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

Haidt establishes a dichotomy between these two forms of thought. Confirmatory thought—in which the rational mind seeks confirmation of what the emotional mind already believes—is by far the more common of the two. Exploratory thought—in which the rational mind seeks to understand a problem by taking in and assessing evidence—is much less common and requires a conscious effort to override initial, emotional reactions.

“Hive switch” is Haidt’s term for the process by which, under certain circumstances, humans can temporarily forget their individual selves and become fully integrated into a group, relating to that group as a bee relates to its hive. Haidt theorizes that ancient bonfire rituals served to trigger this intense group cohesion, and he points to modern equivalents including military marches, religious ceremonies, and raves.

Moral matrices are the intersecting values—or “foundations”—that different groups use to weigh moral choices. They are thus a key element in Haidt’s discussion of The Cultural Foundations of Moral Judgment. For example, Haidt argues that the liberal moral matrix emphasizes values of care and fairness, while the conservative moral matrix emphasizes authority, sanctity, and loyalty (Haidt uses the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in a way that roughly aligns with US political identities). People operating from different moral matrices often fail to understand one another’s decisions.

Another key concept of the text is that all humans have six different “taste buds,” or foundations, of moral judgment. These taste buds are care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and justice. The taste buds can be activated in different ways and in different amounts depending on an individual’s political persuasion, genetic composition, and cultural and familial upbringing.

Because the elephant part of the mind makes the decisions, the rider must explain them. Often, this can be accomplished easily enough by tapping into commonplace rational arguments. Other times, the rider is stuck inventing reasons that support the elephant. The rider then is like a press secretary who must explain a president’s actions or decisions no matter how the press secretary feels about them.