Original Post
Written by
Edited May 5, 2023
at 11:44 AM
by
Lowest price
$13.00 lower (
%87 savings) than the regular price of
$14.99
Deal history:
Available Retailers:
Author | Jonathan Haidt |
Publisher | Vintage |
Publication date | March 13, 2012 |
Print length | 530 pages |
Customer Reviews | ★★★★★ / 10,115 ratings |
NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • The acclaimed social psychologist challenges conventional thinking about morality, politics, and religion in a way that speaks to conservatives and liberals alike—a "landmark contribution to humanity's understanding of itself" (The New York Times Book Review).
Drawing on his twenty-five years of groundbreaking research on moral psychology, Jonathan Haidt shows how moral judgments arise not from reason but from gut feelings. He shows why liberals, conservatives, and libertarians have such different intuitions about right and wrong, and he shows why each side is actually right about many of its central concerns.
In this subtle yet accessible book, Haidt gives you the key to understanding the miracle of human cooperation, as well as the curse of our eternal divisions and conflicts. If you're ready to trade in anger for understanding, read
The Righteous Mind.
Eligible for
10 Reader Rewards points (ISBN:
9780307907035):
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.co...307907035/
More eBooks Deals
https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-...B0052FF7YM
34 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured Comments
Some people criticize this book because of their own tribalism biases still wanting to 100% demonize "the other guys" instead of each trying to understand each other, but if you have any capacity at all to sincerely want to understand why people have different morals/ethics from your own rigidity, then you'll love this book because it goes into very great detail about the roots of it all.
It explores the foundational psychology behind how our minds can range from being invested in and/or indifferent to a wide swath of sometimes-complementary and sometimes-conflicting underlying virtues and philosophical beliefs.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank Carverofchoice
Some people criticize this book because of their own tribalism biases still wanting to 100% demonize "the other guys" instead of each trying to understand each other, but if you have any capacity at all to sincerely want to understand why people have different morals/ethics from your own rigidity, then you'll love this book because it goes into very great detail about the roots of it all.
It explores the foundational psychology behind how our minds can range from being invested in and/or indifferent to a wide swath of sometimes-complementary and sometimes-conflicting underlying virtues and philosophical beliefs.
No, you're wrong because you're right.
Frontpage Deal at $3 with +43 Deal Score and 18 comments.
Not included in these numbers the multitude of deleted comments deemed inappropriate by mods...😜
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Being interested in social psych and also having young kids, I appreciate that Haidt admitted that he went too far in banning his kids from playing Fortnite... he mentioned that he thought that it would fit in with the usual malaise of video game addictions... Turned out that it was a lifesaver for his kids during COVID... It means that he is evolving his work.
Or course, if you are a high scorer on in-group loyalty, purity, and adherence to authority, you may think otherwise, lol.
The term for a right-handed person is "righteous" (it even has "right" in it's name). The term for a left-handed person is "sinister".
But, in religion, the "right hand" does good and the "left hand" does evil.
Religion commandeered the term "righteous" to mean "good" and the term "sinister" to mean evil.
Its funny how a book speaking about ambiguous morality is using the term "righteous". How "sinister" of them.
Sadly, this is a total catch 22. If one were to use the language of the "losers" of colonialism/imperialism, no one would understand us.
a non sequitur... Reminds me of the Esperanto club I'd see in college at beginning of the semesters; the table was empty for seven of eight. Looking it up, I found out that it is the most widely spoken auxiliary language... Of 100k people
Kiel Ironia 😛