Found in 8 comments
by baldfat
So I really like the description of "The Righteous Mind" WHY is it $2.50 more to get the Kindle version then to have a paperback book shipped to my home!

Kindle Version - $11.99

Paperback (Prime) - $9.32

Original thread
by BeetleB
>The purpose of moralizing is to shame those that ignore our struggle as living organisms.

So how is that working out?

Think of all the campaigns that have effected change. How often did shaming work? Sure, you have a few cases like the fight against Apartheid, but in general? Not effective.

Here's the thing. I'm as pro-science as they come. However, I've been blessed to come from communities that fall prey to anti-vaccine and other "nonsense". And one thing I know is that fact based ridicule and moralizing has a low success rate.

As someone who somewhat understands both communities, I am already not on your side. If a pro-vacciner like me is turned off by such rhetoric, imagine it from an anti-vacciner's side.

Think I'm an outlier? I'll hazard a guess that most pro-vacciners are close to someone who is not (family connections, etc).

There is comfort in being "right". But being "right" does not in itself translate to right outcomes.

The Righteous Mind ( is a very worthy read. A few things it points out:

1. On a polarized issue, facts will increase the polarization (and I'm guessing justifying shame with facts will exacerbate the issue)

2. To persuade someone, you will have a lot more success appealing to emotions than to the rational mind. This does not mean playing games where you manipulate people.

Original thread
by qrendel
I'll second the "mandatory reading" suggestion. The SCC post has considerably better analysis of these tribal disagreements than most anything else I've read on the subject, particularly the NYT column.

The article is almost cute. Like, "Did you know people are tribal? And did you ever think that might be a bad thing?" It's not a profound new idea, and it's one that's been better discussed elsewhere, from the SCC posts on the subject (see also the recent one on Albion's Seed[1]) to Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind[2] to Joshua Greene's Moral Tribes[3] to the many, many articles[4][5] that have already been written about partisan polarization in the U.S. (and probably globally, if Europe is any indication).

I mean I'm glad that a random NYT column is provoking further discussion about an important subject, but there's so much more and better stuff that has been said about it than just what this touches on.






Original thread
by criddell
In this election season, if you are left leaning and would like to understand just what it is that's underlying the politics of the right (or vice versa), I recommend Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind.

Prior to reading this, my politics aligned very closely with those of Sanders and I thought everybody on the right were selfish, evil, close-minded fools. After reading the book, my politics are still left of center (but definitely right of Sanders), but I think I understand and appreciate the politics of my right leaning family and friends.

Original thread
by jseliger
"Let instinct trump logic" - bad advice. Instinct is simply pattern matching current conditions against memory. Without experience, instinct is a poor criteria and logic should be employed. Read Kahneman for the supporting research into that.

I'd also recommend Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind ( He makes a lot of interesting points, including that most people come to a conclusion about an issue, then look for reasoning to support it, and that most of us operate on instinct most of the time—logic is a more costly, difficult mode whose use can be cultivated but which is not at all the default.

Original thread
by grimtrigger
"The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion"

If you're like me and love debates, this book is awesome. It'll show you how to find common ground and understand implicit values behind arguments.

Link for the lazy (non-affiliate):

Original thread
by chaz
That's a fruitless way of approaching the problem. It plays into the political divides of "us" vs "them." By trying to establish groups of people as "clueless" about a topic, it just reinforces the feelings of, "they just don't get it" or "they wouldn't think that if they just knew better." All sides of an issue believe exactly that.

This reminds me to read a book that talks about this: "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," by Jonathan Haidt. Maybe someone else has read it and can comment.,

Original thread
by jseliger
Why exactly is profit / commerce considered a bad thing - especially here?

I think it's because a lot of the people who work in nonprofits and public agencies are at best ambivalent about profit and commerce, and at worse openly hostile to them, and such feelings are based primarily on emotions. So asking "Why?" in a way designed to elicit logical / intellectual reasons is unlikely to yield a lot of productive opinions (Jonathan Haidt discusses the role of non-logical emotions in cognition in his book The Righteous Mind, which is completely brilliant and ought to be read by everyone[1]).

Incidentally, my family's consulting firm provides grant writing services for nonprofits and public agencies (see if you're curious), and we face a lot of the profit / commerce ambivalence too. I even wrote about the issue in a post about the grant funding system and the role specialization and gains from trade play: . A lot of people feel like nonprofits and public agencies are not supposed to be like other businesses, even though, in reality, they are a lot like other businesses except, obviously for the profit drive.

So, like other businesses, a lot of nonprofits buy goods and services they can't productively make or do themselves. We use the analogy of a plumber: most nonprofits do not have one on staff, and, when their toilets clog, they hire someone to do the job. That's fairly straightforward. But many do feel that grant applications are something like a college admissions essay, in which hiring a consultant is somehow cheating. [2] We obviously don't think so, but, nonetheless, a lot of people have that feeling and don't really think grant writing is like plumbing. But nonprofit and public agencies who submit better proposals tend to get funded more often than those who don't, so to some extent those feelings get weeded out by the "market," which still exists.

We've also argued before that there's no reason why a nonprofit grant writing agency can't exist, but in practice none do, and, if they did, the demand for their services would far outstrip supply, because grant writing is very boring, difficult, and tedious—a troika that makes for a great business, but doesn't give people the good feelings they might get from, say, doling out soup at a soup kitchen, or providing pro-bono legal work.[3]

Notes: [1]

[2] Actually, hiring an admissions essay person starts to make sense when one thinks about how much might be on the line, but that's another issue.

[3] EDIT: Found the post that discusses these issues: .

Original thread

Found a good book? Subscribe to the weekly newsletter.