>>24716765
He’s a fantastic author, read his stuff. The righteous mind is very good. It debunks the belief that people are inherently rational and shows that people are guided by subconscious values and motivations that are dependent on someone’s self interest coming from their biology and context.

Had to study some of his work back in my undergrad, would say he's worth reading.

>>24716765
He has gone all-in on monetizing "smartphones are bad for kids" paranoia (though he's usually very rigorous and probably correct).

I never finished The Righteous Mind, I keep meaning to get back to it. But the parts I read were fantastic. Definitely some of the best hypotheses for human moral behavior I've ever seen. Whether you nitpick the details of the Moral Foundations theory, it's worth it to read the basics on the research he's done and what he discovered. Like how there seem to be some universal intuitions, then layers of increasingly malleable moral attitudes on top of the base intuitions. Higher levels can override lower levels but it's not free/infinite.

I have observed some tendency toward the liberal "reason yourself out of common sense," but generally less egregious than a typical libtard. Like, he'd be the guy who doesn't take shelter in a thunderstorm because lightning strikes are rare. So take his recommendations on risk management with a grain of salt. He's generally correct that western society is far too risk-averse based on the statistical probabilities, but those probabilities were no consolation to Iryna Zaretska-- who could have taken more precautions than she did based on a reasonable visual threat assessment.

File: 1756480830296132.jpg (57 KB, 700x809)

57 KB JPG

>>24716774
It doesn't just debunk the idea that *people* are rational - it debunks the idea that *morality* is rational. Morality is an instinct which humans developed in order to promote social cohesion and which has more to do with our gag reflex than it does higher reason

>>24716765
I read him at the beginning of the year. I liked it.

>>24716873
>I have observed some tendency toward the liberal "reason yourself out of common sense," but generally less egregious than a typical libtard. Like, he'd be the guy who doesn't take shelter in a thunderstorm because lightning strikes are rare. So take his recommendations on risk management with a grain of salt.
'he's right about how fear makes us think that very unlikely events are likely, but that sounds like libtard nonsense, which made me have an emotional reaction that I am disguising as dispassionate rational evaluation'
>he's very rigorous and probably correct
I'd say so KEK

>>24716765
He's utterly mindblowing if you're the type who thinks psychoanalysis is bullshit. If you think psychoanalysis is correct, he's repetitive and boring.

great indicator someone is a midwit and I can totally disregard their opinion if they even think about johnathan haidt at all

>>24716977
I don't know what you mean by that, can you elaborate?

>>24717007
cognitive science as a field is just yelling "Freud is bullshit!" at the top of your lungs and then five years later publishing a paper where you stuck a bunch of 20 year olds in an MRI machine and showed them pictures of random shit that empirically verifies a psychoanalytic idea from 100+ years ago. In this case, it's
>bro you think you're motivated by reason bro
>but like bro that's like, stick with me here, not right bro
>actually bro like this chart shows that... bro... uuuughhh... bro my head hurts... ghhuhhuhhhhhughhhh... it shows... uhhhughuh... MY HEAD... UGHUGHUHHHHHHH... IT SHOWS YOU'RE REALLY MOTIVATED BY EMOTION BROghuhuhuhhhuughhughughmyheadhurtsssssssss
>heavy exhausted panting
>this is groundbreaking bro don't you get it bro nobody's said this before bro
like I said, completely revolutionary to people who think they're too clever to take psychoanalysis seriously

>>24717031
I think both have their merits