4 out of 5 stars ****
Jonathan Haidt explains what motivates people to feel one way or another about an issue utilizes intuition before tactical reasoning. Intuition may result from personal experiences but reason belongs to group(ish) associations to support a viewpoint their intuition directs. They defend their opinions as righteous despite any proof of veracity. Similar minds use reason to support their stance behind drawn lines. The more significant the issue the more passionate the defense. This can lead to less debate and wider divisions.
The slippery slope that leads to division between large parties, Democrat vs Republicans or Liberals vs Conservatives, develops as each group assigns certain qualities to their group as defining characteristics for the party. One party touts a list of preferable, human pursuits that provide society opportunities to thrive in a secure prosperity while demonizing others who do not belong to their group's collective way of thinking. The tools and actions, the means, to achieve desired outcomes, the ends, justify their positions and define their campaigns.
People also wear their party affiliation as a badge that deputizes them in the name of everything that is good. The problem with this is the "untruth" that it creates, "us against them" mentality, a natural division. Groups of humans can accept an entire agenda that is not 100 percent representative of their true beliefs just to fit in a powerful, structured party. The sense of belongingness is strong in humans, especially when membership infuses one with a sense of power they lack as a sole individual. Truth, again, may suffer cover-up consequences when it does not align with a particular agenda.
To his credit, the author admits that he is a Liberal. His political leanings are evident before his admission when he refers to one side being this and the other that. Those descriptions are from old and new talking points that fail to recognize that all sides possess the human qualities they attribute to one party or another. They are generalizations which are faulty. Also, the descriptions are outdated. What is known as "Liberal" has come to define the Left side of politics when it should simply apply to individuals without denoting one group or the other. Labelling differences seems to create a deeper chasm with less thought to what truly defines the label, itself.
This book is a scholarly research and investigation into what makes good people divided on the passionate subjects of politics and religion. It sheds much needed light onto the psychology and motivation for one's choices. The author, a proclaimed Atheist, admits that religious groups produce the kindest, most peace loving, and tolerant people in the world. He bases this on their codes of morality which appeal to the higher standards one strives to achieve. Religion is also responsible for so much death and turmoil due to the unhealthy divide that can emerge between one religion and another, especially when one feels more powerful or dominant than the other. Then, the bully tactics start. To diffuse such terrible outcomes, truth should be the "rider" that guides the "elephant" through life.
