Jonathan Haidt's lecture illustrates the genetic basis for the five intuitive moral foundations humans develop to greater and lesser degrees.

His explanation of the moral differences between liberals and conservatives I think fits nicely to explain differences between ex-Mormons and Mormons. Note: He does not promote a particular political view but limits himself to description.

http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/02270/atheist/jonathan-haidt-this-is-your-brain-on-morality/

about 25 minutes long

What a brilliant thinker!

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Hi Twinker,

Yes, I also think he is brilliant. His insights provide the real possibility for really understanding one another, even if we don't agree. Due to his work I have been able to have conversations with religiously conservative people I would not have been able to have otherwise. He has also caused me to reassess my moral values. I tend to put more value on group and authority than other liberals do and I tend to put less on purity than both liberals and conservatives. Haidt has a webssite where you can see where you fit on the five morality scales.

http://moralfoundations.org/questionnaires/

Robert

While I consider myself only solidly liberal (as opposed to far left liberal) I scored more liberal than the liberal average.

Harm 4.0
Fairness 4.7
Loyalty 1.5
Authority 1.5
Purity 1.0

In considering the answers, I found myself asking, "For just myself, or for everyone else?" I think a certain amount of rules, authority and conformity (far less than authoritarian types insist is necessary) are useful for keeping other from annoying me, but I'd like more flexibility for myself. It's that tricky balance between self-interest and the group. So I answered on the group side of things, since the whole issue of morality would be irrelevant if there were no group, just me. Otherwise, by score would have been more extreme.

Though both talks utilize the same basic slides and "first draft" moral foundations, Haidt himself seems a bit more diffident in the talk to atheists, betrayed in some stuttering, as he represents himself to them as a fellow scientists and stresses the evolutionary aspects. He seems more fluent and naturally in his element in his TED talk, as he is free to bring in his research on comparative religions.

Although Haidt himself is an atheist, he disagrees with Dawkins, et al about the value of religion. In his Edge article he points out the mental health and societal benefits or religion (while also aware of its flaws and misuses) and asserts that the New Atheists misunderstand religion. Perhaps that is the difference you are seeing in his talk to an atheist audience--underlying conflict. Here is a link to the Edge article:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2011 09:16PM by robertb.

A more intellectual approach to the matter. It also reminded me of what I thought when reading The Happiness Hypothesis: that Haidt is quite informed about the social functioning of religion, but "transpersonal" for him is more of a lateral, group phenomenon rather than an awareness of a higher (vertical) dimension of individual awareness. Of course we are all parts of human groups, but many of the contemplative religious traditions that Haidt refers to assert that humanity as a whole is asleep to ITS own higher identity (divinity). Social authorities may use the cohesive power of religion to stabilize their particular societies (and to maintain their own hierarchical positions), but that's not the radical spiritual message of the founding teachers.

In short, all of Haidt's five foundations of morality are applied laterally, but there's also an unexplored vertical dimension to these.

Hi Richard. I think the vertical dimension is unexplored by Haidt and others because it isn't amenable to scientific study. I've read comments from Ken Wilber that experiences of transcendence *are* replicated by those who know the practices entailed.

However, the counterargument is those are *brain* experiences to which some people have assigned a particular meaning. Nothing to do with divinity at all. For myself, I cannot imagine how I might determine whether an experience is only my brain or whether it is actually transcendent, but I admit if I had the experience I might change my thinking. Perhaps it is a failure of my imagination.

Part of the difficulty, speaking for myself as an ex-Mormon but not all ex-Mormons, is I have experienced how experiences of transcendence are manipulated in all kinds of ways, both by others and my my own ego, so I am wary. I am past the cynicism about them I once felt, but I purposely put most of my attention on the horizontal dimension because it is safer for my mental health. That doesn't mean I don't feel a vertical pull, but I do sublimate it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2011 10:15PM by robertb.

I've had trouble calling such glimpses "experiences" because of the duality implied: an experience and an experiencer (someone having it), with the accompanying notion that "you" or "I" egos we routinely take ourselves to be can "have" a non-egoic experience. My sense is that it's only afterwards that "I" tend to claim an experience (sort of forced into that by the nature of language), and then the whole question of ("my") imagination arises.

I actually think that imagination can *block* these, as it entails conjuring up something according to notions 'I' already in my mind. Imagination comes in automatically as a way of interpreting those glimpses, perhaps hitting on metaphors connecting them with everyday things. (For example, I spontaneously thought of my mental memory of a transcendent glimpse as like a small postcard of the Grand Canyon--hardly capturing anything of the reality.)

And what if 'it' (or the registration of it) is 'only your brain'? That's a part or function of the brain that we may have never tapped before, and so it definitely "transcends" the brain's habitual homeostasis.

It seems like the duality of language makes even the prospect of testing transcendence impossible scientifically. You lose something essential even to talk about it or treat it as data. So you are left with "pointing at the moon." I agree there are other functions of the brain to tap. I have an occasional interest in some psi phenomena and suspect there is more to some of them than after-the-fact explanations or memory tricks. Perhaps they say something about Consciousness.

Harm - 3.8

fairness - 3.3

Loyalty - 1.7

Authority - 1.8

Purity - 1.7

Harm - 3.5

fairness - 4.3

Loyalty - 3.3

Authority - 3.0

Purity - 1.5

This is a year or so old.

I was not surprised by my scores for Harm and Authority, but I was quite surprised by my low score for Loyalty; and I would have liked to have scored a little better on Fairness.

Your score for fairness is quite high. Do you work in marriage counseling or conflict resolution? Looks like you're a natural.

I do a bit of marriage counseling. The past several years have been primarily focused on mental health--combat veterans suffering from PTSD and depression. Before that I did a lot of family counseling. Lot of teens and parents.

I was surprised by my high loyalty and authority scores. I've come to appreciate structure more than I had in the past, seeing so many men emotionally and psychologically injured. Structure and a sense of belonging are essential for them to get better. I'm not sure that is what Haidt had in mind on the questionnaire but it unconsciously had a lot to do with my interpreting the questions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2011 12:42AM by robertb.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I was surprised by my high loyalty and authority
> scores. I've come to appreciate structure more
> than I had in the past, seeing so many men
> emotionally and psychologically injured. Structure
> and a sense of belonging are essential for them to
> get better.

I'm guessing that understanding how Authority and Loyalty got your patients injured in the first place hasn't much to bear upon healing them now that they are injured. The question of being "injured in vain," I'm guessing, is quite vexed.

But now that the injuries have occurred, I can see how a sense of belonging, of not being cast-off now that they've been crippled, emotionally and/or physically, is so vitally important. We long to give our wounds meaning other than the raw pain that they are. Structure guides us through this meaning-giving.

As ex-mos many of us are wounded to varying degrees. I especially love the diversity of the ways in which we give our wounds meaning, on exhibit here at RfM.

Cheers

Human

Betrayal of loyalty and exploitation by authority in life-threatening circumstances is part (often a big part) how many of the men I see were injured. Rebuilding a realistic and resilient sense of trust and belonging is essential but difficult, particularly because the betrayal was so deep and occurred so early in their lives.

Betrayal and exploitation are fundamental issues for many ex-Mormons as well, although usually of lesser intensity but over a longer period. Ex-Mormons often experience a lot of self-blame in addition--"I should have known." I see that statement as a retroactive attempt to get control, but it makes things harder. Better to just accept the experience: "I was betrayed and exploited but wasn't able to recognize it clearly. But I recognize it now and can prevent it."

I think the term "loss of the assumptive world" describes the experience of many ex-Mormons, especially BIC ex-Mormons (I'm guessing).

3.2 Harm
4.0 Fairness
2.0 Loyalty
2.0 Authority
0.3 Purity

Taken from http://www.yourmorals.org/

4.2 Harm
4.3 Fairness
3.0 ALoyalty
2.5 Authority
2.3 Purity

Harm 4.5
Fairness 4.0
Loyalty 2.8
Authority 3.5
Purity 2.7

I think my relatively high Authority score reflects my own insecurity and a fear that somebody better be in charge or everything will fall apart.

Actually, when I went to this site, I discovered that I had already registered. Did you posts this 2 years ago, Robertb?

The important insight I gained was that Conservatives are not necessarily the heartless bastards I had assumed them to be.

I don't know if it factors in or not but I see how it could. I suppose to find questions could be added to measure anxiety and see if there are correlations.

Twinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The important insight I gained was that
> Conservatives are not necessarily the heartless
> bastards I had assumed them to be.


As a non-American, it's becoming difficult believing that the American Right even has a sinew of humane instinct left among themselves let alone a heart. What, with blaming the jobless for being jobless, applauding the death of un-insured patients, booing soldiers serving overseas (for nothing more than being born gay), cheering record numbers of executions……well, when former administration officials are feted for *bragging* about torture rather than arrested and instantly sent to The Hague, all manner of open dehumanization is likely to occur.

(And don't get me started on the so-called American Left. At least the Right is honest about their convictions and lack thereof.)

I think what we are seeing is a defensive reaction in our political system, which has been on a hair-trigger since 9/11. Our entire nation has been traumatized and much of what we have done--and have not done--has entrenched it. Unfortunately, it has brought out some of the worst in us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2011 12:38PM by robertb.

I think you are stereotyping both the right and the left. My guess is that you have quite a bit of preconceived notions about both of those concepts, and American politics in general. Some of them are probably right and some of them are probably wrong.

Remember, unless you have really studied the issue and understand American history and culture, you probably are only looking at the talking heads and the most outspoken elements of the two groups.

Very few of the examples you gave actually serve as a good indicator of what right wing thinking is in this country. Those things that you mentioned are things that only the extremists do. To characterize everybody based on just that is lazy thinking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2011 01:12PM by snb.

That provides a place for discussion of common values, even if we disagree on methods. So now when I have a discussion with some who, say, emphasizes group protection, I recognize that value and express my own valuing of it. Then the discussion becomes one of how that might best happen rather than my unknowingly violating the other person's values.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2011 06:03PM by robertb.

I've lived in cultures where some of that stuff is very important, especially group protection, and it annoys me to no end. Props to you my friend.

If I can't be heard, I don't have a chance of influencing them. :-)

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
To
> characterize everybody based on just that is lazy
> thinking.


To characterize an obviously off-handed post as "thinking" is something worse than lazy, but we can leave that as it is.


I can debate American culture and politics 'til the cows come home my friend, but these days, tell me, what's the point?

(I don't see the GOP debates, and the audience, as anything more than agitprop; therefore the audience reactions are anything but representative of 'the people'. But make no mistake, they *are* representative of 'the few' who rule your country.)

Ok, fair enough. Are you saying that I should take you less seriously in the future?

If so, I get it. I rarely get into serious arguments online anymore. 90% of what I post is meant as a joke.

Still, I'm unconvinced that you have a good grasp of American politics. :)

Take my posts as you find them, snb. And thank you for the heads-up about your own posts. I didn't previously see that 90% of the time you are trying to be funny.


What's not so funny is this from Chris Hedges:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnx-MiRtngA

By all means watch to the end. I'm not joking. And neither is he.

And since you set yourself up as someone who has "really studied the issue and understand American history and culture," then you can tell me why a narrative about Burke, Kirk, Goldwater, Buckley and, oh, Rawls's theories of justice, say, --a narrative of Right v. Left-- is so pressingly important, in the context that Chris Hedges lays out.

You say your Purity score is 0.0; yet you seem to insist upon purity in ideas. Something to consider.

For my money (literally), arguing about Left v. Right today is about as myopic as arguing about Keynes v. Hayek while your house is being foreclosed upon.

"Take my posts as you find them, snb."

Not so sure I want to "take your posts" anymore. You seem to make wide generalizations and then justify them by saying "haha, I'm joking." If you had interesting insights into American politics, perhaps I would try and engage with you, but all you have to offer is that "American conservatives hate sick people, how terrible."

I'll pass.

"And since you set yourself up as someone who has "really studied the issue and understand American history and culture,"

Nope, I didn't do that. I'm nothing but an average political junkie. By no means have I studied the issue to any serious extent beyond what any political American person might enjoy.

However, if a foreigner were to comment on American politics, I would definitely expect that of them. Otherwise, as your views have shown, all we would have would be watered down, extreme version of what they think they are talking about.

Thanks for the link! :)

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but all
> you have to offer is that "American conservatives
> hate sick people, how terrible."
>
> I'll pass.

Feel free to pass on every strawman you can muster. It's good for you.

Enjoy the link. Chris Hedges is indispensable.

Cheers.

(By the way, if "O" hasn't cured you of your addiction to politics then nothing will. It's a monkey on your back that's blinding you to things as they are. Quit jonesing and wake up.)

I could hardly digest the material.

Earlier in my life I was a very fast talker, due to trying to cram a lot of material into a small amount of time.

His synthesis is fascinating and I plan to read his book. Thanks for posting that, Robert.


Anagrammy

He is equating liberalism with cooperation, which I find odd. Also, he isn't doing this outright, but he is equating all conservatism with listening to Michael Savage.

Neither of those things are exclusive to liberalism or conservatism. That is a common, but untrue, assertion that is made.

Other than that, I loved it. It was very interesting. :)

I took his comments about Michael Savage as an example of the defensive reaction liberals can trigger in conservatives rather than an attribute of conservatism. The attribute of conservatism he refers to is protection of the group.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2011 01:05PM by robertb.

I'll have to rewatch with that in mind. Still, you started a very cool discussion. :)

Apparently I'm heartless and the only thing I care about is fairness, which I what I knew all along. I have very little morality.

I find it interesting that I have any loyalty score whatsoever either.


Harm - 1.7

Fairness - 3.7

Loyalty - 2.2

Authority - 1.2

Purity - 0.0

- you "get it" and make sense of it!

And you can clarify and elaborate on it, and keep the rest of us from making erroneous assumptions.

In seeking to understand the dynamics of "mormonism", this has been important stuff for me!

Thank you!

No wonder the MTC was a horrible nightmare from whence I could not arouse my faculties to their full capacities.