, in its quest to reduce a diversity of ideas to one overarching idea, would like to boil the concept of right living down to one universal principle. This leads to increasingly abstract principles. The resultant generalizations have helped develop marvelous societal rules that respect individuals and benefit the greatest number of people. However, unfortunate collateral developments include reframing morality questions as inquiries into right action in the face of moral dilemmas, rather than focusing on virtuous character traits. This change from “character ethics” to “quandary ethics” limits and weakens the idea of morality. Rather than seeking virtue in all you do, virtue becomes a situational attribute. Training the rider how to conceptualize moral dilemmas changes nothing, for it doesn‘t consider the elephant at all. Western culture has always overvalued the rational function, downplaying the wisdom of feelings and habits. In fact, western culture distrusts feelings as obstacles to rational thought. Reason may provide direction, but the motivational force
of emotion is pure elephant.

Sociologist James Hunter traces the moral change in society from a culture that respected “producer” virtues of self-restraint, hard work and sacrifice for the future of the common good to a “mass consumption” culture geared to individual fulfillment. The concept of character and its virtues has been replaced by the notion of personality, with no moral resonance. Most Americans support demographic diversity, but not moral diversity. A harmonious society of social and moral coherence comes from emphasizing common values.

9. “Divinity with or without God”

The bonds between kin and friends form one dimension. Societal status and hierarchy form another. A third dimension provides depth and elevates the human spirit. This is the perception of divinity, which persists through all cultures and history. It’s the perception of our natures as “higher,” like the gods, or “lower,” like animals. Living a virtuous life helps humans ascend to this third dimension. Spiritual or “peak” experiences minimize the self, thus increasing transcendent feelings of connection and awe. But, since we are biologically wired for success, and not necessarily for happiness, the chattering self often keeps us from this elevating experience. Cultivating spirituality requires discipline, which the self does not like.

Physical traits evolve slowly, but cultural traits evolve swiftly. Some cultures value
individual autonomy; others value group integrity, and emphasize loyalty and obedience. The “ethic of divinity” protects and cultivates the parts of human nature that seem divine. These different ethical perspectives explain much of the conflict between liberal and conservative values in the culture war. Culture itself, the ability to learn, teach and build on past knowledge, became an evolutionary trait. Religion provides a unifying culture where individuals may feel greater loyalty to the group, thus downplaying adaptive individual selfishness and strengthening group survival. This co-evolutionary view of individuals and cultures explains both selfishness and altruism. Because mystical experiences tend to shrink the self, they are useful for providing the sense that we are each just a part of the larger group.

10. “Happiness Comes from Between”
Happiness is a product of the right conditions. We simultaneously exist as individuals, as members of social groups and as spiritual beings. Happiness comes from a sense of harmony and coherence among these levels. Understanding ourselves in all these contexts yields insight into how people find and express their purpose in life and what it takes to be happy.

Does he improve upon Viktor Frankl? My suspicion is that he doesn't, with his lack of clarity on the connection between virtue and reason. (How would he define the 'habits' that he thinks are an important counterweight to reason?) While there may be much truth in what he has written, it is the mixture with error that is problematic. Virtue ethics should be left to those who know what the virtues are (and possess it to some degree), not to social scientists or psychologists trying to be philosophers. (If Haidt does not have a good definition of happiness, there is a danger that he falls into a real version of the naturalistic fallacy.)

Exemplars of the liberal no-harm principle?

Or just stunted in their ethical development? College students.

Via Dr. Helen: If you're a Democrat, would you eat the family dog?

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt

I began to study morality and culture at the University of Pennsylvania in 1987. A then-prevalent definition of the moral domain, from the Berkeley psychologist Elliot Turiel, said that morality refers to "prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other."

...
Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong.

Elsewhere I've written that the precepts of [particular] justice are the most readily knowable, but not all there is to moral/virtuous living. I wonder, how would college students answer questions about duties proper to virtues other than particular justice? Would they even recognize those duties? And then there are precepts of the moral virtues which concern the self, and precepts which are known only by the wise. Given the lack of respect for authority and tradition (the liberal bias against both being one source of such an attitude), there should be a cultural deficit in our knowledge of the latter. (Accepting that there are regional cultural differences.)

I would argue that the virtues allied to justice have been forgotten by many Americans--I have yet to read a liberal account of morality that even acknowledges them or is able to explain them.

More links:
Jon Haidt's homepage
Haidt Lab Home Page
SocialPsychology.org page
The Believer - Interview with Jonathan Haidt
Edge: MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION
Jonathan Haidt: The Happiness Hypothesis (Google Books) -- blog
Vox Popoli: Interview with Jonathan Haidt
Google Video: Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0 - Jonathan Haidt
Beyond Belief 2: Jonathan Haidt
Jonathan Haidt: Enlightenment 2.0 requires Morality 2.0

Get Happy with Ancient Wisdom

Interview with Jonathan Haidt
Jonathan Haidt on the "Five Foundations" of Morality

Crunchy Con: Scientist explains conservatism's success, Politics, morality and the culture war

I am not familiar with any reviews of The Happiness Hypothesis written by Thomists or Catholics. I picked it up once to take a quick look, but wasn't impressed.

From the abstract:

Happiness is not something that you can find, acquire, or achieve directly. You have to get the conditions right and then wait. Some of those conditions are within you, such as coherence among the parts and levels of your personality. Other conditions require relationships to things beyond you: Just as plants need sun, water and good soil to thrive, people need love, work and a connection to something larger.

Does he give a definition of happiness? I think he does mention Aristotle in the book, but I will have to go back and check.

Haidt recommends the Authentic Happiness questionnaire.