visit booktv.org for complete details. on the 21st annapolis, maryland, will feature authors daniel pink and linda robinson as well as book sales and live music. for a complete list of upcoming book fairs and festivals, visit booktv.org and click on the book fairs tab at the top of the page. also please let us know about the book fairs and festivals in your area, and we'll be happy to add them to our list. e-mail us at booktv@cspan.org. ..

>> hello, everyone. thank you so much for being here - and jackie and i am the director of cultural programming here. we always like to begin by asking asia johanns for how many of you is this your first time at sixth and i? so a good number of you. i will tell you a history about sixth and i so you understand the significance of where you are today. the building opened in 1908 and was for about 45 years and then when we located the building became home to the turner memorial church. when they decided to relocate the building was put up for sale and the highest bid was from someone who wanted to buy it and turn it into a nightclub. so thankfully that did not have been and the building was saved

within 24 hours and it was turned into a nondenominational non-traditional synagogues and also the center for arts and culture to host events like this one tonight. we have a great lineup of authors including tonight stopping on the book tour this evening next week and will be a new cookbook, jacob is coming, madeleine albright, frank ford and john irving among others. we are so happy to have jonathan haidt tonight and i want to begin by congratulating him on the release of the righteous mind why good people are slash politics and religion. i think it is fitting to have an author speak about politics here given that we are in d.c. and the scene being from author speaking about religion because we are in a synagogue so given that nigh is a combination of the to - like this is a bull's-eye in having you here. the righteous mind is getting great reviews from liberals,

conservatives, libertarians and non-partisan and you can see the book review in "the new york times" this coming weekend. jonathan is a professor of psychology at new va and a visiting professor at the nyu school of business and is mentioned in david bloxham column and is probably heard on npr talking about his studies on morrill psychology. jonathan is a popular speaker at the talks and i was launching a video that have over 1 million views. so it's nice to have you in an intimate setting here tonight. his research focuses on morality by a understanding more about the roots, then hopes to conclude to be civil and open-minded. he began his career studying the negative moral demotions but then moved on to the understudy positive emotion like admiration and moral elevation. the move got jonathan involved in positive psychology and led him to write his first book the happiness hypophysis finding modern truth in ancient wisdom. so, i will invite him up here in

just a moment. there will be time for q&a toward the end of his talk coming in for that we ask that you please come to the microphone in the center of the room because we are filming tonight. and following the program we will have a book signing in that corner so we would ask that you line up along the back wall. that is it for me if you can join me in welcoming jonathan haidt to sixth and i to the [applause] >> thanks so much jackie and all of you for coming out tonight. so as mentioned, my book just came out last week, and the cover was designed by stephane, the graphic designer in new york and i am thrilled with it. the original version is supposed to be a little cut and three weeks before going to press the team said we can't do that it's going to wreck on people and then amazon will stop selling it. so we had -- what you have is an optical illusion but i love it because it captures what it's

like to be an american these days. it feels like something is torn, something is wrecked, something is wrong, and we have to somehow fix this and put it together. the book comes out in one week in the u.k. and i think they also perfectly capture what it feels like to be an american. [laughter] so, yeah. it could work just as well but sometimes as i'm walking around with it, and i'm glad it's in the u.k. but anyway, so i'm going to give you a brief overview of the book to might and the bible to all of you implications for the politics. how many of you are involved in a fairly direct way in politics or anything about policy, please raise your hand. - say about 30 to 40% of you. how many of you have a general interest in politics or policy, raise your hand.

okay, it's good that you're interested in policy because we are about to face the largest policy challenge in history. i don't do if you solve the news tracking the story for a few weeks, astronomers at arizona state university that state the asteroid that crossed the republic and today they went public with what they've been tracking so in a story about 85 miles across, much larger than the one of dinosaurs and is scheduled to cross the orbit and hit the earth on april 24, 2020 to. the estimate is a 90% chance of impact, and it will not destroy all life. they expect we will be able to have populations of humans, a couple thousand people on every continent underground for a couple of years because this is what it's going to look like. this is what they estimate the impact would look like.

and then after a few years, humans will be able to come aboveground and this is what the estimate it will look like when people emerge from the hole in the ground. now, there is one hope. the scientists say if we embark on a crash course right now, don't delay, we can build a fleet of new heavy lift rockets into new technology and create a new kind of nuclear bomb that will blow up in space and direct force if we create 200 of these rockets to launch them in space and get them out beyond the orbit of jupiter and blow them up at the same time right next to the asteroid we can deflected by one-tenth of a degree and that is all we need to make it. but they say that if we wait a year, then it's going to increase the cost and the of success is going to drop by 20 or 40%. so what i've just given you is actually a very easy public

policy problem. it's huge in size but it's actually a jury easy problem to solve because, by the way, i made up the part about the gastright if you are still worried, don't worry [laughter] i gave a version of this talk and people were checking their phones like is this real, my god. i recall the brokers like sell, sell, buy drilling equipment and nuclear bomb stocks. [laughter] so this is an easy problem because basically is a technical problem where we just have to know if we know the odds and the cost and we can work on it and it's actually even easier than that because from a psychological perspective it is a public policy problem that solves itself. if there was going to be in a straight hitting the era of wiping out almost all of us, it would be a team all of the nation's would check and, left, right, center, everyone would be behind this and we would get the problem solved. that would be a fairly easy public policy problem.

malae going to give you to problems. because there are asteroids headed for the earth, and by really i mean metaphorically, not really but metaphorically there are two asteroids headed for the earth, and these asteroids don't you might guess, the divide us. each side of the political spectrum. the first as you might have guessed is global warming. i gave a talk to weeks ago and we were treated to a number of doom and gloom talks, and james hansen, a nasa scientist that published one of the papers in 1981 predicting the co2 is rising, here's what might happen. history seems to have warned him out fairly well. he's the scientist who was, his works were edited by the bush administration leading him to object and go off and become to some of the alarm to reverse of what he told us is you've all

seen versions of this, this is the rise and is predicted based on the various scenarios the top line being if we do nothing and the very bottom line is we could stop right now at this level that's where things would be, but given the earth's track record doing something about this isn't the zero but it's pretty close so we're looking near the top appliance and if that happens, scientists are estimating a 5-meter rise in sea level, actually let me read this quote and this is what he said. first he told us about the feedback that would have been so as the co2 goes up, temperature goes up and down as they melted there is less light surface and more dark water to absorb so you get these intensified feedback loops. is actually what he said is that the ipcc, the official prediction is for one rise by the end of the century and he thinks it will be five if you take into account all of us

feedback loops so if we get a fifer level c rise this is the conception of what florida would look like all the parks would be under water and everybody would have to go on to the roller-coaster at disney world. now, what do you think? do you think we should embark on the costly sustained program to do something like this to change our economy or the fuel sources? is it worth investing trillions of dollars for the private and public sector in the next ten or 20 years to address this? please raise your hand in the audience if you would say your liberal or on the left. raise your hand right now. okay. a strong majority. among those that raised their hand, do you think we should take substantial and expensive steps to effort this from happening, please, raise your

hand. just the liberals, raise your hand if you don't think that we should take expensive difficult steps to do something? one, too. it's almost been predicted on the left. raise your hand if you're in this room and would consider yourself to be conservative or on the right; raise your hand. one, two, three, four, five, six come seven, eight, nine -- 13 come 14. i know your answer. [laughter] >> okay. so just the conservatives. raise your hand if you think we should take extensive and costly steps to effort this. raise your hand. one, too. three, four. and raise your hand if you think we should not embark on a program? okay, so it's not as perfect a prediction that we have a strong party you can predict obviously people's opinions about this. libertarians and raise your hand if you are a libertarian in the audience. libertarians are tribal people in the world. why are you sitting together? this is weird.

[laughter] rolph bense -- never mind. [laughter] okay. libertarians. raise your hand if we should take quick and costly steps to address this. raise your hand if you think we should not. i knew your answer. okay. >> so, i am not saying those who say we sit and do anything are somehow the nine years or wrong i understand i think my sense is that most people acknowledge global warming is caused by -- in terms of what we should do about it i don't want to tell anyone they are wrong i just want to point out there is a good chance that terrible things are going to happen and we are slash politics as to what to do about it. now, let's -- cheers another problem. i got back to the conference and i went to a party in washington.

i took the train in gallen and the editor of a wonderful journal called national affairs and as a contributing editor of the "national review" and so in preparation for me to him, i read this article, it's a really extraordinary article called beyond the welfare state, and i will just read you the first paragraph of it. all over the developed world nations are coming to terms with the fact the social democratic state is turning out to be unattainable. the reason is partly institutional. the administrative state is inefficient and unresponsive to read the reason is also partly cultural and moral. the attempt to rescue the citizen from the burden of responsibility has undermined the family, self-reliance and self government. but in practice it is above all fiscal. the welfare state turned out to be unaffordable, dependent upon the dubious economics and dependent upon the dubious economics and demographic model

of the bygone era and the declining birthrate is completely unsustainable. perhaps you are not persuaded by the . perhaps you think we can simply raise taxes on the rich to make the books balanced but you are wrong. i give up any fight against this thesis when i got to page treen i sold this graph but it shows the percentage if you look at the national debt as a ratio or a percentage of the total gdp of the nation going back to the revolutionary war you see the rise in the major war savitt starts off 25, 40% after the revolution and then they pay off in the civil war. an even bigger rise and gradually they pay off and then you have a world war i about the same size of the civil war and they begin to pay it off but then the depression hits and a big spike is world war ii so world war ii created a monstrous rise of debt to about 115 or 118% of gdp which is enormous

but it is completely dwarfed by the biggest fiscal even if history which is the retirement of the baby boomers with a guarantee that all health care costs at taxpayer expense dwarfs world war ii and previous. completely unsustainably and cannot be done. in fact this is a conception of what the street of the cities are going to look like in 2013. you might notice we will have adopted greek as our language. [laughter] from their things get worse and worse and this is a conception of what american cities will look like in 2015. now, let's see. so you might actually notice that before is the same as the handsome graf not in terms of the x and y axis but in the moral implications and what they

pretend which is doomed unbelievable destruction and affordable cost but they are also similar in that the graphs both point a finger at the other side. the global warming graf and here i will translate loosely, we've got to act now and the longer we wait the more costly it is going to be. what is wrong with you climate change to nine years if you will help them get out of the way. okay that is the top says. if we were to translate into graphs could speak that is what it would say. the deficit graph on the ever hand has a very different message and goes like this. we've got to act now and the longer we wait the more costly it's going to be. you entitlement the nine years if you want help them get out of the way. so there you see a very different sort of message. both of these public policy problems are hard because they don't activate the psychological

systems the would lead to the solution. they do the opposite and activate the psychological system that leads to war fears we are going to sit here and fight about them while our planet and our treasury followed all over. we can't change what happened to rick both of these problems demonstrate the need for us all as americans to learn something about moral psychology and understand the game of that we are all playing and it is a game. politics is a game, morality is a game. it is a game that i will explain to you what i think i'm figuring out in terms of me along with my colleagues and the others what we are learning that the moral psychology i think can help us talk to each other and understand why these other side is supply and to what we see so clearly. so on to the book. the book is simple to summarize because it is divided into three

parts based on the three principles of morals ecology to read 1975 edward wilson. he predicted someday there would be a synthesis and ethics who haven't made progress and he and it over to the scientists and social scientists who have a crack at it and he predicted to come up with a better explanation or a better story. when i entered graduate school in 1987, i am sorry, your the principles of the first one is in tuition comes first and strategic reasoning second. when i entered graduate school in 1987, the moral philosophy and moral psychology was both agree much on a rationalist footing. the assumption was morality is something that we think and reason about and we need to understand people's reasoning

and then we need to help families in better. the metaphor that plato gave us is that it is like a share each year that is reason, and if it is strong and firm and well educated and trained in philosophy he can control those on wally courses to passion, the noble passion and discussion curious about was the model that we got from philosophy and the dissenting voices of the dominant view and it tends to be more shutting the reason or acting as the most noble qualities the one if it could just do more we would do it well. when i was in graduate school, on a designated much more to a different philosophical tradition, the minor strand from david hume's, i'm sorry, just to show in terms of labeling the parts. so david hume famously disagree

with this rationalist approach and said reason is to be the sleeves of passion and can never pretend to any of your office and to serve and obey them. so he projected this emphasis on the glory of reasoning and argued reason is go for one thing, serving the passion if you want to do something, dispatch reasoning and find the best way to do at. so i think we can update the metaphor to speak of anything as a slave but also it isn't quite a sleeve it is more of a servant, a bit more of an equal or dignified footing from the passions or as i will call themx intuitions more broadly. the best metaphor in this town is that the servant like a press secretary, so this is what was his first name, robert gibbs,

obama's first secretary, the press secretary, his job is to explain things and not to say why obama actually decided something. it's to persuade other people, that's the job. as long as you live you will never see a press conference for some of the books, but doesn't what used to contradict what is it yesterday my god, you are right. i should rethink this. it cannot happen because that is just not the way the political system is. so the book is about basically she was right and there's an enormous amount of evidence on reading and it isn't pretty. i will summarize it with a passage will read about a page and i have in the book. this is a section called reasoning and google can take you anywhere you want to go.

when my son, max, was 3-years-old i discovered she was allergic to must and i told him he was to get dressed and go to school shebas' cowal and wind. the word must is a verbal handcuff that triggered him to the desire to score murphree. the word "can" is so much like her to become my the miser. the words one night and day i tried a little experiment. after dinner one night i said you "must" eat ice cream now to which he said but i don't want to. [laughter] four seconds later i said you can have ice-cream now if you want. i want some. the difference between "can" and "must" is the key to understanding the profound affect self-interest on reasoning to reduce the key to understanding many of the strangest believes people hold in a medical treatments and conspiracy theories. the social psychologist studies the cognizant mechanisms of

believe committed his simple formulation is that when we want to believe something, we ask ourselves can on a believe it and then we search for supporting evidence and if we find a single placement of evidence we can stop looking because we found evidence. we have and a justification if anybody asks, we have something to say to back ourselves up. we have permission to believe to be in contrast when we don't want to believe something we ask ourselves must i believe it and then we serve for the contrary evidence and if we find a single reason to doubt the claim we can dismiss it. you only need one key to unlock the handcuffed. psychologists have file cabinets on the motivated reasoning showing the tricks people use to reach the conclusions they want to reach. when the subjects of told intelligence tests gave a low score and then they're given the choice of what to read while waiting for the next step in the study they choose to read the articles criticized rather than supporting the i.q. test. when people reading scientific

study the report of the link between caffeine consumption and breast cancer as the undergraduates and they are told what do you think? it's a good study. uzi any thoughts? men or women? women. all women or just those who drank a lot of coffee? if you're threatened by the result is a must i believe it and you look and there is a small sample size. you find something. you can always find something. the difference between the mind asking must i believe it verses can i believe it is profound and influences the visual perception. subjects that thought they would get something good is the computer slashed the letter rather than a number are more likely to see the figures such as this as the letter be but if they were going to be reinforced foot every time they spotted the number flashing that they would call that all of us 13 because they wanted to do it if people can see what season any reason

fails to the custody still to persuade the public? there's no such thing as a study you must believe. it's possible to question methods and find an interpretation of the data or if all else fails, question the honesty or ideology of the search. now that we have access to the search engines on our sulfone we can call a team of scientists for almost any conclusion 24 hours a day. whatever you want to believe about the cause of global warming or whether it is to conceal payne justin google your beliefs and you'll find partisan website summarizing and distorting look of scientific studies. science is a smorgasbord and do goal is and even study. there's a lot of implications of the psychology for the politics and public policy. so the first point is you can't persuade with reasons and evidence if people are leading the other way. there's no preexisting attitude then you can reason with them

but if they are leaning one way and you give them reasons they are going to ask must i believe it or can i believe it? so you should change in tuition for those of you that read my previous book on behalf of this is our talk about the mind being divided and the writer is conscious reasoning if you want to change people's mind you have to talk to them first then you can give a reason the writer can grab onto. the second implication is that each of us is sold and by a similar reasons are not good at finding truth on our own as individuals. good thinking and we are blind to cover limitations but thinking comes from all constituted groups, processes and institutions. scientists are not -- they have a high iq but they are not more rational or better three summers and is that it was invented in europe in the 17th century and developed in the 18th century and it is a system in much of devotee is trying to prove themselves right despite the

idealization we try to prove ourselves right and have a peer review and argue against each other and there are other people to ask most i believe or can i believe it so if an institution set up good thinking and irrational lady can emerge from the fault by is the individual's and it's crucial to think about our courts and congress and the framers are very aware of this and set up institutions to be delivered in to challenge each other and we have to talk about this or the working. which institutions are working and which are not for creating the good emerging reasons. that's the first principal of the moral psychology. as the second. there is more to morality than harm and fairness and this is a most lee liberal audience to read i can summarize the most important principal of the route by saying it has something to do with care for compassion or not hurting people are helping people protecting people. george summarized he said behind every progressive policy lies a

single moral value. and here's the one bit in the talk to the extent there's a religious leader that is widely beloved is the dalai lama because he has basically a little morality of the act that doesn't harm others expectations of happiness. the one foundation principle more of the of compassion. now, this is a very important value and virtue but in the graduate school i began by studying the morrill diversity. i did research in brazil and i worked in the in the gut and read a lot about the cultures and it's hard to find a place on earth where it is focused exclusively on care and compassion. but i forgot to do is identify the best candidates for being the inmate foundation of human morality. that is if you look around the world of different societies what are the kind of things they care about, talk about and

punish each other for the new look at the evolutionary psychology. this the selection and altruism, reciprocity, fairness, set out to identify these and with my colleagues we've identified the candidates speaking for the best candidates for being the in a foundation but there's more to these the these six can do an awful lot of work so here's the first care and issues of care in the harm. your brain and body is specialized for taking care of young humans for a long hair, long time. as we are sensitive to signs of suffering especially creatures that look child like to read this virtue, these virtues are an overwhelming evidence that the global defense. these are occupied wall street. even though the dominant theme is fairness as a quality. i was surprised there were so many signs about compassion, empathy, compassion center, so

you don't see anything like this devotee party. the second foundation is fairness and cheating and here we felt fairness included the quality but now we are finding that quality goes along with compassion. the meaning of fairness from the evolutionary perspective is proportionality. fairness is an incredibly important psychology humans have that allows us to engage in cooperative endeavors and monitor each other for achieving. we are sensitive and anybody that works with other people knows that there are some people but they don't pull their weight. they are slackers and we are all very good at detecting them and the banding together against them. this i believe is the moral concern of the tea party and occupy wall street you don't see much of that. you see things like the 43%. that doesn't really connect with fairness to quickly it's just a

statement of inequality, and on the one that would be seen as insufficient moral statement is clearly wrong for there to be such a discrepancy but people on the right would say you have to tell me more. are the people that have 40% to work harder and produce something more valuable you can't say there's a difference and expect that to convince me to change the economic system to treat sinn fein 18 party rally of fairness all over the place but this kind of fairness. stop punishing success by taxing and stop rewarding failure warding out the losers and cheaters and veazey people by handing off welfare and supporting people's bad decisions. of course that is the famous brand. how many of you want to pay for your neighbors in mortgage that can't afford it? so, everybody cares about fairness and its proportionality

even in the u.k. for david cameron let's cut benefits for those that refuse work. sounds perfectly republican. the third foundation is liberty and oppression, all americans care about liberty that they care in different ways. the breakthrough for me was finding a wonderful book by the end of all the just who studied the christopher always egalitarian, and studied a chimpanzee is that were hierarchical and the question is are we adultery and the answer is not. they don't know the quality. what is truth is they hate being dominated. they hate all females and when someone tries to rise up and dhaka like i'm a bitter hunter you should listen to become the others began to give and take them down. so we are not in a clique egalitarian per say. we are opposed to being dominated and bullied and once you understand that reflex, the

response to the heads together to take down the bully now you can understand this. how many of you live in virginia? don't we have the weirdest flag in the world? it's bizarre until you understand. how many and of the world have murder on them? virginia sold redds murder but it's not murder its tyrannicide. of course that's what the conspiracy or julius caesar and john wilkes booth shot when he murdered abraham lincoln and timothy mcveigh had on his shirt when she was a skating the oklahoma city bombing, so the urge to use violent means as necessary to take down abel lady been a revolutionary history and it underlies our feelings about liberty. liberty is related to the verge of a ultimately killing oppressors. very important for the history of the country. so, now you can understand this image from occupied wall street.

most u.s. of sunnis support dhaka by wall street you can get together and crushed and killed a 1%. not a very attractive sentiment for the space movement. but it is exactly what chris is talking about. the one person or belize and we need to band together to take them down. of course the tea party is all about this reflects. don't tread on me. the government equals less freedom so everybody cares about liberty but it ends up being put in different ways on the left and right so here is the situation. i have a web site you can go there and take all kinds of surveys and here's the data that we got from it. our instrument is the foundation questionnaire and it has a whole bunch of questions on each of the foundations, and so here's an item for care, compassion for those stores offering is the most crucial virtue. your date is plotted here on the

left, so the access is little left, conservatives on the right, easy to remember, and the axis is how much you endorsed those sorts of items, compassion is the crucial virtue but it's above the average for a rebuttal will endorse it much more strongly than do conservatives and that is why the line goes down if you go to the right but here's another item. employees should be paid the most. what do you think? should pay be proportional or should everybody be paid the same regardless of how hard they work? he is 2.5. even liberals agree very mildly and ambivalently conservatives strongly agree it's obvious to the conservatives people work harder and should be paid more. here's an item about the economic liberty. people that are successful in business have a right to enjoy their wealth as they see fit so if anybody then there right endorses it much more if it suggests liberty and the left

does because the marriage and homosexuality are the crucial issues for the left these days, but both care about liberty but about the different sort of issues so once you understand this, just from these lines you can understand a helluva lot about the new culture that erupted in 2009. so basically you've got liberals who prioritize care and conservatives who prioritize fairness and liberty. everyone values all three but when push comes to shove which one do you go with? if you see that now you can understand this moment from that famous tea party debate we're wolfowitz opposes the question about a young man who decides not to buy health insurance because he figures why should i pay comegys in a coma expand be expensive. what should happen? should we just let him buy or who should pay and then ron paul says that's what freedom is all about. this whole idea and you have to take care of everybody but he doesn't let him off that easy so are you saying the society should just let him buy? to his credit he gave a nuanced

answer so don't worry, he gave a great answer on that, but the point is during upon as the members shouted out and we have seen this elsewhere rick perry executed more people, yeah. is it they just love killing people? once you understand what i showed you before coming to understand the story. that is what wolfowitz. he gave a stable which you all know some are long ground in the green into their nests and they say why do you work so hard to come and join me. the days are long. have to stay up for winter. the winter comes and the grasshopper is freezing and starting and she says care come and they say no, careless and

liberty to this is one of the central plains the liberals need to understand about the tea party and it's not that they hate government from the heat to government that they see is subverting fairness as proportionality. in other words, the welfare state. that is what they hate. so that is the new cultural war that ran from 2009 until january 15th of this year when the obama mandate on hostels went into effect and then we had the old cultural war. remember that one of the religious right and secular left. the remaining foundations are really about finding groups together and keeping them strong and coherent, so one is loyalty. there's a number that can hunt in packs but also small groups usually can. only humans can create a very large groups of non. we work together beautifully with people that are not related and often have never met before. those were in the corporation's

you can work great with people you've never met because you are part of a team and a trial was a there's all kind of virtues that go along with this. we love it so much we invented a sports. it creates injuries, doesn't accomplish anything, but it's fun because our minds of that sort of stuff in fact we love it so much we created and people do stupid things that don't accomplish anything and makes them look foolish but it's fun because we love that sort of thing and what we fight over and over again on the web site is that the right values does and does it well and it is quite ambivalent about loyalty, so i couldn't believe this appeared a month or two before the election so sure we are obama has been about a year and a feared facing devastating losses in congress and a bunch of leading liberal intellectuals, noam chomsky, the crimes or crimes the matter who

does them. obama is still killing of children in iraq. he's just as bad as bush. they are great at turning it on their own because especially if obama is still hurting people, mo raviv kerry and killing children than he is just as bad as bush. contrast that to the republican the 11th commandment thou shall not speak ill of any fellow republican to be reinstated after the election. at least they held a lot longer and what we find is that the conservatives value these much more. which jobs would you rather have, democratic or republican whip. that's all i need to say. okay. shearer is the foundation of the subversion of respect from closely related species and what we find is on the left authority is a bad thing you should question it if there is an authority you should question it and often subvert, so it is

tongue-in-cheek available magazines as insubordination. because on the left in subordination is a good thing whereas on the right the church in sar what's adel says god is in charge, so shut up. [laughter] all i assure you it wasn't a unitarian church. so we get that difference in authority and last the idea of the world isn't just material and it's not just there for our pleasure there are certain things that must be treated as wholley and sacred and set apart so this is the chastity by hans memling shows the virgin mary locked up with a stream of water, the symbolism is over the top but it speaks to the idea of female chastity whereas on the left of this is resonant from the madonna book sex celebrating all kind of sex whatever, if it feels good, do it.

here's a photograph i took with a bumper sticker that says your body may be a temple but mine is an amusement park. and sure is a song and i saw the photograph that says no sin is sacred. i will give you a guess whether that is occupied wall street, you would never see that at a tea party rally. to put this all together he is the date at that i showed you before in the foundation. everybody volumes of reva there's a difference to read it looks like this. people on the right say its conservative and they tell you them equally. what that shows is basically small difference is that essentially people on the right say that all six of them matter. people on the left say three of them madder and three of them don't and if the three of them that matter, it matters most.

okay. the metaphor of iowa use in the book you might find helpful especially if you are advisers to the democratic party this is probably the take-home message of the evening, this image is not literally true. many of you learned in school the receptive different kind of the swedes receptors in the front and summer, salty, bitter, they are scheduled to be to discover one of pretended is true, i imagine that these foundations i told you about are like six different kind of taste buds and now imagine that the town, the moral tone or the mind is prepared to taste care, fairness, authority, but what do the democrats serve? here's the offer. they say sweetness is the most pleasurable taste, so let's offer the voters sugar. let's talk about caring and compassion and helping victims of let's try to get them to vote for us.

and 20% define themselves, 20 present of americans define themselves as liberal and 40% roughly as conservatives. because here is what they offer. they connect with all of the foundations. the liberals have trouble understanding them and respecting them that the republicans since ronald reagan have done a better job i believe of connecting with them. implications for politics and policy, america has a great diversity, learn about it and try to respect it. if you are on the left be careful about policies about the sanctity. they are needed to preserve the moral capital. if you are constantly challenging the authority saying they can sue their teachers, focusing on the rights of the accused rather than the prosecutor there's reasons to do this. i'm not saying it's wrong i'm just saying that you're constantly challenging authority and subverting the forces of order eventually you get more enemy is what durkheim called it in the chaos and it is a very

sensitive to that. succumb this as i think a mistake the left often makes. we are nearly done. i just want to point out there are so many efforts on the left to do training by a conservative words and concepts and they show the left as a tenure. use of this during the iraq war. support the troops. bring them home now. i support the troops i don't want them to get killed because violence is bad. i support them and want to bring them home. you have no clue what it means to fight a war or to support your team when it is in an away game. the third principal of the book morality blinds and blindness. it's often said the world's greatest wonder is the grand canyon or there's all of these wonderful amazing things on the

planet. as a social scientists i think this is trivial. the grand canyon mr. veazey just wind and water, and a lot of time and you get the grand canyon. it's not all that interesting to me. what's interesting to me is there were people surviving in it and all kinds of climates around the world and sometimes people from base to cooperate with each other even beyond family so you get 4,000 years you get things like babylon in the blink of an eye you get gigantic cities popping out a little later in the new world. these are the most amazing things on earth. how did the cities of heaven, how did civilization had been? why are we sitting here today? if you look at the history of life on earth there's no way we should be sitting here to operating peacefully but we are. how did that happen?

we have an amazing trick never before done by any animal that fan of which is we have and the ability, i'm sorry, here are the other great builders on the planet the bees and the termites they can build things that they are all sisters. they have counted as the mechanism. our answer is that we've developed morality and the ability to live in the communities where we have more arms we can punish each other but it isn't all - a lot of it is positive. one of degree devotees we didn't is the ability to come together around sacred objects. if we circle around them we trust each other and can cooperate some years and animation showing what happens when people first came together around campfires half a million years ago we found the first evidence of campfires to read what that means is a division of labor among men and women in the

that they were out hunting working together and the women were cooking and tending to the children and there was a division of labor and of this trust and you had a large corporate wasn't just a nuclear, they are all pretty well by first to it when we got the ability to work together if i was a giant leap forward and a big part of that i believe there were others who don't fix this but i am a part of the group that believes religion is an adaptation in our history and it is for cooperation the ability to circle sacred objects many villages practices involve circling is sacred object that is a rock in mecca so literally circling around for fair with of the impossible if we were just self-interest creatures could we circle around these objects and standards. it means no trade-offs.

if you defend the thing you circled around so this is why the flag and the bible are important on the right but the left has its objects, too. how many jokes have you heard in your life? probably zero and if i tell one now you would hate me because that would be sacrilege. if you are part of a movement to have objects to circle around them metaphorically or literally you can trust each other and work together, so i will read one paragraph from near the end of my book. morality by in this and blinds. this is not just something that happens to people on the other side. we'll get sucked into the morrill communities and circled around sacred values and then share the post of arguments why we are right and they are wrong. we think the other side is blind to troops, reason, science and common sense but in fact everyone goes blind when talking about the object. morality by an assistant to the ideological teams that fight each other to the state of the world dependent on the outside

battle. it blinds us to the fact each team is composed of good people with something important to say. is it just to close this section of dhaka and implicate its policy followed the sacredness. a rounded you will find a ring of ignorance. if you love with a group holds sacred you know they cannot think straight about and you will then find them denying the age of the earth. you take a little truth and do more than committed to thinking badly about geology and of using coal is the earth than you're committed to thinking badly about global warming to it i believe it is happening but i am also quite confident of the models ecologist it is certain to the left is going to make a lot of mistakes and there will be things like the climate change if everybody insists it's a sacred issue binding the left together so it is going to work their thinking. so although the sacredness. last, politics is more like religion than is like shopping. you've got to understand the secret element of politics.

so, if politics is like religion, is their anything we can do to get in the same congregation? yes. i'm hoping we find that asteroid. thank you. [applause] >> we have time for questions please come up to the microphone if you would like to ask anything this is being recorded for book tv on cnn -- let me say that begins you can get it on camera and editing this. this is being recorded for book tv on c-span. [laughter] i've done this sort of thing before. [laughter] >> so, given that all 20 of libertarians in d.c. right now are actually in this room i was wondering how libertarians fit

into the grass that is put together. >> i'm glad you asked because we have the world's best data on the libertarian personality because they force you to say left, right, they don't give you the option to say libertarian. and we have 200,000 people of whom we have now about 14,000 libertarians, so we have them profiled and here's the answer. on the survey is where we asked about the foundations of the villa dirty we found they didn't care what morality and when we have the liberty item through the roofs of the foundation morality and this is what they say we've valued liberty and if you focus on that you have everything so we have this important personality variable called systemize inverses empathizing. so she does this work on as burgers so it isn't a simple

thing. they are in a complex system and are by far the highest on that and there's another trade called empathizing to put yourself in perspective and feel what they're feeling and libertarians are the lowest commesso libertarians emerge as the most rational sort of cold hearted lowey motion people and the really cool thing is when i tell them about this they love it, they say that school. [laughter] >> we take that as a complement. >> i didn't have time to say this but my view about politics, by the end of it i am now a centrist but i have a kind of yin yang. the left of the right, the libertarian have an important piece of the puzzle and i love reading things from all perspectives. thank you. >> i have two questions one is in the formation of your book.

you use some very provocative statements and stories which the reader, myself in this case, is that an effort to force people into your argument? >> yes to but i am an intuition is and that means i don't believe that we persuade each other just by giving reasons and evidence. something i learned from teaching psychology 101 don't just lay out the facts you have to weave it into a story and make it memorable and it helps to elicit emotions along the way to have people feel for example when i said the asteroid, raise your hand if even for two seconds you thought i was serious. okay. i guarantee ten years from now that's what you're going to remember about me and this talk. so demotions help make things memorable. so i put a lot of care in the

book to read everything i know to manipulate their leaders for the purpose of getting the idea across. >> i have no idea what it is -- >> i've seen people on both of the left and the right on the video that supported it. >> you're talking about the moral principles how do you explain the have affiliations with some and not with others and just as an add-on based on your own mentioning of your transformation, how do you claim then when people move from having one group of? >> those are the million-dollar question is and so, chapter 12 of the book i try to answer

those questions and the way to think about politics and personalities to take the life span perspective which means we know whether a conservative is inheritable of everything else. for 30 to 50% of the young people so identical twins separated at birth and raised in a little family and one in a conservative so they look different when they are in high school living with their parents. as soon as they go off to college they are going to change a lot and converge because whether you are on the left or the right to the environment is not as much overall but it's close so what's been found is that people whose genes build brains or hockey in the openness to experience, they love to try to, you know, mix hi fusion restaurants while hanging upside down from -- what ever, they just like new experiences versus those that like to eat at abel these that will predict who they are going to vote for so there

are psychological differences but here is what gets interesting is that that is the predisposition, it's not your destiny so people start off on a certain path and typically people with a little disposition will then end of gravitating to the artists and professors and the the sort of people that live in certain ways the would make them more liberal but they might have an experience and we are socialized by our peers so people can take the radical terms so in my case i'm a liberal and as i say in the book it was spending time in india and trying to understand a very traditional culture that at least i try to emphasize i hated the race in 1993 when i was in india but i was trying to understand the different society and that experience allowed me to be impacted and when i came back to america suddenly i could understand the religious right and i didn't think they were crazy and evil and weaken that

individual trajectories that can change us and i don't think i would ever be very conservative. i might never be conservative, but you can move somewhat based away with from the tradition. >> i want to start by saying this may be an unanswered question because listening to your presentation and media asking the next logical step which may be your next book -- >> what should we do about it? >> yeah. the framework, and maybe in your last answer you provided a hint that may be emerging therapy to put into a situation you are not around people in those groups that reinforce these ideas but the concern i have is the equation on the left closely related politics to religion talk about the irrational beliefs and it's hard to have a discussion to convince someone

of your point of view if the beliefs are a rational or if your sar so i think it is talking in religious terms for someone that's a very religious and they say to you well, look, no matter what you say to me, you are not going to shape my faith in jesus, for example. it seems to me at that point the conversation is over because someone has said i don't care what you say. i'm not listening. >> do we have a chance to have a dialogue? ..

>> not that this time is completely unique in american history. but there's been a lot of research on what's gone wrong. a lot of it is due to changes we cannot undo, things like the realignment, you know, when the southern democrats were very conservative, we had these perfectly-sorted parties. so you can no longer have a liberal republican teaming up with a liberal democrat. that can't happen anymore. so in a way that had to happen. there are cultural changes that are happening where we tend to live in lifestyle enclaves now, we don't need to ever meet anyone on the other side. that's very hard to reverse. but there are some things we can reverse. the key thing to keep in mind here is we don't need to agree. what we need to do is get to the point where ec interact -- where we can interact and disagree civilly. and that happens when you have human relationships. i had human relationships with

these people in india, i really liked them, and that enabled me to say can i believe that there's something good about having a men's world? can i believe, yeah, okay, i can at least understand what they're doing because i had a relationship first. the relations have to come first. so for those of you who want some hope, who want something to do, go to nolabels.org. they have a list of 12 suggestions for getting congress to work, and here's my favorite one: change the calendar so that they have to stay here in washington three weeks at a time, and they can go off for one week at a time. they moved their families here, they knew each other's spouses. there's no relationships anymore, and of course they hate each other. they used to be able to drink with one another. a lot of their problem is the decline of bourbon. [laughter] there used to be so much drinking together, and they don't do that anymore. so we can do a lot of things to help improve congress. secondly, a site, livingroom, conversations.org. they have all sorts of things

you can do. get a conservative person and a liberal person to invite their friends, and then you have a conversation with each other. especially if you're all neighbors or you have other things in common, and you model civil discourse, and it's really important to eat together. there's all kinds of things you can do to build a relationship and if you have a relationship, then you can listen to each other. you'll stop demonizing, and that's what i'm hoping we can do. yes. >> yeah. very much enjoyed your talk tonight. thanks so much. >> thank you. >> my question is just a little bit more even thinking about you talk about group selection and be some of the dynamics of group selection and religion coming around to as an adaptive trait to make groups work together. i'm just wondering what your thoughts are on the source of that. is that something where it's genetic within a group, is that the norm? is it something that's through environment passed down? in particular i'm also wondering what, if any, rule you say adam smith's narrative of sympathy plays in that.

if this is totally at odds and a separate role, or if there's a way to think about this type of group cooperation, norms in terms of sympathy -- >> first, let me check the time because that could take about an hour to answer. where are we on time, and when should we stop? >> [inaudible] >> okay, very good. group selection is a very complicated thing, i'm not going to get into it here except to say the general story here is that in the social sciences there's been a lot of effort in the last 40, 50 years to simplify things, to dub the methods of the newtonian meths of the physical -- methods of the physical sciences, maximize self-interest and then build up and show how individuals might cooperate. you can get pretty far with that, but i don't think you can get all the way, and in my book i explain why you need to see evolution working on multiple levels. genes compete with genes, individuals with individuals and groups with groups. so, but the idea that groups compete with groups and they the

are descended there the winning groups, that has been a heresy since the 1960s. very few evolution theorists will talk about that. there's so many new ideas and ways of thinking about human history, so i try to cover those in the book and explain why i think it's clear that we're just tribal-groupish creatures. it's not that we're selfish. we are often quite selfish, and a lot of people say, no, we're not selfish, we're altruistic. really what we are is selfish and groupish. we're really good team players, we're really good at cooperating. we're not saints, but we're good team players. as for sympathy and adam smith, yes, daughter wynn, a lot of people have pointed to sympathy was the foundation stone of our moral sense, but liberals say, therefore, we can build everything on sympathy, and i don't think you can. so i think sympathy's just one foundation. i think there are five others. yes.

>> um, i have a question that's kind of puzzled me since grad school about 40 years ago, ask ask i'm wondering if your work -- and i'm wondering if your work might shed light on it. why is drug policy so immune to reason? there's, essentially, no correlation between how dangerous a drug is and how it's treated by the law. that's been confirmed by many commissions and studies. there's no scientific disagreement that marijuana's a far less dangerous drug than either alcohol or tobacco, but it remains illegal. >> that's right. okay. well, class -- which principle of moral psychology should we tell this gentleman to try? [inaudible conversations] >> reason -- no, no. what principle? if you want to understand this crazy irrationality, why on earth do they do this? what's wrong with them? are they insane? follow the sacredness. and can on the right the body is a temple. on the left the body is a

playground. so a drug that doesn't hurt anyone and feels good, what could possibly be wrong with it? but there are all kinds of ideas about the body as sacred, and these are not the exclusive preserve of the religious right. have you been to a natural food store ever? i mean, those people areback coe. [laughter] so the idea that the -- >> they're also high. >> [laughter] >> yeah, yeah. so, i mean, a lot of people believe in essences, toxins, invisible substances. and, of course, since many drugs do involve a loss of self-control. and on the right self-control is a very important virtue. on the left it is ambivalent. that's my answer. >> hi. i was actually -- >> last question. >> i was actually a psychology major at uva. >> good for you. what year did you graduate? >> a while ago. [laughter] i have kind of a narrow question for you and one of your six foundations, i think it was the

fairness question, i noticed the structure of the question which is do you think that -- or should people who work the hardest be paid the most, and i was struck by the word "hardest," what does that mean? i grew up in a blue collar household, and i'm a white collar professional. my father's an electrician that should have been paid much more than he was, so what does hardest mean? do you think it effects, how people grew up effects their answer to that question? >> right. great question. you say it's a narrow question, but it's actually a deep question because fairness is probably the most single important moral foundation for policy issues. fairness is where most of the action is these days at least. there are many criteria for saying something is fair, and so psychologists often set up a puzzle or something, you know, bob contributed the most, but bill sacrificed the most. his contribution was more painful to him. but, you know, sally, um, tried -- whatever. so there are lots of different criteria.

and we could do all kinds of versions of that question. one could be within such and such a company and people doing the exact same job, bob works harder than bill. should he be paid more. but another way to put it would be, um, people should be paid according to the value of what they produce to the overall economy. that would be sort of the common sense economic adam smith or libertarian view. it's not about how hard you work, it's about you're putting something out there, and are you being paid market rate for that. and then we can talk about is market rate fair, and that's what a lot of the debate is between the left and right. it's a very good debate, an important debate. there are big social class differences, that was my main finding in my dissertation was that the differences between brazil and the united states were actually smaller than the social class within each country. lower social class people are much more interdependent, they're much more vulnerable and, therefore, to ups and downs of fortunes, they tend to have stronger ties whereas wealthy

people can be much more independent, they tend to be more autonomous, individualistic and selfish, actually, a new paper showing rich people are more likely to cut people off in traffic. there are big different -- money does all sorts of things. it's not all bad, but money and class are hugely important for understanding morality. thank you and thank you all. [applause] >> [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> for more information visit the author's web site, people.virginia.edu/jdh6n. >> on april 11th the u.s. department of justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against apple and book publishers macmillan,

hachette, penguin, harpercollins and simon & schuster. three of the publishers have agreed to settle while the remaining litigants are disputing the charge. for a detailed article about the lawsuit, visit booktv.org under news about books. and for breaking publishing news, follow us on twitter @booktv. >> what i want to do, what i've been doing in vulture's picnic is a four-year investigation for bbc television on five continents. i don't know if there's a sixth, i guess. of that 1%. wanted to know your names, wanted to meet their trophy wives. i want you to know the movers and shakers who are moving and shaking us. you're going to meet them, and you're going to meet the people that they've moved and shaken. because we don't, it's not about

wall street. we occupy for stanley ann mattingly. he's an o sang indian in oklahoma, lives in a trailer. and on her property like in much of the indian reservation property there's those horses that go up and down, the metal horses pull up oil, stripper wells, and they have a contract, the osage, with a company to go around in a truck and pull out that oil, and they make a few bucks which she really needed. and the truck would come in, it'd pull 20 barrels out of her stripper well, and they'd mark down 16, then they go to her neighbors, and they take out 11 barrels, they mark down eight. what? the difference is called overage. or theft. [laughter] kind of, you know, a couple barrels here, a couple barrels

there. it adds up, i'd say about $160 million by my calculation. how do i know this, by the way? filming it. you see, before i was an investigate, investigative reporter, i was an investigator. i did the big cases and, um, working with the fbi guys, getting their info, they had film. take eight, mark down six. and all these trucks went back to a loading dock in oklahoma. and there on the loading dock was a guy with a steely gaze, and he was exhorting the truckers who were a bit scared because they could lose their jobs. if they didn't pay attention. and he said i want more overage -- theft. i want more. the guy was charles koch. now, how -- filmed it.

have the witnesses. and we have the wire. because my question, my question is why? the guy was born, born with a billion dollars, okay? he got it the old-fashioned way, from his daddy. he was head of the john birch society. i guess you could say he got it the old fascist way. [laughter] he's a billionaire, what's he doing in oklahoma taking 30 bucks, 12 bucks a week or something from mattingly? we know the answer because we had his executive, one of his top guys wired, talking with koch about -- because he asked him why. and koch said, according to the wire, i want what's coming to me. and that's all of it.