I totally agree about The Righteous Mind. Top recco. I chuckled at the information density comment - I was highlighting the book as I read, and it was comical that I almost felt it would be easier to highlight the non-notable sections! Only partly joking. But it was not difficult to read, just a lot of insights to ponder and integrat…
I totally agree about The Righteous Mind. Top recco. I chuckled at the information density comment - I was highlighting the book as I read, and it was comical that I almost felt it would be easier to highlight the non-notable sections! Only partly joking. But it was not difficult to read, just a lot of insights to ponder and integrate. My partner read it first, and we usually summarize the interesting reads for each other (like a search party splitting up to cover more ground), but as she was reading it, she was saying that I was going to have to read it myself too, and I was glad that I did.
And my political path is similar to yours; my spouse and I moved from lifelong progressive liberals towards that murky middle. Although perhaps even more, the left moved in directions we began to believe were unhealthy and counterproductive to the progressive liberal values and goals which have inspired us over the decades. I call this new ideology "neo-progressivism", because it does grow out of traditional progressivism but has mutated quite a bit making it fairly distinct.
I wonder if Haidt et al have found any shifts in the liberal/conservative moral foundations scores in more recent times. I have observed distinct increases in the purity and loyalty foundations among neo-progressives. A thing or person who has been denounced as unclean (off message) causes everybody else to shy away from them so as not to be tainted. And freedom to remain in the tribe is increasingly based on dogmatic conformance and loyalty to The Narrative.
I have found many thoughtful articles in Quillette. But I remember the first time I read something there which had a substantially more conservative framing than I can agree with; I was kind of irritated that this wonderful source of good perspective was hosting something like that. And then I had to chuckle to myself - choosing heterodox sources means that you WILL seriously disagree with some things there. I do not want Quillette to only present perspectives I agree with, I also want to stretch my mind with articles I don't yet agree with, and some which I will never agree with, so I can decide which are which.
And like you, I found that I can agree with some things said by philosophical conservatives. Once you break the tribal filters, there is room to actually think about each issue in itself, rather than needing to take a tribally defined position.
Yeah, Quillette is problematic. I've read some great stories there but I also recognize it's considered a far-right source with a mixed history of fact-checking: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/
Sometimes shitty sites have good articles. A writer I respected on Medium mentioned an article she was consulted for as a therapist; the subject of the article was on victimhood and its ideological narratives and how harmful they can be; this is a therapist whose work and articles I respect. So I checked out the article she was featured in; great article, but the source? The Epoch Times, a notoriously far-right site with a lousy history of fact-checking. It's hard for me to recommend that article even when it's good when it's on a shitty site even though a broken clock is right twice a day, y'know?
Haidt talks about increased polarization, especially on college campuses, since The Righteous Mind; read The Coddling of The American Mind yet? Killer book!!! It's about Gen Z snowflakes.
Just started this morning Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity. Fascinating so far, and offering a good explanation of what 'post-modernism' is and how it has tainted public discourse and discussion and turned its back on objectivity and evidence-based thinking.
I totally agree about The Righteous Mind. Top recco. I chuckled at the information density comment - I was highlighting the book as I read, and it was comical that I almost felt it would be easier to highlight the non-notable sections! Only partly joking. But it was not difficult to read, just a lot of insights to ponder and integrate. My partner read it first, and we usually summarize the interesting reads for each other (like a search party splitting up to cover more ground), but as she was reading it, she was saying that I was going to have to read it myself too, and I was glad that I did.
And my political path is similar to yours; my spouse and I moved from lifelong progressive liberals towards that murky middle. Although perhaps even more, the left moved in directions we began to believe were unhealthy and counterproductive to the progressive liberal values and goals which have inspired us over the decades. I call this new ideology "neo-progressivism", because it does grow out of traditional progressivism but has mutated quite a bit making it fairly distinct.
I wonder if Haidt et al have found any shifts in the liberal/conservative moral foundations scores in more recent times. I have observed distinct increases in the purity and loyalty foundations among neo-progressives. A thing or person who has been denounced as unclean (off message) causes everybody else to shy away from them so as not to be tainted. And freedom to remain in the tribe is increasingly based on dogmatic conformance and loyalty to The Narrative.
I have found many thoughtful articles in Quillette. But I remember the first time I read something there which had a substantially more conservative framing than I can agree with; I was kind of irritated that this wonderful source of good perspective was hosting something like that. And then I had to chuckle to myself - choosing heterodox sources means that you WILL seriously disagree with some things there. I do not want Quillette to only present perspectives I agree with, I also want to stretch my mind with articles I don't yet agree with, and some which I will never agree with, so I can decide which are which.
And like you, I found that I can agree with some things said by philosophical conservatives. Once you break the tribal filters, there is room to actually think about each issue in itself, rather than needing to take a tribally defined position.
Yeah, Quillette is problematic. I've read some great stories there but I also recognize it's considered a far-right source with a mixed history of fact-checking: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/
Sometimes shitty sites have good articles. A writer I respected on Medium mentioned an article she was consulted for as a therapist; the subject of the article was on victimhood and its ideological narratives and how harmful they can be; this is a therapist whose work and articles I respect. So I checked out the article she was featured in; great article, but the source? The Epoch Times, a notoriously far-right site with a lousy history of fact-checking. It's hard for me to recommend that article even when it's good when it's on a shitty site even though a broken clock is right twice a day, y'know?
Haidt talks about increased polarization, especially on college campuses, since The Righteous Mind; read The Coddling of The American Mind yet? Killer book!!! It's about Gen Z snowflakes.
Just started this morning Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity. Fascinating so far, and offering a good explanation of what 'post-modernism' is and how it has tainted public discourse and discussion and turned its back on objectivity and evidence-based thinking.