Have We Evolved to Be Religious?

[cbayer]

http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/27/have-we-evolved-to-be-religious/?xid=gonewsedit

Faith makes social groups stronger and confers an evolutionary advantage
By Jonathan Haidt | @jonhaidt | March 27, 2012



We humans have many varieties of religious experience. One of the most common is self-transcendence — a feeling becoming part of something larger, grander and nobler. Most people experience this at least a few times in their lives. When the self thins out and melts away, it not only feels good but can be thrilling.

It’s as though our minds contain a secret staircase taking us from an ordinary life up to something sacred and deeply interconnected, and the door to that staircase opens only on rare occasions. The world’s many religions have found a variety of ways to help people find and climb the staircase. Some religions employ meditation. Others use spinning, dancing and repetitive movements in combination with music. Some use natural drugs. Many secular people have used these methods too — think of the popularity of rave parties, which combine most of these techniques to produce feelings of “peace, love, unity and respect.” As the great French sociologist Emile Durkheim put it, we are “homo duplex,” or a two-level man.

The big question is, Why do our minds contain such a staircase? I believe it’s because there was a long period in human evolution during which it was adaptive to lose the self and merge with others. It wasn’t adaptive for individuals to do so, but it was adaptive for groups. As evolutionary biologists David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson have proposed, religiosity is a biological adaptation for binding groups together and helping them enter a mind-set of “one for all, all for one.” Groups that developed emotionally intense, binding religions were able, in the long run, to outcompete and outlast groups that were not so tightly bound.

If the human capacity for self-transcendence is an evolutionary adaptation, then the implications are profound. It suggests that religiosity may be a deep part of human nature. I don’t mean that we evolved to join gigantic organized religions — that kind of religion came along too recently. I mean that we evolved to see sacredness all around us and to join with others into teams that circle around sacred objects, people and ideas. This is why politics is so tribal. Politics is partly profane, it’s partly about self-interest. But politics is also about sacredness. It’s about joining with others to pursue moral ideals. It’s about the eternal struggle between good and evil, and we all believe we’re on the side of the good.

more at link

[saras]

1. Faith and religion are NOT the same thing.

Religion is to faith as slavery is to work. It's a way of ORGANIZING faith to support the ruling class, instead of one's own person and community.

[Thats my opinion]

4. While religion has often been used like that,

it certainly is not the core or impetus for religion this OP describes.

[Democrats_win]

2. This is a tough one.

Many Christains would say that God "wrote" this desire to worship God (and do good) in our hearts. I suppose that evolution is how this occured.

[Thats my opinion]

3. Beautifully put. nt

[cbayer]

5. It's taken from a TED lecture given this year. I also found it stunning.

[Jim__]

7. Here's a link to his TED talk.

link. It runs for about 18 minutes.

[cbayer]

11. Thanks, Jim!

[Jim__]

6. We may never know the truth.

The evidence certainly makes a strong case that religion is an evolved human trait. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion (Houghton-Mifflin 2006 page 166):

Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion. ... Universal features of a species demand a Darwinian solution.

He then uses a hand-waving argument against this. But, evidence outweighs hand-waving, and the evidence strongly points to religion as an evolved trait.

[Goblinmonger]

12. I think the phrase "hand-waving argument"

really oversimplifies what he has to say. At least do it some justice.

[2ndAmForComputers]

14. The alternative would be admitting Satan^H^H^H^H^HDawkins has a point.

And we can't have that, now, can we?

[Jim__]

15. His statement is a strong argument that religion is product of evolution.

Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion. ... Universal features of a species demand a Darwinian solution.

His arguments against it amount to storytelling. Nothing in the stories he tells carries comparable weight to his original statement. It's also quite clear that his opinion is biased on this topic.

[Thats my opinion]

53. Can you offer a distinction between the following statements:

1-religion is the product of evolution
2-like everything else in the world, religion is itself enriched as it evolves.

1- seems to suggest that religion is simply irrevocably only the result of the scientific theory and built-in method about increased complexity. Is it just another purposeless set of notions and structures that float along on the river of time and change and has no internal dynamic that determine where it goes?.

2-seems to suggest that there is a dynamic within religion that generates increased sophistication and awareness of how to think and function given the society in which it is found.

In one there is an inevitability based on a system of natural system over which it has no control. In the other there is some internal purpose beyond the flow of natural selection.

[Jim__]

54. I think statement 2 is an expanded version of statement 1.

In other words, I think statement 1 actually implies statement 2.

Take vision as an example. Vision is a product of evolution. But human vision is tremendously enhanced over what the original form of vision must have been. Evolution is an on-going process, and any trait that evolves will be further refined and enriched through continued selective processes.

I agree with what you that the word evolution becomes mundane through constant use. But, I think that hidden in that mundanity is the implication of powerful dynamic processes that continue to hone evolved traits. Religion also develops culturally and I don't believe we have an understanding of exactly how cultural development ties in with evolution.

[Thats my opinion]

57. Solid post nt

[dmallind]

8. Well it's a baby and bathwater thing

Can't imagine too many people doubting that group cohesion and submission of the self to the larger group were evolutionary advantages. When you're a weak, slow chimp it comes in pretty handy for survival. It's not exactly a stretch to state that religion depends on the same traits. But that doesn't mean religion was an evolitionary advantage - more that it was the byproduct of one. It's not a great leap from all work together to all work for the leader to all work for the big leader in the sky.

[FarCenter]

9. So bison are more religious than wolves, who are more religious than mink?

Bison gather in large herds, and there is cohesion in the herd, which will make a circle to protect the weak and repel predators.

Wolves run in smaller packs, which hunt and fight together, and which will kill a solitary individual from another pack.

Mink are solitary, except for mating.

On the other hand, maybe the mink are more religious and live as hermit monks?

[longship]

10. I agree with some here, it's a tough question

The best source I've read on this, and who acknowledges the same quandaries, is Daniel C. Dennett in his book Breaking the Spell. It's one that I've mentioned more than once in this forum.

Dennett really cuts to the core of this very issue. But he doesn't claim to have a solution, since as a scientist he can't do that without evidence. Instead, he discusses existing research and prospective research that may shed light on, given today's religious turmoil, this all important subject.

Speaking personally, I think that these are the type of problems we as collective humanity must solve if we are to survive. Religious thought is qualitatively different than rational thought. The extent to which we do not understand that difference, is the extent to which we're gonna be screwn.

Here's Here's the link: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (sorry about the Amazon link here, Wikipedia link doesn't seem to work on DU code.)

[edhopper]

13. The evolutionary origins of religion

are one of the better arguments against the existence of God.
It is comparable to the Zodiac. We evolved to see patterns, even when none exist. So a pantheon appears in the heavens. It's not really there, just our ingrained behavior to find it.

[pinto]

17. Don't think is there a god or is there not a god is the point. As you said -

"ingrained behavior to find it". I think that's a piece of the picture. Whatever it is...

[edhopper]

21. But if the reason people believe in a god

or even seek one out is due to evolutionary coding, then this leads to further contra-evidence to any gods existence.
Religion and gods are not interchangeable, but are intertwined.

[pinto]

16. Good stuff. Echoes beyond the organized religion mind-set to a bigger picture, yet negates neither.

Thanks for the snag.

[laconicsax]

18. Only in that we seem to have evolve to be predisposed to superstition.

That's what I love about pieces about a "God gene" or being "hardwired" to believe.

The research consistently shows that we are so adept at pattern recognition, that we see patterns where none exist (ie superstition). Saying that this ability is a predisposition to believe in God or adopt a religion is an acknowledgement that both are superstition, but that in being superstition, the gods believed in are figments of imagination.

[2ndAmForComputers]

19. Evolution sprouts all kinds of inefficient, silly traits.

So, maybe, why not?

[cbayer]

23. Evolution sprouts all kinds of inefficient, silly traits? Wouldn't that be the

antithesis of evolution?

[2ndAmForComputers]

26. You need to read more about the subject. Really. This is not a dig.

Evolution, not being a planning agent or a mind in any way, shape or form, generates the traits that are needed in the short term, but the end results are often less than optimal.

I recall something about a vase (seminal?) having to make a weird loop from the groin, up into the abdomen, and then back to the groin. I forget the details. I read it in either The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestor's Tale, or The Greatest Show On Earth. (All by Dawkins.) Perhaps somebody with a better memory can add here.

Here's a good link on the subject, if your sensibilities will allow you to get past the title: http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

[cbayer]

27. Er, I really don't need to read more about the subject at all.

Random mutations sprout all kinds of silly, inefficient traits. Evolution eliminates them.

[2ndAmForComputers]

28. Well, OK.

It's true what they say about horses and water.

[cbayer]

29. While we are recommending reading, take a look at this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121816377

[2ndAmForComputers]

34. Thanks!

Krauss' A Universe From Nothing is now on my Amazon Wish List!

[edhopper]

30. Evolution can bring survival traits for organisms living in one environment.

That ill serves the organism when the environment changes.
Sometimes evolution eliminates the species.

[cbayer]

32. Agree

[edhopper]

35. So, hypothetically

if religion was a evolutionary good step 100,000 years ago. Does it still work for the better of Man in the modern world?

[cbayer]

37. I think so, though you may not

[edhopper]

38. good one

[trotsky]

55. Correction: Evolution only eliminates them if they are a detriment to survival.

Otherwise they stick around - because having that genetic variance in a population can help ensure the survival of the species.

So yeah, I think you probably should read a little more on the subject.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. More to the point, so what? It may have served a purpose at one point.

Does religion continue to advance humans as social animals or are we at a point where we have evolved past whatever benefits that religion brought to us, and is it now an obstacle in the way of progress?

I'll accept that a religious inclination is a heritable trait that evolved with agricultural society. That does not mean that it serves any useful purpose now, and in fact I think we have evolved to the point where the religious inclination is a disadvantage and as such is slowly disappearing from humans.

[Joseph8th]

20. If so, then another fair question is ...

... are we evolving out of religiosity as ever fewer folks are willing to accept miraculous explanations over more mundane rational explanations for the big issues of life?

To be scientific about it, we'd want to look at whether religiosity is a naturally selected trait. I.e., are religious folks more likely to pass on a gene predisposing their offspring to religiosity? Since there's no 'god gene' (or if there is, it's being turned off in a growing # of living ppl), we're forced to answer "No" -- biologically speaking. Strictly speaking, religion is by all evidence a cultural phenomenon, not biological, so we have to look for biological predispositions for cultural traits if we want to seek correlation.

OTOH, we might look at, for instance, recent studies showing a negative correlation between IQ and religiosity, or other possibly genetic traits that predispose an individual to believe, as it were. Then we'd have to look at whether or not these offspring were being selected for reproduction over non-believers. Clearly in some religions, having many offspring is common, but population contributions alone aren't sufficient measures for correlation in this case, since many non-believers grew up believing, and they also pass on their genes.

I would submit that it's "too early to tell," since up till recently (i.e., last couple centuries) religions were far more insular -- intermarriage was uncommon -- and non-believers were ... er ... y'know, ostracized or straight-up murdered. Kinda slants the data. We really only have the last half of the 20th century for even sort of unbiased data. What little data there is shows that believers have more kids, but it also suggests that uneducated ppl have more kids. That doesn't mean those kids are or will remain lifelong believers, or say anything about their chances of getting laid. It does say something about their chances of using contraception or planning a family, rather than letting god have his way with the womb, as it were.

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

22. In a way, yes.

I would say that we have evolved to strive for something better than basic social Darwinism. We're not there yet, by any means, but we do (in varying degrees) have this caring tendency toward the weak, the disadvantaged, the marginalized. Religion continues to be a part of that ongoing journey, although some faith-traditions have yet to break away from the authoritarian and patriarchal shackles that have encumbered the process for so long. On a positive note, that evolution continues, and we are beginning, I think, to break those chains and come to a more personal and less hierarchical, top-down understanding of what it means to be religious, or "ethically-disciplined free agents". Our relationships with ultimacy and ultimate connectedness need not have supernatural or authoritarian or patriarchal overtones to be useful and authentically religious, seems to me.

[cbayer]

24. I love this response, EPU.

[Nihil]

25. That was an interesting post ...

... some bits of which I totally agree with and others that I totally disagree with!

> One of the most common (religious experience) is self-transcendence — a feeling becoming
> part of something larger, grander and nobler. Most people experience this at least a few times
> in their lives. When the self thins out and melts away, it not only feels good but can be thrilling.
> It’s as though our minds contain a secret staircase taking us from an ordinary life up to
> something sacred and deeply interconnected, and the door to that staircase opens only
> on rare occasions.

I completely agree with his description of that experience (albeit preferring to describe it as
a "spirititual experience" rather than a "religious" one).

On the other hand ...

> The world’s many religions have found a variety of ways to help people find and climb the staircase.

... I think I'd rephrase that as "the world has spawned many religions, some of which attempt
to help people find & climb the staircase whilst others use the desire to do so as a means of
obtaining power/money/advantage".


As for this bit:
> Politics is partly profane, it’s partly about self-interest. But politics is also about sacredness.

... I completely disagree that there is anything "sacred" in the profane, selfish and greedy
world of politics. In fact I would suggest that it is precisely the polluting & divisive nature of
politics that has corrupted most (if not all?) organised religions by diverting them from the
above goal of "helping people towards self-transcendence" and towards the greed, hatred
and bigotry that characterises so much of the organised religious world.

[GliderGuider]

31. Very interesting article!

I agree that the universality of spiritual feelings (whether expressed as religion or not) strongly hints that there's an evolutionary component, though whether it's genetic or memetic certainly isn't clear.

I'll disagree mildly with one point, that being that the spiritual urge isn't adaptive for the individual. Seeing oneself as integral to some larger whole can prompt altruistic action in favour of one's tribe (whatever that may be), and promote inclusive fitness responses.

Developing a feeling of spiritual unity can also confer enormous peace of mind when an individual is feeling alienated and separated in an apparently material, value-free universe. Positive emotions are crucial to mental well-being, and the feeling of transcendence and unity is an extremely powerful emotion. It re-connects one's sense of self to the greater world of nature and other people in a non-intellectual way. Because of that it can be a very valuable mental health tool for the individual.

I speak from experience here, because this is exactly why, as a depressed, despairing, alienated, 57-year-old lifelong strong atheist, I sought out and worked hard to develop a direct experience of the sacred. In my case it was through Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita and Jungian depth psychology, though I've now dropped all the labels.

I suspect that whether one recognizes sacred underpinnings in politics depends largely on what sort of politics you've been involved with. I can understand someone whose only exposure has been mainstream American politics rejecting that notion. But I know, also from experience, that there is a very strong sense of the sacred underlying much of the socialist/social justice and Green politics I've been involved with in Canada. It's just that unless a party eschews those kinds of values they stay marginalized forever. There's little sacred about money and being owned by corporations, as is the case in mainstream power politics.

[SamG]

33. The very definition of "evolution" has nothing to do with

what a singular species does in behavioral terms over the course of 10, 20, or even the last 100 thousand years.

I think a more proper term to use in mentioning religion is more along the lines of survival advantage, something for which various religious beliefs have sometimes bestowed either advantage or disadvantage.

Religion during the time of the black plague, for instance, offered a disadvantage for millions of Europeans, as they gathered together and prayed for their own health, prayed to rid themselves of a disease they didn't have the scientific knowledge to understand nor combat against. The mere gathering together of human beings in close quarters lead to the spread of the disease among those whose immune systems, through genetics, were more vulnerable, not the eradication of it.

This leads to the distinction I mentioned above, a behavior trait, and methodology of coping with adversities facing humankind, perhaps gives the appearance of a survival advantage, but is strictly a developed system of thought, rather than something implicit within the human genome itself.

Rather than express the phenomenon of religion as an evolutionary feature, it is probably better to describe it as an intellectual development of inventive creative people, used to foster the chances of their own survival against all the many threats and adversity of the world around them, (including other groups of humans) in comparatively modern times, the last 20 thousand years or so. Sometimes it worked out well for one group or another, sometimes, not so much,(as when humans were sacrificed to please their gods). but it is not strictly a genetic feature of Homo Sapiens, it is entirely an intellectual invention of humankind.

[deacon_sephiroth]

36. evolved or bred?

Evolution has different faces I usppose, some natural, other guided by humans. I don't doubt that gullability or hiveminded zealotry can be bred for, and I rather think they may have been. It's pretty easy forumla and it's been repeated enough throughout history.

1. Establish a religion
2. Kill everyone around you that doesn't share it
3. Breed like mad as your religion dictates you must.
4. Certain traits propigate.

Would we be so predisposed towards religion and "faith" if not for this repeating process?
How about the other traits that such behaivior might indicate? Violence to name one.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Natural selection is part of the mechanism of evolution.

"evolved or bred" makes no sense. The process you describe is exactly the process the author argues has evolved our predisposition for religious beliefs.

Humans are murderous cooperative apes. Religion is part of the glue that binds us into groups.

[deacon_sephiroth]

43. A guy named Darwin wrote this neat books, might want to check it out.

NATURAL selection, and selective breeding fro man intelligent source are two very different things, it's covered exstensively in that one book that talks about that whole evolution thing you're trying to educate me on.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Natural selection and breeding from an intelligent source are not two different things.

But feel free to provide evidence that "breeding" is not part of evolution. I'm fascinated.



Not evolution?

[deacon_sephiroth]

45. ok, I'll look it up for you...

Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Darwin in his influential 1859 book On the Origin of Species,(recommended reading from my last post) in which natural selection was described as analogous to artificial selection, a process by which animals and plants with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction.

analogous, not synonymous. They are NOT the same thing.

My arguement is that murderous and profilic breeding religious groups and societies of the past may have led to more of an ARTIFICAL selection than a NATURAL selection. Re-read the assignment id you're still confused.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. If you read on it is clear that artificial selection is a subset of natural selection.

Point being that they are both very much part of the evolutionary process, and it doesn't matter one wit, we being part of nature, even with our vast murderous cooperative ape-brains, if we are actors in the process or not.

Your argument is one I agree with right up until you attempt to make a HUGE DISTINCTION (by for example using CAPS) between artificial and natural selection. There is no such huge distinction, although there is indeed a subset of artificial selection (it itself being a subset of natural selection), that might be considered outside of the evolutionary process (until it isn't) that being isolated laboratory experiments in genetic manipulation. The rest all feeds right back into 'the process' regardless of whether the apes got involved with it or not.

In terms of re-reading, what I objected to was your phrase "evolved or bred" which attempts to place breeding outside of evolution.

There is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection, and the concept of artificial selection was used by Charles Darwin as an illustration of the wider process of natural selection. The selection process is termed "artificial" when human preferences or influences have a significant effect on the evolution of a particular population or species. Indeed, many evolutionary biologists view domestication as a type of natural selection and adaptive change that occurs as organisms are brought under the control of human beings.

However, it is useful to distinguish between artificial selection that is unintentional or involves manipulating the environment only, and artificial selection that alter internal DNA sequences in the laboratory. Genetic manipulation in labs has little in common with processes that occur in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection

[deacon_sephiroth]

47. if you can't distinguis hthe difference...

then there doesn't have to be one in your little world. NAtural and artificial are the same thing. You should base your diet on the same logic. See you at McDonalds.

[Silent3]

48. While the distinction between natural and artificial can be important...

...that distinction itself is an artificial distinction.

If humans have arisen naturally by evolution, if our intelligence is a product of nature, if our actions are limited by natural physical laws, then everything we do is natural, everything we create is natural.

Of course, one can't ignore than what we call "artificial" creations and processes often have distinct characteristics not found in other natural creations and processes. This fact merely makes that which is artificial a distinct subset of the natural, however, not something apart from or separate from the natural.

In some contexts this matter of semantics might not be important. It might be convenient to treat the natural and the artificial as two separate realms. It's a good idea, however, to remember that what we do at times with words and ideas for contextual convenience doesn't discredit broader perspectives where distinctions made for convenience in one context fade or disappear.

As for your McDonald's crack: When the distinction between natural and artificial is reduced to memes like "natural = good, artificial = bad", that's way too much oversimplification of the natural/artificial distinction. There's hardly any guarantee that "natural" food is always and in every way better than anything which is processed or contains artificial ingredients.

[deacon_sephiroth]

51. I agree to some extent

You're not telling me anything new man, I get the idea, and it's all fine and good to go down this road (though I'd rather not bother, it's not going anywhere).

I just don't see why I have to get brow beaten about such a simple concept, I agree we CAN make it a much more complicated we could play around with concepts and definitions and taa daa 1+1=25, it's all very impressive, but I guess I'm a little quicker than most to pick up the phone and dial the real world. I'm definately done with this semantic square dance.

either:

A) People get the point I made and agree
B) People get the point I made and don't agree
C) People don't get the point I made

whichever one it is, I'm well done with it.

and the Mcdonalds thing was just for fun, I don't need a nutrition lesson either.

tough crowd...

[Warren Stupidity]

49. argument by insult.

Natural selection include artificial selection. Artificial selection is a subset of natural selection. I provided you access to a rather clear paragraph describing how they are related. Your original statement "evolved or bred" was what I objected to as it implies that "bred" is outside of "evolution". You have an indefensible position so you are reduced to insults.

[deacon_sephiroth]

50. my "indefensible position"

is that artificial is not the same as natural. Your position is to redfeine these terms to suit some completely pointless arguement. Any insults you felt from that were just my frustrations at being prodded with such pedantic wastes of time.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

39. Natural Selection has also selected traits in humans that allow us to reason

And reason often leads humans to abandon religion in favor of more appropriate methods for discerning "truth".

Evolution giveth and evolution taketh away.

[SamG]

40. TRUE TRUE, one could argue that survivors of past generations

are now "evolving" into atheism, reason, free thought.

What, in heavenly name does the "advantage" of mythical beliefs and fantasies of afterlife have to do with what more numbers of rational thinkers among our younger generation shows us about "evolution" in the mind?

[darkstar3]

52. No. Look at the difference between successful and unsuccessful religions

Religion has evolved over time to take advantage of our genetic predispositions toward authoritarianism and superstition. Successful religions have also evolved to include the predisposed human traits that are universally accepted as "good," such as altruism and grouping.

Just as the cart is shaped to the horse, religion is shaped to the human, and not the other way 'round.

[trotsky]

56. This quote:

religiosity is a biological adaptation for binding groups together and helping them enter a mind-set of “one for all, all for one.”

It would be more appropriate to take a step back and call this, more accurately, tribalism. Religion maps well onto tribalism - it strengthens group cohesion, reinforces the rules, etc.

But tribalism completes the picture - helping to ensure the survival of your group over others.

[backscatter712]

58. Interesting hypothesis, I think it has merit.

Of course, this is not the only evolutionary-based theory that people have come up with to explain why we're so persistent in believing in deities and creating religions.

Dawkins brought up the idea that religion is a side-effect of how the brain evolved. He compares it with the moth, who evolved to navigate by flying with the moon in a fixed position in its field of vision. Of course, when the moth flies close to a candle flame, it can't distinguish between it and the moon, thus it tried to navigate by flying with the light source in a fixed point in its vision. The result is the moth circles and spirals right into the candle flame. Dawkins suggested in the God Delusion that much of our religious behavior is like that moth circling a candle flame - the structures and psychological tendencies that bring us religion and faith evolved for another reason, maybe for the reasons in the OP, but when people take religion absolutely literally, believe in biblical creationism, for example, casting aside evidence-based reasoning, that's when we're circling the candle flame.

[cbayer]

59. But wouldn't the moths that can't distinguish between the moon and the flame

find themselves on the rapid road to extinction?

Perhaps, and we can only hope here, the literal extremists will find themselves on that road as well.

Thanks for weighing in backscatter.

[MissMarple]

60. Where ever it came from being religious, believing in the sacred, does seem to have value.

But given the variations in human nature and how we view our world(s), as we see every day, religion can be good, bad, or indifferent. As the world seems to get smaller, our religious beliefs could help or hinder. People who appear "religious" may not even believe in God. But this doesn't address the question of whether God exists, which is not a discussion I would care to participate in. I would be in way over my head. And it is probably not a thing a moral psychologist like Haidt would address either, professionally, that is. How could it be measured?

I really like Jonathan Haidt. I'm reading "The Righteous Mind". For me it makes a lot of sense and clarifies a lot of things I've been wondering about. Thanks for the link. I assume you have seen the clip from Moyers. Haidt has been quite the controversial guy in GD.

http://billmoyers.com/segment/jonathan-haidt-explains-our-contentious-culture/

[cbayer]

61. I had not seen this Bill Moyers piece, but will watch it.

I thought this piece by Haidt was very good and would like to see him interviewed.

Thanks, MissMarple!