It’s been a couple of years since this was posted. I hope it’s fine for me to comment on it after so long. I’m definitely into effective altruism, I’m familiar with Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory, and I’m particularly fascinated by the WEIRD bias. But I have my disagreements with some of what I perceive as Haidt’s own biases. About the presentation of these ideas here, I must admit that I’m left feeling uncertain. It’s been years since I read Haidt’s book, and so the details are a bit fuzzy. Hopefully, we could clarify some of these issues and see how all of it might apply to effective altruism. But at the moment, it’s not clear to me exactly how any of this, at least in the context of Haidt’s work, might help. I’d likely take it in another direction, such as the affect of public health, which I’ll touch upon below.
First off, let me explain some of my disagreements with Haidt, from my own liberal and WEIRD biased perspective. I’m not entirely convinced that liberals, the liberal-minded, and other WEIRDos necessarily lack any of the moral values, but that they express them differently. The problem is, as he defined them, he may have defined away those other expressions. And since his definitions informed how he framed those moral values in his research, I suspect he simply fed his own biases into his results. What I mean by this will be made more clear by some of the following examples, but the main point is that Haidt’s theory is problematic for what it selectively includes and selectively excludes, while not acknowledging that one could just as easily or even more justifiably select otherwise. Haidt’s biases seem like total blind spots.
Furthermore, quite likely all of his moral values could be reduced further to some basic overlapping personality traits: high openness (liberalism) and high conscientiousness (conservatism), thin boundary type (liberalism) and thick boundary type (conservatism), or something along those lines. Or to the opposite ends of some survival mechanisms: parasite-stress theory, behavioral immune system, sickness behavior, etc. Diverse research shows that, under stressful and sickly conditions (parasite load, pathogen exposure, inequality, etc), there are population level increases of sociopolitical conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation; all three representing different kinds of anti-liberalism, anti-egalitarianism, etc; and all three measuring lower on liberal-minded openness. This stands out because the centrality of low vs high openness has no clear place within Haidt’s moral foundations theory.
So, how much of this is really about WEIRD vs non-WEIRD? A healthy, low-stress hunter-gatherer population like the Piraha exhibit higher levels of non-authoritarianism, non-dominance, egalitarianism, and individualism. These are supposed to be WEIRD traits. Why do we sometimes see WEIRD or WEIRD-like traits in extremely non-WEIRD populations? Maybe because the there is a deeper set of causes having nothing to do with the WEIRD demographics and culture but, instead, having to do with the healthiness or unhealthiness of conditions. Many other traditional populations might exhibit non-WEIRD traits not because they aren’t WEIRD but because they are under unhealthier and more stressful conditions. There are scientifically studied correlations, for example, between improving health conditions in a population, rising average IQ (Flynn effect), and increasing pro-social behaviors and social health (Moral Flynn effect).
To get to the above description and explanation of Haidt’s work, some of it just feels off to me. The description of WEIRD feels like an outsider’s view, which it is according to the individual who posted it, but specifically it feels like an outsider’s view in that it doesn’t capture the actual experience and motivation of many (most?) WEIRDos, at least that is what I’d argue. I speak as a representative of the WEIRD sub-species. I was raised middle class by college-educated teachers in the US, grew up in a hyper-liberal church, and have spent most of my life in a liberal college town. I’ve drunk deeply from the well of WEIRDness, and I’d like to think that I have some insight about what flavors it. Above, imperfectscout writes:
“The welfarism (belief that welfare is the only thing with intrinsic value) that seems to be so prevalent in the EA movement ignores non-welfarist theories that recognize other sources of value, such as fairness, equality, or beauty. Welfarism is what happens when one’s domain-of-moral-ought is based only on harm/care norms without regard for the other norms that exist; sometimes even going so far as to deny the existence of these other norms. Other values such as justice and liberty are merely thought as means to achieving the ultimate moral value of wellbeing or suffering-reduction. [...]
“In WEIRD societies, where the domain-of-moral-ought is almost exclusively limited to concerns of welfare (care norms) and justice (fairness norms), only norm-violations such as harm and injustice are moralized and, therefore, considered to fall within the purview of moral ought. Norms pertaining to cleanliness, beauty, loyalty, politeness, obedience and sanctity are not intrinsically valuable according to WEIRD morality and so belong to prudential ought. Prudential oughts are adhered to not because they are moral obligations, but because they are instrumental norms which are valued insofar as they contribute to intrinsic values such as care.”
Is that true? In my experience, welfarist concerns are rarely, if ever, considered in isolation. Liberal-minded WEIRDos, for example, seem to be far more obsessed about fairness, equality, justice, etc than are conservative-minded or traditional-minded non-WEIRDos—there is a reason liberals, not conservatives, have a social justice movement. Or consider beauty. Social science research shows that liberals measure higher on aesthetic appreciation, and anyone would know that from how many liberals are into art, music, landscaping, decorating, and bodily adornment. Related to this, cleanliness is prioritized or even idealized by many WEIRDos. Go to any WEIRD house, neighborhood, community, workplace, etc; and you’ll often fine a downright obsession with cleanliness and orderliness; both in terms of practical hygiene and the aforementioned aesthetics (e.g., litter is kept picked up in liberal cities, and not for any welfarist reasons). Haidt, by the way, points to the WEIRD love of systematizing (i.e., orderliness).
Then consider some of the other things mentioned. Much of political correctness is an extreme expression of politeness, as part of being kind, considerate, caring, and compassionate, but also being respectful. To go on, WEIRDos are loyal to larger inclusionary identities, rather than to narrow exclusionary identities. But of course, if we define loyalty as Haidt appears to do as adherence to and defense of narrow exclusionary identities, then we’ve defined loyalty from the get go according to a conservative bias. This one really sticks hard for me as a liberal, in that loyalty is one of my strongest values. It’s just I realize that most conservatives would likely have no appreciation or even comprehension of what loyalty means to me and other liberals. It’s because of loyalty to our liberal society that we can be intolerant toward those who betray and harm the sanctity of liberal values, such as right-wingers who seek to destroy democracy, to the point of aggressively seeking punishment of norm breakers (e.g., legal prosecution of Donald Trump and MAGA insurrectionists).
And WEIRDos are possibly obedient to more forms of authority than is the case with non-WEIRDos: democratically-elected officials, public servants, social workers, non-profit workers, community organizing leaders, protest leaders, librarians, teachers, professors, academics, researchers, scientists, authors, public intellectuals, doctors, inventors, explorers, etc; even religious or spiritual practitioners and aspirants such as meditation teachers, gurus, mystics, shamans, etc (i.e., those who seek divine or spiritual truths through direct experience, rather than authoritarian and hierarchical command). What differentiates WEIRDos is that they tend to think authority has to be earned, proven, demonstrated, and maybe used for public benefit; or else as an expression of values related to the dual trait of openness and intellectuality.
It’s been a couple of years since this was posted. I hope it’s fine for me to comment on it after so long. I’m definitely into effective altruism, I’m familiar with Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory, and I’m particularly fascinated by the WEIRD bias. But I have my disagreements with some of what I perceive as Haidt’s own biases. About the presentation of these ideas here, I must admit that I’m left feeling uncertain. It’s been years since I read Haidt’s book, and so the details are a bit fuzzy. Hopefully, we could clarify some of these issues and see how all of it might apply to effective altruism. But at the moment, it’s not clear to me exactly how any of this, at least in the context of Haidt’s work, might help. I’d likely take it in another direction, such as the affect of public health, which I’ll touch upon below.
First off, let me explain some of my disagreements with Haidt, from my own liberal and WEIRD biased perspective. I’m not entirely convinced that liberals, the liberal-minded, and other WEIRDos necessarily lack any of the moral values, but that they express them differently. The problem is, as he defined them, he may have defined away those other expressions. And since his definitions informed how he framed those moral values in his research, I suspect he simply fed his own biases into his results. What I mean by this will be made more clear by some of the following examples, but the main point is that Haidt’s theory is problematic for what it selectively includes and selectively excludes, while not acknowledging that one could just as easily or even more justifiably select otherwise. Haidt’s biases seem like total blind spots.
Furthermore, quite likely all of his moral values could be reduced further to some basic overlapping personality traits: high openness (liberalism) and high conscientiousness (conservatism), thin boundary type (liberalism) and thick boundary type (conservatism), or something along those lines. Or to the opposite ends of some survival mechanisms: parasite-stress theory, behavioral immune system, sickness behavior, etc. Diverse research shows that, under stressful and sickly conditions (parasite load, pathogen exposure, inequality, etc), there are population level increases of sociopolitical conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation; all three representing different kinds of anti-liberalism, anti-egalitarianism, etc; and all three measuring lower on liberal-minded openness. This stands out because the centrality of low vs high openness has no clear place within Haidt’s moral foundations theory.
So, how much of this is really about WEIRD vs non-WEIRD? A healthy, low-stress hunter-gatherer population like the Piraha exhibit higher levels of non-authoritarianism, non-dominance, egalitarianism, and individualism. These are supposed to be WEIRD traits. Why do we sometimes see WEIRD or WEIRD-like traits in extremely non-WEIRD populations? Maybe because the there is a deeper set of causes having nothing to do with the WEIRD demographics and culture but, instead, having to do with the healthiness or unhealthiness of conditions. Many other traditional populations might exhibit non-WEIRD traits not because they aren’t WEIRD but because they are under unhealthier and more stressful conditions. There are scientifically studied correlations, for example, between improving health conditions in a population, rising average IQ (Flynn effect), and increasing pro-social behaviors and social health (Moral Flynn effect).
To get to the above description and explanation of Haidt’s work, some of it just feels off to me. The description of WEIRD feels like an outsider’s view, which it is according to the individual who posted it, but specifically it feels like an outsider’s view in that it doesn’t capture the actual experience and motivation of many (most?) WEIRDos, at least that is what I’d argue. I speak as a representative of the WEIRD sub-species. I was raised middle class by college-educated teachers in the US, grew up in a hyper-liberal church, and have spent most of my life in a liberal college town. I’ve drunk deeply from the well of WEIRDness, and I’d like to think that I have some insight about what flavors it. Above, imperfectscout writes:
“The welfarism (belief that welfare is the only thing with intrinsic value) that seems to be so prevalent in the EA movement ignores non-welfarist theories that recognize other sources of value, such as fairness, equality, or beauty. Welfarism is what happens when one’s domain-of-moral-ought is based only on harm/care norms without regard for the other norms that exist; sometimes even going so far as to deny the existence of these other norms. Other values such as justice and liberty are merely thought as means to achieving the ultimate moral value of wellbeing or suffering-reduction. [...]
“In WEIRD societies, where the domain-of-moral-ought is almost exclusively limited to concerns of welfare (care norms) and justice (fairness norms), only norm-violations such as harm and injustice are moralized and, therefore, considered to fall within the purview of moral ought. Norms pertaining to cleanliness, beauty, loyalty, politeness, obedience and sanctity are not intrinsically valuable according to WEIRD morality and so belong to prudential ought. Prudential oughts are adhered to not because they are moral obligations, but because they are instrumental norms which are valued insofar as they contribute to intrinsic values such as care.”
Is that true? In my experience, welfarist concerns are rarely, if ever, considered in isolation. Liberal-minded WEIRDos, for example, seem to be far more obsessed about fairness, equality, justice, etc than are conservative-minded or traditional-minded non-WEIRDos—there is a reason liberals, not conservatives, have a social justice movement. Or consider beauty. Social science research shows that liberals measure higher on aesthetic appreciation, and anyone would know that from how many liberals are into art, music, landscaping, decorating, and bodily adornment. Related to this, cleanliness is prioritized or even idealized by many WEIRDos. Go to any WEIRD house, neighborhood, community, workplace, etc; and you’ll often fine a downright obsession with cleanliness and orderliness; both in terms of practical hygiene and the aforementioned aesthetics (e.g., litter is kept picked up in liberal cities, and not for any welfarist reasons). Haidt, by the way, points to the WEIRD love of systematizing (i.e., orderliness).
Then consider some of the other things mentioned. Much of political correctness is an extreme expression of politeness, as part of being kind, considerate, caring, and compassionate, but also being respectful. To go on, WEIRDos are loyal to larger inclusionary identities, rather than to narrow exclusionary identities. But of course, if we define loyalty as Haidt appears to do as adherence to and defense of narrow exclusionary identities, then we’ve defined loyalty from the get go according to a conservative bias. This one really sticks hard for me as a liberal, in that loyalty is one of my strongest values. It’s just I realize that most conservatives would likely have no appreciation or even comprehension of what loyalty means to me and other liberals. It’s because of loyalty to our liberal society that we can be intolerant toward those who betray and harm the sanctity of liberal values, such as right-wingers who seek to destroy democracy, to the point of aggressively seeking punishment of norm breakers (e.g., legal prosecution of Donald Trump and MAGA insurrectionists).
And WEIRDos are possibly obedient to more forms of authority than is the case with non-WEIRDos: democratically-elected officials, public servants, social workers, non-profit workers, community organizing leaders, protest leaders, librarians, teachers, professors, academics, researchers, scientists, authors, public intellectuals, doctors, inventors, explorers, etc; even religious or spiritual practitioners and aspirants such as meditation teachers, gurus, mystics, shamans, etc (i.e., those who seek divine or spiritual truths through direct experience, rather than authoritarian and hierarchical command). What differentiates WEIRDos is that they tend to think authority has to be earned, proven, demonstrated, and maybe used for public benefit; or else as an expression of values related to the dual trait of openness and intellectuality.