Having mentioned The Righteous Mind in the first post on this blog back at Christmas 2014, and having followed Professor Jonathan Haidt on Twitter ever since, I have to confess that I never actually got round to getting a copy of the book. This situation was rectified at Christmas just gone (2016), when I was given it as a present, and so I have finally started reading it. This is what I have learned so far (and I have only made it a short way into chapter 4), mixed in with one or two thoughts of my own.Firstly, humans are not so much rational beings as rationalising ones - we are driven by emotion and intuition, with our reasoning faculties being used to justify our feelings, and only rarely being involved in decision making itself. In general, we are motivated not so much to seek the truth but to confirm that what we have already decided is right, even when it isn't.
This means that once we have made up our minds about something, we are not going to be swayed by facts nor by reasoned argument. So I have been completely wasting my time trying to change the views of my leftist friends on Facebook with respect to the merits or otherwise of socialism, for example (or at least as far as they are concerned - others with less strong opinions who were perhaps flirting with socialism might have been influenced). The only people who are affected by reasoned argument are those who are naturally open minded, those who have yet to make their minds up either way, or those who are particularly motivated to seek the truth (such as myself! I hope...).
Secondly, we strongly desire the affirmation of our peers. We value reputation much more highly than truth (which incidentally explains why those who progress to the top in their chosen career are not necessarily the ones who are the most competent at their jobs, but the ones who are best at convincing their superiors of their value).
We can therefore be persuaded to change our minds to keep in with people that matter to us. Shame can be a powerful motivating force, but only from members of our in-group - trying to shame someone from outside of our own tribe is much less effective, and indeed can be counter-productive.
I came across this in my twitter feed recently:
If you want to correct error, critique your in-group - they should be receptive to what you say. On the other hand, if you want to gain status, critique your out-group - your out-group will ignore you (or worse), but your in-group will love it.
This explains the phenomenon of virtual-signalling, so prevalent on social media, and also explains group-think amongst experts. Also, this implies that protest marches are a less than effective way of making your case, and much more likely to harden attitudes than to win converts.
Thirdly (and I was gobsmacked by this), because we make decisions with our gut-feelings and are heavily influenced by our peers, intelligent sophisticated and well-educated people are no more likely to be right about complex political issues than dim and ignorant people. Indeed, because they are more intelligent, they are much better at finding reasons for justifying what they already believe and so better at deluding themselves into thinking that they are right, even when they have it completely wrong. Even the best-informed of us can reach the wrong conclusions when they don't question their underlying assumptions.
All of which means, assuming that I have understood it correctly, that not only is the point that Michael Gove made about experts ("the people of this country have had enough of experts from organizations with acronyms, saying that they know what is best, and getting it consistently wrong") perfectly reasonable, but also that what he was mistakenly thought to have meant, and for which he has been widely and unfairly derided, that experts in general can't be trusted, is not even in itself particularly unreasonable! That doesn't mean that experts are necessarily wrong, but the ones to trust are those who adopt a scientific approach, being sceptical and self-critical, and we should be wary of those who display no self-doubt.
Anyway, on the plus side, I am feeling much more well disposed towards people with whom I disagree politically (ok, perhaps not towards Social Justice Warriors). After all, in some ways they can't necessarily help not being able to see when they are wrong!
Everyone should read this book.
