I’ve been aware of Haidt for a while but this is amazing. I love to see people take these ideas further and apply them to our current context and history.
I really appreciate that. Haidt was very formative for me and the moral foundations concept allowed me to iterate and see the world through a more functional lens. the sum of my observations is Biofoundationalism.
Part 2 deviates entirely from Haidt and illustrates what I mean.
Great essay. Have you explored the possibility of top down social engineering through systems such as architecture, city planning, civil engineering, building codes and the like? Our physical environments have a particularly important influence on our biology, and these seem subject to top down influence.
thank you. I love the notion of ontological design. I think it's deeply important for a nation and its people to be aware of. the sort of thing that inspires us and brings out our collective best. very important.
our environments have strong influences on our biology insofar as they exert darwinian-style pressures and influence us genetically (eg epigenetics). however from a biofoundationalist view, a beautiful environment or a "city planned/civ engineered" one is only a proxy for a comfortable one. meaning a reasonably wealthy one. the more you can focus on those things you mentioned, the more comfortable you are.
I'm looking at environments a layer lower than ontological design or city planning: the comfort itself that allows you to do those things in the first place.
ontological design exists in a backdrop of at least decent economic means and peace, the kind of thing you can focus on once you've achieved success taming your surroundings (like a maslow's hierarchy at the society level). this is the biofoundationalism baselayer environment, and what society can focus on/value will shift as this baselayer environment does. the secondary layer definitely matters (eg city planning), but it's dependent on the baselayer: understood this way, it can almost never be a top-down design, and all starts from a bottom-up baselayer.
the environment biofoundationalism references is at the safety/comfort/danger/decadence/poverty substrate. are you rich, at war, middle class, poor, etc.. this baselayer environment changes how moral genotypes express their political phenotypes. the utility of moral foundations will vary dramatically as the baselayer environment does.
Part II will elaborate further on the moral genotype component. and the rest of the series will further reinforce/defend these statements.
The article is aiming in the right direction but it has some erroneous assumptions, stemming from Haidt's errors. Josh Neal (https://jneal.substack.com/) has addressed these in now deleted article and will put it in his next book on ethnoscience, it boils down to Haidt looking at how those differences manifest in modern society specifically which has much more to do with the narratives imposed from the top down rather than underlying biology. The differences would be more like tolerance vs evasion of responsibility, demand for demonstrated virtue vs signaling, conservation vs consumption, defense vs submission etc.
I'm personally a fan of distinction by Michael McConkey (https://thecirculationofelites.substack.com/) of time vs. space bias, i.e. persist through time via tradition, custom, stable loyal communities and relationship vs. opportunistically expand and acquire as much as possible. The current Overton window of capitalism vs. socialism is entirely an expression of space bias with time bias left out of the discussion after being effectively outlawed in the postwar order.
Haidt doesn't really delve into the biological to the degree I do. he focuses on the moral foundations. Biofoundationalism is my own work, not Haidt's; I am only referencing his moral foundations as the moral/political underpinning of how we see the world.
the biological is very real, it is completely undeniable if you're willing to look. part 2 will elaborate further (this is a 10+ part series). the biological elements will be broken down with brain scans, amygdala sizes, insula responses, and more to demonstrate what's functionally going on here. genotypes. the next question is how those result in the phenotypes, and how those phenotypes become dominant. denying the biological is denying the nature of what's truly happening so we can feel like we have more agency than we do in respect to our programming. I've found people eschew it because they find it uncomfortable.
and narratives are imposed top down, but the *environment* dictates how and if the narrative can even be sold. the deeper question is why do leftist narratives keep winning; it is a product of the environment, which is not a top-down phenomenon. the environment dictates the expression. I've found no one gives credence to how environments dictate how phenotypes are expressed as it relates to humans. it's true for every other animal, but not us. they give a special carveout for humans, as if we're immune to nature's rules.
I'm unaware of those guys you cite, I'll def give them a read. I appreciate you reading.
Thanks. We clearly agree on the fundamentals, I'm just saying you don't get a very accurate picture from Haidt. Even the notion that the left isn't authoritarian is absurd on its face.
'Moral beliefs are not a choice, and political stances are not an informed decision.”
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home and church. My father was a committed altruist. I went to a Christian college. But at 32 y.o., I read Ayn Rand and everything changed.
Since then, I’ve chosen the morality of rational self-interest, sometimes called rational egoism.
For me, and I believe everyone, potentially, morality is a choice.
I’ve been aware of Haidt for a while but this is amazing. I love to see people take these ideas further and apply them to our current context and history.
I really appreciate that. Haidt was very formative for me and the moral foundations concept allowed me to iterate and see the world through a more functional lens. the sum of my observations is Biofoundationalism.
Part 2 deviates entirely from Haidt and illustrates what I mean.
I need some time to stew in these ideas but I’m definitely going to read the rest of the series now that you’ve got me hooked.
Great essay. Have you explored the possibility of top down social engineering through systems such as architecture, city planning, civil engineering, building codes and the like? Our physical environments have a particularly important influence on our biology, and these seem subject to top down influence.
Have you researched ontological design?
thank you. I love the notion of ontological design. I think it's deeply important for a nation and its people to be aware of. the sort of thing that inspires us and brings out our collective best. very important.
our environments have strong influences on our biology insofar as they exert darwinian-style pressures and influence us genetically (eg epigenetics). however from a biofoundationalist view, a beautiful environment or a "city planned/civ engineered" one is only a proxy for a comfortable one. meaning a reasonably wealthy one. the more you can focus on those things you mentioned, the more comfortable you are.
I'm looking at environments a layer lower than ontological design or city planning: the comfort itself that allows you to do those things in the first place.
ontological design exists in a backdrop of at least decent economic means and peace, the kind of thing you can focus on once you've achieved success taming your surroundings (like a maslow's hierarchy at the society level). this is the biofoundationalism baselayer environment, and what society can focus on/value will shift as this baselayer environment does. the secondary layer definitely matters (eg city planning), but it's dependent on the baselayer: understood this way, it can almost never be a top-down design, and all starts from a bottom-up baselayer.
the environment biofoundationalism references is at the safety/comfort/danger/decadence/poverty substrate. are you rich, at war, middle class, poor, etc.. this baselayer environment changes how moral genotypes express their political phenotypes. the utility of moral foundations will vary dramatically as the baselayer environment does.
Part II will elaborate further on the moral genotype component. and the rest of the series will further reinforce/defend these statements.
Incredible article, your best yet. Hypermoralization explains a lot about our current era.
Memorable line: “If we can figure out your political beliefs with a brain scan, we are having a biological discussion, not a political one.”
Also sent you $50 BASE bux, Merry Christmas
man you just made my christmas with this comment and that gesture. thank you very much. and a very merry christmas to you too!
The article is aiming in the right direction but it has some erroneous assumptions, stemming from Haidt's errors. Josh Neal (https://jneal.substack.com/) has addressed these in now deleted article and will put it in his next book on ethnoscience, it boils down to Haidt looking at how those differences manifest in modern society specifically which has much more to do with the narratives imposed from the top down rather than underlying biology. The differences would be more like tolerance vs evasion of responsibility, demand for demonstrated virtue vs signaling, conservation vs consumption, defense vs submission etc.
I'm personally a fan of distinction by Michael McConkey (https://thecirculationofelites.substack.com/) of time vs. space bias, i.e. persist through time via tradition, custom, stable loyal communities and relationship vs. opportunistically expand and acquire as much as possible. The current Overton window of capitalism vs. socialism is entirely an expression of space bias with time bias left out of the discussion after being effectively outlawed in the postwar order.
Haidt doesn't really delve into the biological to the degree I do. he focuses on the moral foundations. Biofoundationalism is my own work, not Haidt's; I am only referencing his moral foundations as the moral/political underpinning of how we see the world.
the biological is very real, it is completely undeniable if you're willing to look. part 2 will elaborate further (this is a 10+ part series). the biological elements will be broken down with brain scans, amygdala sizes, insula responses, and more to demonstrate what's functionally going on here. genotypes. the next question is how those result in the phenotypes, and how those phenotypes become dominant. denying the biological is denying the nature of what's truly happening so we can feel like we have more agency than we do in respect to our programming. I've found people eschew it because they find it uncomfortable.
and narratives are imposed top down, but the *environment* dictates how and if the narrative can even be sold. the deeper question is why do leftist narratives keep winning; it is a product of the environment, which is not a top-down phenomenon. the environment dictates the expression. I've found no one gives credence to how environments dictate how phenotypes are expressed as it relates to humans. it's true for every other animal, but not us. they give a special carveout for humans, as if we're immune to nature's rules.
I'm unaware of those guys you cite, I'll def give them a read. I appreciate you reading.
Thanks. We clearly agree on the fundamentals, I'm just saying you don't get a very accurate picture from Haidt. Even the notion that the left isn't authoritarian is absurd on its face.
Looking forward to the next part.
'Moral beliefs are not a choice, and political stances are not an informed decision.”
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home and church. My father was a committed altruist. I went to a Christian college. But at 32 y.o., I read Ayn Rand and everything changed.
Since then, I’ve chosen the morality of rational self-interest, sometimes called rational egoism.
For me, and I believe everyone, potentially, morality is a choice.