Author Archives: advocate

The Righteous Mind

Posted on by

Reviewed by Kathy London

This book by Jonathan Haidt is sub-titled “Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion”. This strikes me as one of the most important social topics today. I found the book to be enjoyable and accessible. Haidt’s style is conversational, with little jargon. I got a real sense of human beings, not just data. If you find your blood pressure rising at some points, you’ll be happy to know the book lays out the evidence in detail and is thoroughly footnoted so you can do your own evaluation.

I’ve often listened to pundits on cable-TV ask “why?” Why is the political opposition so hypocritical, so biased, so wrong? Haidt argues that disagreements do not reflect good and evil – the “other side” is composed of good people with something important to say. He hopes to give Americans a new way to think about politics and religion, to drain the anger and make conversations more civil, and more fun. I think this is important, so this article is both a book report and a review.

I suggest you read the introduction, at least the “What Lies Ahead” portion. While Haidt draws heavily on science, his message can be found in ancient texts: Whether an 8th Century Zen Master Sen-ts’an: “If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against”; or a more familiar quote: “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” Matthew 7:3-5.

Haidt draws on everything from philosophers to bumper stickers to illustrate his points, but the book’s core is data-driven. He says that hypotheses are cheap; theories are useful when tested, supported, and corrected. (You can participate in the research at the YourMorals web site.) My own style tends to be analytical, so I appreciate this approach. I enjoyed reading the many psychology experiments, though if you don’t need to be convinced of a particular point you could skim them. Each chapter ends with an “In Sum” section. You might want to read the chapter summary first, and then decide where you want to read carefully. You may even want to read the “Conclusion” chapter first, so you’ll know where to watch for surprises.

A lot of animal analogies are used in the book. One favorite says we are each a passenger riding on an elephant: the elephant is our intuitive reactions and the rider offers post hoc rationalizations. The title of the second chapter says it more simply: “The Intuitive Dog and Its Rational Tail”. This tail does not wag the dog.

On religion, Haidt shows how our obsession with righteousness is the normal human condition. It has produced large cooperative groups that kinship would not justify. Religion is not just “believing” but also “doing” and “belonging”. He thinks the “New Atheists” miss the point that religion has helped people create communities with shared morals that reduce violence and cruelty.

Haidt describes “moral capital” as an “interlocking set of values, virtues, norms…and institutions” that mesh with human psychology and “enable a community to regulate selfishness and make cooperation possible”. Everyone understands economic capital – the things we need (money, tools, and workers) to produce goods and services. Moral capital is also needed for successful individuals, companies, and communities. Conservatives understand this better than liberals and detect threats to moral capital that liberals do not see.

The core of the book is the Six Moral Foundations. Think of them as analogous to taste receptors in your tongue. Everyone has the same taste receptors, but we don’t all like the same foods. Similarly, everyone has six “moral receptors”. But we don’t all rely on them to the same extent or in the same way. Here, I think, is Haidt’s explanation for why people are “hypocritical”. What triggers the foundations, and to what intensity, is complex and intuitive.

Care: People despise suffering and cruelty. We want to help the under-dog and the victim. This foundation is so strong, we even apply it non-human things, such as baby animals.

Fairness: People have a deep, intuitive sense of karma; rewards and punishments should be proportional to actions. We will punish a cheater, even if it means harming ourselves. (I found the studies demonstrating this to be especially interesting.)

Loyalty: People trust and reward those on their team, whether the team is a small group or a nation. Traitors are viewed as worse than enemies.

Authority: People respect hierarchy. Authority must take on responsibility for order and justice in society. We should fulfill the obligations of our place within the group. This sort of awareness is even encoded in some languages that have different verb-forms for polite and familiar speech.

Sanctity: People know that some things are noble and pure, others are degrading and base. Sacred values, including symbols and ideas, bind groups together. This can be expressed through traditional religion, but also through other concerns, such as for the environment.

Liberty: People hate bullies. Powerful elites must know their limits and authorities must earn trust. We are vigilant against signs of tyranny and will band together against illegitimate restraints.

People who identify as conservative, liberal, or libertarian share these foundations, but rely on them to different extents. This is where the book begins to feel important and not simply interesting.

Libertarians are most sensitive to Liberty, to the extent that they call on the other foundations very little. But markets really are miraculous. They bring supply, demand, and ingenuity together, and the rest of us should listen.

Haidt says he is a liberal, so he spends time analyzing where liberals go wrong. Liberals are most sensitive to Care, Liberty, and Fairness, but willing to trade fairness to protect victims. In their zeal to help victims, liberals often push for changes that weaken groups and actually hurt the people they are trying to help. Yet, liberals have some good points. They are experts in Care, and see the harm done to individuals before conservatives do. Some big problems really can be solved by government regulation.

Conservatives use all six foundations, which Haidt says gives them a political advantage, makes them more numerous and more likely to understand others. They rely more on Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity than liberals. While they are willing to trade care of individuals for other foundation values, they protect communities we all need to thrive.

Liberals and conservatives are more akin to yin and yang than good and evil. We need both perspectives, not just to be fair, but to create a successful country. To understand others, Haidt says you must consider all six Moral Foundations and which foundations relate to a controversy.

Haidt discusses where Americans have gone wrong in political life and how to address the issues. (Haidt presents more on this topic, including disagreements with his views on the CivilPoltics web site.)

Social relationships are necessary for people with differing foundations to trust and listen to each other. Haidt shows how, since the 1960s, Americans have been losing their social relationships across liberal/conservative groups. Political parties have become more purely liberal or conservative. Technology and lifestyle changes have been isolating: if you want to find people who voted for Obama, go to Whole Foods. If you want to find people who voted for McCain, go to Cracker Barrel. This kind of alignment of politics with seemingly unrelated views has always puzzled me. Haidt shows why this is so.

Friendly relations, commonality, and trust make it easier for people to listen to each other. Establish bonds with people before you try to convince them your position is right. You might both see the issue in a new light. Conversations might become more respectful and more constructive.

Haidt offers us this advice: “If you really want to open your mind, open your heart first.”

Cheesed Off

Posted on by

Tinyonline explains that the idiom is Royal Air Force slang meaning bored, disgruntled, or disgusted. It came from a description of a metal object that has rusted. That appearance reminds of cheese that has turned brown during cooking and the sourness of cheese that has gone bad.

Blood Stripes

Posted on by

This is the best book I’ve read for some time. The descriptions of experiences of four non-commissioned officers in the Iraq war were informative and deeply emotional for me. I’ve read some of the Amazon reviews. There were a few complaints about writing style, but I don’t agree. The writing engaged me and made me feel connected to the experiences of the warriors described in the book.

The first learning experience for me was the origin of the title, and I was confused until I searched “Blood Stripes” and found a photo on Wikipedia. The “Blood Stripe” is a red stripe (varying in width, depending on rank) that runs down the outer leg of the dress uniform of noncommissioned and commissioned officers of the Marines. The “Blood Stripe” is described as being a tribute to the unusually high casualty rate of Marine noncommissioned officers and officers during the Battle of Chapultepec in Mexico in 1847.

The learning certainly didn’t stop with descriptions of Marine uniforms. The “Author’s Notes” tells me that “…Iraq is an Arabic word, (and) the English equivalent has no proper pronunciation: the closest would be ‘eee-rock’.” The word derives from the Arabic urug, which means “root.” Adding a letter from the Arabic alphabet arrives at the translation “Root of All.”

Much of the book is about the warrior culture of the Marines, and the first chapter is titled, “Go Tell the Spartans.” The quote immediately after that title is “I think the Army is much more connected to society than the Marines are. The Marines are extremists.” Recruiters for other military services promise education benefits, the possibility of world travel, and excellent retirement benefits for those who stay long enough. The Marines were and are promised intense physical training that many will not be strong enough or have enough stamina to withstand. They are promised that if they could make it through training they are likely to have multiple deployments to live in primitive and very uncomfortable places where other people were trying to kill them. The book “Gates of Fire” by Steven Pressfield about the Spartans who all died together at Thermopylae is described as the unofficial Marine Bible. Marines are promised they will be expected to fight and die together like the Spartans. The Marines described in the book dealt with the risk of death by considering that they already knew they were going to die, although the men did worry about masculinity-ending injuries. The only time fear seemed to be prevalent was when the time was approaching for their departure.

Marines acknowledged that they understood they were joining to learn how to kill legally, and craved the “thrill of battle.” Winston Churchill was quoted as saying, “There is nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed.” Mostly they were inspired by the brotherhood of soldiers fighting beside one another. That inspired their “gung-ho” attitude, despite the fact that phrase originated with a Chinese expression that means “all together.” Some readers would undoubtedly be put off by descriptions of satisfaction from seeing the “pink mist” created when a bullet passes through the body of an enemy.

There is an interesting footnote that the Continental Congress ordered Samuel Nicholas to organize two battalions of Marines on November 10, 1775. Nicholas began his recruiting in Philadelphia’s Tun Tavern. “Marines are very proud that the Corps was born in a bar.”

The book describes the language of Marines. Discussions with one another would often be considered coarsely obscene and degrading to an outsider. I recall one fire team leader thinking he should compliment his team after an especially intense day of combat. He told them, “Y’all used o be a bunch of girls, but now you’re women.” Quotes from several movies make it into the conversations of Marines preparing for battle. One was Mel Gibson’s line in Braveheart, “At least we don’t get dressed up for nutin’.”

The first assignment of the Marines in this book was guarding “national strategic assets” at a Naval Submarine Base at Bangor Washington, home of several Trident missile submarines. The Marines “…could neither confirm nor deny that they guarded those assets.” The Marines were mostly bored and disappointed with the assignment. They were asked whether they were willing to go kill “rag heads” in what promised to be a long war. The four corporals featured in the book all raised their hands.

The book focuses on what it takes to become a Lance corporal in the Marines, which is the lowest rank authorized to wear blood stripes on the slacks of the dress uniform. “Lance corporals excel through alpha male characteristics of strength, cleverness, skill, and force of personality.” There is no doubt there are few who could meet all the requirements.

The enemies in Iraq were called “Muj,” short for Muhajideen. Friendly Iraqis were called “hajji.” The Marines were there to win the hearts “…of the hajjis while killing every Muj they could find. Separating Muj from hajji was the hard part.” There is one description of a raid on an Iraqi police station that found large amounts of the weapons and outfits worn by the Muj. There was a prolonged battle between the Marines and Muj in the area with hundreds killed. It was observed there were many fewer policemen after the battle. There was one ambush that involved insurgents firing at the Marines from two buildings opposite each other. The Marines under this intense ambush described it as a “Polish ambush,” since anyone with common sense would not position soldiers shooting across a street at one another.

The Marines had an interesting manner of dealing with Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs that were planted by insurgents. If they suspected something was an IED they would kick it hard, hoping that the force of the kick would disable the device. They noted a Harrier war plane making a bombing approach a hundred feet in the air set off numerous IEDs. The Marines then often requested low flybys by Harriers before patrolling down a street.

The daily routines of the Marine were as interesting as the descriptions of the many intense battles. The Marines rated the quality of their quarters based on the quality of privies, which ranged from “luxurious” air conditioned units to basic stinking latrines. They loved the Lamisil cream used to treat the abrasions created from wearing heavy equipment for days in the oppressive daytime heat and the frigid nights that caused them to need to spoon together to retain precious body heat. Alcohol wasn’t accessible to grunt units, so they depended on Motrin, caffeine, and nicotine. They mostly depended on one another.

I recommend this book to all adult readers; I believe it would be particularly interesting to people who never served in the military.

Take with a Grain of Salt

Posted on by

I read a bridge column by Frank Stewart in the Denver Post on June 11, 2012 that “King Mithridates VI of what is now Turkey was always trying to avoid assassination. He took food with a concoction that included a grain of salt, believing it to be a poison antidote. Hence, taking something ‘with a grain of salt’ – with caution. The Phrase Finder adds that the expression means that a statement can be accepted but with “…a degree of skepticism about its truth.” For those who want to replicate the antidote, the grain of salt was added to two dried walnuts, two figs, and twenty leaves of rue that were pounded together.

Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses

Posted on by

This book by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa (and several coauthors of various chapters) was not much fun to read. The book is written in a “scholarly” style complete with numerous acronyms that probably would appeal to sociology majors, but not to me. It also uses interesting words such as “psychometricians. “However, the information in the book is disturbing. It does not paint a bright picture of what college students are getting for their tens of thousands in student loan debt. I will admit I did not do anything more than skim the final more than a hundred pages containing the “Methodological Appendix,” Notes, Bibliography, and Index.

The book begins with a comment from a former Harvard president saying, “Colleges and universities, for all the benefits they bring, accomplish far less for their students than they should.” That statement isn’t too alarming, but the words to follow are. He says that students graduate from college “…without being able to write well enough to satisfy their employers…reason clearly or perform competently in analyzing complex, non-technical problems.” That sounds bad enough, but the information presented in the book indicates the concerns are understated. Many students are portrayed as attending college with no intention of learning. They focus on enjoying the college experience to the maximum. They borrow large sums of money to be there and search for the classes that have no educational demands to maintain enough of a grade point average to remain in school, study very little, have fun, and eventually graduate. A significant portion of the borrowed money is spent on entertainment, socializing, and travel. Graduates enter the work force (if they are fortunate enough to find a job) with a large debt burden and little ability to succeed.

One basis of the problems with college education comes from the students and enablement from the colleges. A large number of the students are described as “drifting dreamers” who have “…high ambitions but no clear life plans…” They have no understanding about their chosen professions, the educational requirements of the professions, or even if there is even a market demand for the profession they chose. The book title derives from the belief of the authors that many students are “…largely academically adrift.” One student is quoted as saying, “I hate classes with a lot of reading that is tested on.” The student admits to doing “leisure pursuits” instead of doing reading assignments. Colleges have enabled students to stay in college and pay the rapidly inflating tuitions by providing classes that have few academic demands. The student acknowledges that he will be able to graduate with a 3.5 GPA “…but it doesn’t really matter if I don’t remember anything…It’s one thing to get the grade in a class and it’s another to actually take something from it, you know.”

It is disturbing to read that the quality of education has dropped markedly while costs have increased at twice the rate of inflation. Professors are increasingly concentrating on research and publication instead of teaching and the classes are often taught by graduate assistants. The students are encouraged to rate classes highly that have replaced rigorous education with entertaining activities. The average time spent by faculty in preparing and delivering instruction and meeting with students is eleven hours per week. Professors who go against this approach and spend more of their time teaching are not “significantly rewarded.” The net result is that a Secretary of Education Commission wrote that “…the quality of student learning at U.S. colleges and universities is inadequate, and in some cases, declining.”

The heart of the book comes from the testing of 2,322 students enrolled across a range of campuses. They were tested before college, after two years, and after graduation for critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving and writing by something called the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). The CLA is described as to test the ability to give the students descriptions of real life problems and test their ability to both solve the problems and clearly communicate their reasoning and approaches. The test is lauded by some experts and dismissed as flawed by others. I will editorialize that educators are almost certain to dismiss the results of the tests as flawed, because the results present a dismal picture of the quality of college education. One professor was quoted as saying the public is satisfied with what higher education is doing. “This is a market system, and the customers are buying.” The “customers” should read this book and decide whether they are getting the value they deserve in return for the tens of thousands of dollars and four years of investment.

The book identifies that the problems begin with inadequate education in high schools. Forty-six percent of students in Chicago agreed with the statement, “Even if I do not work hard in high school, I can still make my future plans come true.” Many students with an average grade of C or less in high school are being admitted into four-year colleges. Perhaps that is why such large numbers of students coming to college are required to take several remedial classes. The CLA finds that many college students continue to underperform. The book asks the question, “How much are students actually learning in contemporary education? The answer for many undergraduates, we have concluded, is not much.” The CLA finds “…no statistically significant gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skill for at least 45 percent of the students in our study.” About the same number of students reported that they had not taken classes that required extensive reading or writing. Forty-eight percent of them were enrolled in humanities and social sciences, which are the fields of study that have been found to offer students higher grades for little effort.

There is a disturbing assessment that our current higher education system is a “…complicated sieve.” Its purpose is to sift “…the able from the dull.” However, the system is willing to accept tuition from all.

There is a posting on the blog link of this web site that gives some opinions about what students might want to consider in their search for higher education options.

Bust a Gut

Posted on by

I expected some sort of complicated description of the origin and meaning of this expression, but the Freedictionary.com had the most interesting discussion. The definition is straight forward, and it means “…to work very hard to achieve something.” It also can mean to “…laugh very energetically.” The etymology is described as being “…based on the idea that hard physical work or laughter could damage your gut (stomach).”