HN Books @HNBooksMonth

CT/CRT promotes an external locus of control as the source of societal problems. In other words, its not the fault of the individual/human hardware its the fault of the patterns that society has entrenched aka systemic racism or the software of a culture.

Its a top down theory/solution to what critics would argue is a bottom up problem. Individuals must be responsible for what they say, how they regulate their emotional state, and how their experiences and cognitive distortions skew their thinking. CT/CRT, by my understanding, argues against this. Thus it seems reasonable to say it leads to a lack of accountability if you define accountability as a responsibility for ones actions and beliefs.

I’ve read a small bit on CT/CRT, intersectionality, and the modern culture of safetyism. Primarily from Haidt who has more peer reviewed sources on things than anyone could ever want.

https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Gen...

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...

I find CT/CRT to be compelling to a degree, but it brings along with it too much baggage in my opinion. You’re likely not going to find or be given a specific source of data that says CRT leads to lack of accountability (however you would measure that), its an assumption made by the previous poster. You don’t need one either to have a discussion, so don’t fall back on the lack of academic evidence as an argument in itself.

I don't have the actual study at hand, but it's cited in the book "The Righteous Mind".[1] They looked at independent communes[2] in the US in the 1800's, and 20 years after the founding of a commune, 6% of the secular ones were still around, as opposed to 39% of the religious ones. The latter had more things binding them. One insight: In religious communes, sacrifices (no alcohol, etc) correlated with longevity. In secular communities, there was no correlation. Over there, every sacrifice had to be argued about and justified. There was less thrash in religious communes.

(Just found the author of the study/studies: Sosis[3]

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...

[2]: A commune being defined as a group of people not sharing kinship deciding to live and work together.

[3]: https://anthropology.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/944/...

From the links, it seems like his main criticism of Dawkins is actually merely the word "selfish" in the title of his book, and that the CEO of Enron liked it?

Yes, Dawkins is saying that "universal love" does not have an evolutionary component, which seems like a fairly uncontroversial claim.

It seems like your criticism of Dawkins is more a criticism of how other people have misunderstood him, rather than any criticism of the arguments in The Selfish Gene itself?

If you haven't, I highly suggest you read Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". While it's at a popular level, it does a fairly good job at presenting a plausible framework for how moral behavior (like altruism) can emerge from evolutionary principles. [1] Haidt is probably one of the most influential moral psychologists today.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...

⬐ schaefer

Thank you, I'm familiar with the book you are recommending - the righteous mind. It is discussed in Altruism and cited in its bibliography. [1]

I get the impression you've decided to take a stance on the book Altruism without reading it. The summary you provide for Rightous mind could work just as well as a summary for Altruism too. At this point, we aren't even disagreeing, we're just citing different sources, and I'm content to just drop it.

https://books.google.com/books?id=1k_2AwAAQBAJ&printsec=fron...

I found the book 'The Righteous Mind' very eye-opening and it talks about exactly these things, I recommend it to all my friends.

Particularly relevant to my own experience was the commentary on how politicians have become less cooperative with their rivals in other parties, and how political views/party associations have become more extreme/less tolerant overall.

Highly recommend.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307455777

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this one yet: "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion", by Jonathan Haidt [0]. This book fundamentally changed how I think about religion and politics. It helped me understand a lot of behaviors which I'd previous considered absolutely incomprehensible.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...

⬐ iamjk

Completely agree on this one. Almost every conversation I have over religion or politics brings to mind the lessons I learned from The Righteous Mind.

⬐ james_s_tayler

I'm part way through this now. But definitely recommended reading for sure.

⬐ Regardsyjc

Have you read any of his other books? I loved his TED talks and few lectures that are up on YouTube.

⬐ krrrh

The Coddling of the American Mind which he co-wrote with Greg Lukianoff is an important book about problems faced by the current college-age generation and the effects that social media, helicopter parenting, and certain ideologies have had on them. The Atlantic article it started as is also good, but the book expands and improves on the argument.

It’s less of a classic as the Righteous Mind because it’s more focused on a topical issue. I think it pairs well with Laura Kipnis’s Unwanted Advances.

⬐ aakash58

This book is amazing! It has influenced the way I think about people, culture, beliefs, and politics.

⬐ acabal

I just finished reading this and it is definitely incredible. It put in to words the many jumbled and foggy thoughts I've been having on the subject for a long time. I feel as if I can perceive people's motivations so much more clearly now, and so many people's apparently contradictory behaviors are suddenly explained and obvious. Fantastic and very important book.

Often mentioned on HN, Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...) is a worthy read. Briefly: Almost everyone comes up with the conclusion first, and rationale later. The former drives the latter. He gives examples from studies where people gave responses similar to what this paper has: Very poor reasons, and occasionally nonsensical ones.

This is true for pretty much everyone - don't go and count yourself as the exception. The more intelligent you are, the more refined your reasoning, but there's evidence to show that intelligence will not lower the bias. Counterarguments from others as intelligent or more intelligent will. One of the curses of being more intelligent is that if you hold a biased view, you usually need someone as smart as you to change your mind. The smarter you get, the fewer people there are who can help remove your bias.

Some people are more objective than others, but often only in a limited domain - not in their whole lives.

>However, 20 per cent of justifications were subjective and involved making a reference to one’s cultural identity, personal experience.

The book also touches on this. In my personal experience, fact based reasoning is rarer than this. There are many reasons people believe something. Attempting to discern the Truth is usually in the minority. It is to be expected that all the other reasons will be more prevalent - they simply have more utility than merely gaining knowledge. It shouldn't surprise people that factual reasoning is rare - it has little utility in most spheres of life. Much less than social cohesion and tribalism does.

Consider the issue of intelligence, and its spread across various groups (usually race and gender). It's very common to find a very well educated person insist that everyone is born equally with the same mental/intelligence potential, and differences exist merely in the extent they foster it. When asked for their rationale/evidence, the answer is usually a variant of "I choose to believe it" (usually for ideological or cultural reasons). I'm not referring only to ordinary folks, but also to university academics, etc.

(I'm not saying that they are factually wrong - merely the reasons they believe it are not based on any facts).

>whether they agreed with the scientific consensus on climate change, vaccines, genetically modified (GMO) foods and evolution

Two of those items (vaccines and GMO foods) touch on a strongly cultural force on purity. The book shows that a lot of people value purity (likely a genetic trait). They associate food consumption not just with physical health, but also mental/spiritual health. So they are quite sensitive to "unnatural" or foreign agents going into their bodies.

>Oddly before opening the article I had assumed it was about how moral "disgust" is positively correlated with left-leaning. But then the study was referring to digestive disgust which appears positively correlated with right-leaning.

Actually, even moral disgust is positively correlated with right leaning folks. The Righteous Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...) is a great read that covers the research on the topic.

⬐ louprado

Yes, I should not have implied otherwise since how one leans is really a reflection of how one defines their morals, not a deficiency of morals.

To develop mental models you need to start at the ground floor, with understanding basic human nature.

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...

https://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0...

– Economics / sociology –

A Farewell to Alms https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691141282/

Cartesian Economics https://www.amazon.com/dp/1616407395/

The 10,000 Year Explosion https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465020429/

The Righteous Mind https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307455777/

Mindstorms https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465046746/

– Philosophy –

Tao Te Ching https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060812451/

Meditations https://www.amazon.com/dp/1545565678/

– Autobiography –

Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393316041/

Recollections of Eugene Wigner https://www.amazon.com/dp/0738208868/

– Fiction –

Fahrenheit 451 https://www.amazon.com/dp/030747531X/

Dune https://www.amazon.com/dp/0441172717/

⬐ _pmf_

> Dune

Do you mind explaining what's great about Dune (I have not read it yet, so maybe without major spoilers ...)?

⬐ beefman

It's a Messiah story set in the far future. I included it here because it had an impact on the way I understand history (I prefer to leave that a bit cryptic).

As a work of fiction I'd call it good but not great. But at the moment I can't think of a work of fiction I'd call great, so I'm probably not the best critic on that point.

Everybody seemed to hate the 1984 film adaptation by David Lynch but I think it's pretty good. The Syfy miniseries got much better reviews but I thought it was only so-so. The film doesn't really spoil the book, which is kinda cool, but may be easier to follow and more fun to watch after having read it. Last but not least, I really enjoyed the recent documentary Jodorowsky's Dune...

>The purpose of moralizing is to shame those that ignore our struggle as living organisms.

So how is that working out?

Think of all the campaigns that have effected change. How often did shaming work? Sure, you have a few cases like the fight against Apartheid, but in general? Not effective.

Here's the thing. I'm as pro-science as they come. However, I've been blessed to come from communities that fall prey to anti-vaccine and other "nonsense". And one thing I know is that fact based ridicule and moralizing has a low success rate.

As someone who somewhat understands both communities, I am already not on your side. If a pro-vacciner like me is turned off by such rhetoric, imagine it from an anti-vacciner's side.

Think I'm an outlier? I'll hazard a guess that most pro-vacciners are close to someone who is not (family connections, etc).

There is comfort in being "right". But being "right" does not in itself translate to right outcomes.

The Righteous Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...) is a very worthy read. A few things it points out:

1. On a polarized issue, facts will increase the polarization (and I'm guessing justifying shame with facts will exacerbate the issue)

2. To persuade someone, you will have a lot more success appealing to emotions than to the rational mind. This does not mean playing games where you manipulate people.

⬐ invisible

I'm not trying to defend my side or persuade anyone. I have no clue where you got that idea.

I agree that shaming people isn't a good way to argue but they're still selfish by definition and morally in the wrong.

Your original conjecture wasn't even about what you are talking about now. You kept complaining about the terms used by someone else. Your previous assertions were all based on bad definitions and anecdotes.

⬐ akvadrako

Shaming doesn't seem to have a high success rate. It may have worked within a small community, but now you can pick and choose who you surround yourself with and mostly avoid daily attacks on your choices.

However, I do think it's important to try to get into the minds of how others think, to be able to come up with a strategy.

Before reading this thread, I always thought anti-vaxxers were just bad at science. But now another possibility has been shown - they understand the odds well enough, but simply prefer a very small advantage for their children over a large advantage for society.

It doesn't mean pro-vaxxers should tell them that.

>He duped millions of people.

Yes and no. I suspect those people would have voted for Trump anyway.

I just got done reading The Righteous Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...). After reading it, my default view on all these things: The final outcome is set in their mind, and they are merely looking for any reason to justify it.

(I mean, sure, things are elastic. His articles do play a role - just not that much).

⬐ Tempest1981

Didn't the election come down to only ~0.1 million votes out of 125 million? Just saying it doesn't take much.

⬐ BeetleB

>Didn't the election come down to only ~0.1 million votes out of 125 million? Just saying it doesn't take much.

It doesn't take much either way.

In the key states, if only 1 out of 100 Trump voters went for Hilary, she would have won by a larger margin.

Had she won, we would have been talking about how sanity prevailed, etc.

But the reality is the race was close enough that it doesn't make sense to have a narrative about why either person won. It was close enough that you cannot say this person made a significant difference or not.

If that sounds counterintuitive, think of it this way: List all the reasons you think Hilary failed (and not just external factors - include her own party's shortcomings).

Any one of these being improved could have resulted in a win for her. To single out one entity and blame him is silly. She lost because the race was close and she did not do all she could to win. She didn't lose because one person was spreading fake news.

I'll second the "mandatory reading" suggestion. The SCC post has considerably better analysis of these tribal disagreements than most anything else I've read on the subject, particularly the NYT column.

The article is almost cute. Like, "Did you know people are tribal? And did you ever think that might be a bad thing?" It's not a profound new idea, and it's one that's been better discussed elsewhere, from the SCC posts on the subject (see also the recent one on Albion's Seed[1]) to Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind[2] to Joshua Greene's Moral Tribes[3] to the many, many articles[4][5] that have already been written about partisan polarization in the U.S. (and probably globally, if Europe is any indication).

I mean I'm glad that a random NYT column is provoking further discussion about an important subject, but there's so much more and better stuff that has been said about it than just what this touches on.

[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-see...

[2] http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religi...

[3] http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Tribes-Emotion-Reason-Between/dp...

[4] https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/how-divided-are-...

[5] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/why-are-stat...

In this election season, if you are left leaning and would like to understand just what it is that's underlying the politics of the right (or vice versa), I recommend Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind.

http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religi...

Prior to reading this, my politics aligned very closely with those of Sanders and I thought everybody on the right were selfish, evil, close-minded fools. After reading the book, my politics are still left of center (but definitely right of Sanders), but I think I understand and appreciate the politics of my right leaning family and friends.

"Let instinct trump logic" - bad advice. Instinct is simply pattern matching current conditions against memory. Without experience, instinct is a poor criteria and logic should be employed. Read Kahneman for the supporting research into that.

I'd also recommend Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind (http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/d...). He makes a lot of interesting points, including that most people come to a conclusion about an issue, then look for reasoning to support it, and that most of us operate on instinct most of the time—logic is a more costly, difficult mode whose use can be cultivated but which is not at all the default.

"The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion"

If you're like me and love debates, this book is awesome. It'll show you how to find common ground and understand implicit values behind arguments.

Link for the lazy (non-affiliate): http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/d...

⬐ fuckpig

A really quick introduction to his ideas:

http://chronicle.com/article/Jonathan-Haidt-Decodes-the/1304...

⬐ Stronico

That was on my top three for last year.

That's a fruitless way of approaching the problem. It plays into the political divides of "us" vs "them." By trying to establish groups of people as "clueless" about a topic, it just reinforces the feelings of, "they just don't get it" or "they wouldn't think that if they just knew better." All sides of an issue believe exactly that.

This reminds me to read a book that talks about this: "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," by Jonathan Haidt. Maybe someone else has read it and can comment.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/01/146474609/why-we-fight-the-psy..., http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/d...