/lit/ - Literature

I had a dream the other day that i bought a cup of coffee and i had to pay 40 dollars for it.

>>16359034
useful for understanding that not all of the other side are malevolent/stupid (which will make you much less stressed about politics)
The actual 'psychology' part though is mostly garbage, with all the usual criticism of psych research holding true.

Worth reading but take it with a grain of salt.

>>16359113
>with all the usual criticism of psych research holding true
incel detected.

>>16359034
No
I find it pathetic that someone needs to write a whole book about what someone else has summed up in a couple of paragraphs.
Melanie Klein's Paranoid Schizoid position is exactly about that. We keep on going from one extreme to another and we keep on looking for 'us versus them' kind of scenarios.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid-schizoid_and_depressive_positions#:~:text=In%20object%20relations%20theory%2C%20the,of%20development%20through%20certain%20positions.

>>16359113
how's the psych part garbage?

>>16359060
What does coffee mean to you, and how often do you drink it?

>>16359060
what's the jungian interpretation of that?

No. evopsyche nonsense. It won't tell you anything useful about politics.

>>16359146
It isn't evopsych.

>>16359034
kind of. its and easy, pretty enjoyable read
but the guy feels like hes writing for retards. most chapters are like 10 pages explaining super simple concepts and he just in general takes forever to get to the point.
but he has little "in sum" conclusions at the end of every part so you could just read those

>>16359034

Yes. Even though the book is padded with references to non-replicable research, the central psychometric findings are incredibly important for understanding human diversity.

>>16359146
Why do people get so offended when you imply that evolution might have shaped psychology?

>>16359330
>the central psychometric findings
which are

>>16359536
Because it goes against their ideology that says that some 100000ya we magically stopped evolving mentally and all humans are therefore inherently the same (i.e. blank slate)

>>16359762

Conservatives and progressives differ in terms of measurable personality traits, esp. openness and conscientiousness. These traits tend to be robust a across a life time and are significantly heritable.

Haidt's own research is interested in moral foundations, the explanations we default to in order to moralize or shape the behavior of others. He conceptualizes 5 foundations each on a one dimensional axis. He tests moral foundations in populations and finds that left wing individuals bias toward near exclusive use of the care/harm foundation where conservatives and non-WEIRD populations utilize all foundations equally. This bias leads liberals to misunderstand conservatives and conservatives to misunderstand and demonize liberals. The book ends with a call for understanding and sympathy for the other tribe of thinkers who may very well be biologically primed for their moral preferences.

>>16359034
>NYT best seller
No, it's for normies

>>16359119
reddit moment

Has there ever been a good book with a title beginning with "the"?

It's the biggest red flag there is!

>>16360091
The Bible

>>16360093

That's not its real title though.

>>16360091
The Brothers Karamazov

>>16359034
Yes and having someone do a test for moral foundations really aids political discussion since you know in advance what they care for and what they don't. Without tests it just falls into the usual post hoc reasoning nonsense for value judgements.

Important for anyone who cares about understanding and discussion rather than autistic screeching.

>>16359060
Is coffee good for you?
Or are YOU good for the coffee?

>>16359129
i drink it a lot, more than i should actually

>>16359034
I'll add a yes. I like the idea of rooting our understanding of ethics in psychology, rather than philosophy. It makes sense to lay out an ethical framework that doesn't necessarily deem individual viewpoints as ethical/unethical, even though those individual viewpoints might consider each other as such. It goes a long way to explaining why even ethical philosophers can't agree on whats "right" or "good".

Social psychology experiments have their problems though, so just don't consider it conclusive evidence of anything.

>>16360170
Okay, and why do you drink it?

>>16359113
>The actual 'psychology' part though is mostly garbage, with all the usual criticism of psych research holding true.
This misconception comes largely from annoying fuckwits like Haidt and Malcolm Gladwell writing their dumbass books that draw retarded bestseller-bait conclusions from misunderstood research.

>>16359996
>Conservatives and progressives differ in terms of measurable personality traits, esp. openness and conscientiousness. These traits tend to be robust a across a life time and are significantly heritable.
I'd take a wild guess, which I bet is exactly correct, that the effect size in this research, though present, is laughably tiny compared to all other factors, but Haidt conveniently failed to notice and mention that.

>>16359034
If you're not a communist you are not good people.

>>16359146
end yourself. The Righteous Mind is one of the most insightful books on politics I've ever read. Draws heavily on the moral sense theory as espoused by Hume so it's timely too

>>16360506
>The Righteous Mind is one of the most insightful books on politics I've ever read.
What are the great insights contained therein?

>>16359034

I recommend it.

Are you aware of the Is-Ought problem? This is research that backs up Hume's observation.

Essentially, our adopted philosophies are dependent on your values. People aren't necessarily retarded or malevolent if they don't agree with your position or argument, they may just have a different hierarchy of values.

(If you've ever tried debating a Libertarian, you'll probably come to agree with Jonathan Haidt that Libertarian practically exclusively value Liberty, and have no other concerns when it comes to adopting a political philosophy.)

Bump.

>>16359034
No, it's pop psychology trash.

>>16362749
how?

>>16360254
pure ideology, the post.