Yascha Mounk sits down with Jonathan Haidt to discuss psychological differences between the left and the right and how to build a less tribal culture and country.
A terrific podcast, of course. And I enjoyed listening to Haidt even more than reading “The Righteous Mind.” The first segment is based on the theory from that book. It’s fascinating and does provide some guidance for understanding the real world. But applying such general theory to real-world complexity is tricky.
For example, Yascha’s conclusion (58:30) about a key dictate of wokism is that “the only way to make sense of that is as sanctity thinking.” He was talking about banning a work of literature because it used a not-PC word even though the author was taking an anti-racist position. I was convinced. It seemed to fit Haidt’s general theory. But Haidt said “No, I think there’s another way,” and I found his view even more persuasive and much more helpful in thinking about what to do.
For reasons like this, I found the 2nd half more fascinating. Also, I loved the ad at the start for John Wood’s organization “Better Angels,” and for his essay posted here on Persuasion, Nov 30. Here’s the link to the buried post.
I have yet to listen to Jonathan and failed to learn something. It makes me happy that Yascha had such a visceral memory of when he read The Righteous Mind. Mine came with The Coddling, but this podcast underscored his perspective (and my agreement) that “hard wired” may be too binary a perspective save for the fact that these receptors exist and can be “triggered” based on facts and circumstance. I would also underscore that nature also has something to do with one’s capacity to have certain receptors “triggered”. Regardless, I believe the acknowledgment of both commonality and differentiation keep you on your toes when approaching all of the problems of the day. I am very wary of those that think/talk/act in absolutes. It’s good for thought experiments and pushing boundaries but not as a value by which to live/address life.
Haidt discusses the need for a "safe alternative" to the Woke Inquisition at the end of the podcast. This alternative will start by accepting the systemic arguments on which these zealots base their faith, he suggests. This is the tepid liberal stance of, "Oh, you're right of course but can you please be more polite about it?" A true alternative would challenge the Neoracists on substance. Their central argument is that there is a white power structure that systemically thwarts blacks, women, transgender, etc. Our social structure is thus illegitimate and causes all of the disparities that exist. This argument is highly dubious, to put it kindly. And yet, they are rarely challenged on it by centrists or center left, even in forums like Persuasion that presumably exist for that purpose. I suspect it's because Persuasion contributors and guests fear the Neoracists. They can criticize their manners and get away with it. But they dare not question them on substance. Until the bullies are challenged effectively on substance, however, they will continue to wield institutional power (ironically, given their premise). They will cloak themselves in sumptious sanctimony and seek blasphemers with glee.
May I point out an inconsistency that uncovers a considerable anti-right bias?
At 22:00 Yascha asks "are we not applying "Sanctity" differently for right and left? He gives examples of the right's assertion that voting has sanctity , and for that reason even a small amount of fraud is a big deal. Yet the left doesn't see it that way. "Isn't this inconsistent application of the concept of sanctity to left and right," he asks.
Jon's response needs to be closely examined. He says essentially (paraphrasing) " people use the world "sanctity" when they actually have an different meaning,. He connects the dots by saying that "as the franchise expands, more voter turn out means poor results for the right". This strikes me as disingenuous and highly politically bias. Why is Jon certain that the right's concern about voter fraud under the banner of sanctity is fake, and their real concern is too many of the wrong people voting ? Isn't it an unexamined unflattering assumption and conclusion?
Jon, compounds this shortly after when he he describes voter's in Brazil being unoffended by discussion of buying their vote, whereas Americans are appalled. he then explains that in the USA voting has been imbued with sanctity. He doesn't explain why the right leaning voters concerned with fraud are excluded from this.
I need to point this out because I think it is one of those subtle ways of disparaging people on the right without knowing or intending to do so. I learn from and enjoy Jon's work and, I am on the right.
I see voting as having sanctity, because it is our ONLY way to do our job as "We the People". I'd say most everyone I know on the right has the same view. It's our only tool, we want it kept trustworthy and sharp. Or we are powerless, as many people in the EU feel these days.
Consent of the governed is the near sacred American value . Voting is how we give o withhold consent to govern us. To tolerate or be unconcerned about election fraud or fraud-friendly conditions, is to weaken our only tool to govern ourselves, and our belief in the concept of self-governance.
Purity and sanctity taste buds yes, but we cannot overlook the SACRIFICE taste bud. Every religion, as Walter Burkert argues, requires sacrifice, generally animal or even human sacrifice. We kill something we love to barter with the gods. Burkert describes mothers in India who will cut off a finger to protect their children from death: A small suffering or priming of the pump to assure greater rewards. And this atavistic god bartering instinct remains a part of us. It is even prevalent in mental illness, obsessive compulsive behaviors and superstitions in particular: "I must do this ridiculous thing to hurt myself to gain a future benefit." As Maimonides describes, God does not need our sacrifices, but we need to perform them nonetheless, so religion controls how it is done. But it is a VERY dangerous impulse. And in Leviticus we see the need for a universal religion to enforce the rigid rules of sacrifice. The sacrifice taste bud cannot control that particular dangerous taste without institutional help. Nadab and Abihu are the precautionary tale, since they are killed outright for sacrificing the wrong way. I suggest we can now see the dangerous uncontrolled sacrifice impulse on both the right and the left politically. The "weird" left are particularly prone to sacrificing their own heritage for the sake of gaining a sanctified future. The absurdity of white fragility is such a compulsive sacrifice. The "unweird" right are equally prone to the sacrificial impulse and have sacrificed many of their own lives as demonstrated by their refusal to wear masks and vaccinate.
A terrific podcast, of course. And I enjoyed listening to Haidt even more than reading “The Righteous Mind.” The first segment is based on the theory from that book. It’s fascinating and does provide some guidance for understanding the real world. But applying such general theory to real-world complexity is tricky.
For example, Yascha’s conclusion (58:30) about a key dictate of wokism is that “the only way to make sense of that is as sanctity thinking.” He was talking about banning a work of literature because it used a not-PC word even though the author was taking an anti-racist position. I was convinced. It seemed to fit Haidt’s general theory. But Haidt said “No, I think there’s another way,” and I found his view even more persuasive and much more helpful in thinking about what to do.
For reasons like this, I found the 2nd half more fascinating. Also, I loved the ad at the start for John Wood’s organization “Better Angels,” and for his essay posted here on Persuasion, Nov 30. Here’s the link to the buried post.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/remember-martin-luther-king-jr
I have yet to listen to Jonathan and failed to learn something. It makes me happy that Yascha had such a visceral memory of when he read The Righteous Mind. Mine came with The Coddling, but this podcast underscored his perspective (and my agreement) that “hard wired” may be too binary a perspective save for the fact that these receptors exist and can be “triggered” based on facts and circumstance. I would also underscore that nature also has something to do with one’s capacity to have certain receptors “triggered”. Regardless, I believe the acknowledgment of both commonality and differentiation keep you on your toes when approaching all of the problems of the day. I am very wary of those that think/talk/act in absolutes. It’s good for thought experiments and pushing boundaries but not as a value by which to live/address life.
Haidt discusses the need for a "safe alternative" to the Woke Inquisition at the end of the podcast. This alternative will start by accepting the systemic arguments on which these zealots base their faith, he suggests. This is the tepid liberal stance of, "Oh, you're right of course but can you please be more polite about it?" A true alternative would challenge the Neoracists on substance. Their central argument is that there is a white power structure that systemically thwarts blacks, women, transgender, etc. Our social structure is thus illegitimate and causes all of the disparities that exist. This argument is highly dubious, to put it kindly. And yet, they are rarely challenged on it by centrists or center left, even in forums like Persuasion that presumably exist for that purpose. I suspect it's because Persuasion contributors and guests fear the Neoracists. They can criticize their manners and get away with it. But they dare not question them on substance. Until the bullies are challenged effectively on substance, however, they will continue to wield institutional power (ironically, given their premise). They will cloak themselves in sumptious sanctimony and seek blasphemers with glee.
May I point out an inconsistency that uncovers a considerable anti-right bias?
At 22:00 Yascha asks "are we not applying "Sanctity" differently for right and left? He gives examples of the right's assertion that voting has sanctity , and for that reason even a small amount of fraud is a big deal. Yet the left doesn't see it that way. "Isn't this inconsistent application of the concept of sanctity to left and right," he asks.
Jon's response needs to be closely examined. He says essentially (paraphrasing) " people use the world "sanctity" when they actually have an different meaning,. He connects the dots by saying that "as the franchise expands, more voter turn out means poor results for the right". This strikes me as disingenuous and highly politically bias. Why is Jon certain that the right's concern about voter fraud under the banner of sanctity is fake, and their real concern is too many of the wrong people voting ? Isn't it an unexamined unflattering assumption and conclusion?
Jon, compounds this shortly after when he he describes voter's in Brazil being unoffended by discussion of buying their vote, whereas Americans are appalled. he then explains that in the USA voting has been imbued with sanctity. He doesn't explain why the right leaning voters concerned with fraud are excluded from this.
I need to point this out because I think it is one of those subtle ways of disparaging people on the right without knowing or intending to do so. I learn from and enjoy Jon's work and, I am on the right.
I see voting as having sanctity, because it is our ONLY way to do our job as "We the People". I'd say most everyone I know on the right has the same view. It's our only tool, we want it kept trustworthy and sharp. Or we are powerless, as many people in the EU feel these days.
Consent of the governed is the near sacred American value . Voting is how we give o withhold consent to govern us. To tolerate or be unconcerned about election fraud or fraud-friendly conditions, is to weaken our only tool to govern ourselves, and our belief in the concept of self-governance.
Thoughtful, interesting, excellent podcast!
Purity and sanctity taste buds yes, but we cannot overlook the SACRIFICE taste bud. Every religion, as Walter Burkert argues, requires sacrifice, generally animal or even human sacrifice. We kill something we love to barter with the gods. Burkert describes mothers in India who will cut off a finger to protect their children from death: A small suffering or priming of the pump to assure greater rewards. And this atavistic god bartering instinct remains a part of us. It is even prevalent in mental illness, obsessive compulsive behaviors and superstitions in particular: "I must do this ridiculous thing to hurt myself to gain a future benefit." As Maimonides describes, God does not need our sacrifices, but we need to perform them nonetheless, so religion controls how it is done. But it is a VERY dangerous impulse. And in Leviticus we see the need for a universal religion to enforce the rigid rules of sacrifice. The sacrifice taste bud cannot control that particular dangerous taste without institutional help. Nadab and Abihu are the precautionary tale, since they are killed outright for sacrificing the wrong way. I suggest we can now see the dangerous uncontrolled sacrifice impulse on both the right and the left politically. The "weird" left are particularly prone to sacrificing their own heritage for the sake of gaining a sanctified future. The absurdity of white fragility is such a compulsive sacrifice. The "unweird" right are equally prone to the sacrificial impulse and have sacrificed many of their own lives as demonstrated by their refusal to wear masks and vaccinate.