Chapt 2. The Intuitive Dog and the Rational Tail Discussion Questions Jigsaw Groups Q’sGroup 1Bechtel, Jessica Chiang, Vikki Christnacht, Andrew Clark, Juliann 2 & 3Cox, Erin Dinkelman, Adelle Dodge, Megan Gajda, Erika Jones, Clemente 4 & 5Kearns, Matt Kim, In Kee Krepel, Noralie Lam, Nguyen Q’sGroup 6Lane, Tatiana Lee, Chi-Yun Lee, Sung (Kevin) Lira, Ana Laura 7 & 8Myint, Patricia Nilsen, Anne-Lise Szymankiewicz, Adam Taylor, Maleny 9 & 10Truong, Thanh-Thao Tseng, Ching-Ju (C.J.) Veith, Charles Yip, Jasmine Yu, Goeun

1. How do (1) the rationalists, e.g., Plato, Kant and Kohlberg), (2) Jefferson, and (3) Hume differ on the relative roles of reason and ‘the passions’ in determining our behavior? 2. What were Darwin’s views on morality? 3. What is Social Darwinism? What would Darwin have thought of it? 4. What does E. O. Wilson mean by ‘consilience’? 5. According to de Waal, chimps have the ‘building blocks’ of morality – what are these building blocks? 6. According to Damasio, why does damage to the vm prefrontal cortex, which seems to rob individuals of emotions, also significantly impairs their judgment? Chapt 2. The Intuitive Dog and the Rational Tail (Intuitions come first, reasoning follows)

7. What is the point of the ‘cognitive load’ tasks? What did Haidt conclude from his studies using these methods? 8. Compare how you think you would react vs. how your parents might react when asked to drink roach juice, or sell your/their soul (even if it was a non-binding contract). Pretend you/they don’t know the object of these hypothetical questions (hard to do since you’ve read the text!). 9. Look carefully at Haidt’s social intuitionist model (summarized in Fig. 2.4). What is the most likely route by which a person might change his or her moral judgment? How does ‘confirmation bias’ figure in here? 10. So, according to Haidt (and Dale Carnegie), what is the best way to try and change someone’s mind on a moral issue? Chapt 2. The Intuitive Dog and the Rational Tail (Intuitions come first, reasoning follows)

Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model

The mind is divided into parts, like a rider (controlled processes) on an elephant (automatic processes). The rider evolved to serve the elephant. You can see the rider serving the elephant when people are morally dumbfounded. They have strong gut feelings about what is right and wrong, and they struggle to construct post hoc justifications for those feelings. Even when the servant (reasoning) comes back empty-handed, the master (intuition) doesn’t change his judgment. In Sum…

The social intuitionist model starts with Hume’s model and makes it more social. Moral reasoning is part of our lifelong struggle to win friends and influence people. That’s why I say that “intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.” You’ll misunderstand moral reasoning if you think about it as something people do by themselves in order to figure out the truth. Therefore, if you want to change someone’s mind about a moral or political issue, talk to the elephant first. If you ask people to believe something that violates their intuitions, they will devote their efforts to finding an escape hatch—a reason to doubt your argument or conclusion. They will almost always succeed. In Sum…

1. How do (1) the rationalists, e.g., Plato, Kant and Kohlberg), (2) Jefferson, and (3) Hume differ on the relative roles of reason and ‘the passions’ in determining our behavior? Ratonalists ‘sacrilized’ reason, thought that reason did (or should) rule the passions. Jefferson perceived them as co-equals. Hume: reason the servant of the passions. 2. What were Darwin’s views on morality? A nativist about morality. Thought that “natural selection gave us minds that were preloaded with moral emotions”. 3. What is Social Darwinism? What would Darwin have thought of it. Richest, most successful individuals, races, nations were the fittest [and thus deserved what they had]. Giving charity “interferes with the natural process of evolution”. Darwin would have regarded it as a perversion of his theory of natural selection. 4. What does E. O. Wilson mean by ‘consilience’? All fields of inquiry coming together. Haidt is definely making an effort at this himself! 5. According to de Waal, what are the ‘building blocks’ of morality that can be seen in chimps (and perhaps some other animals)? (See ppt lecture notes.) Chapt 2. The Intuitive Dog and the Rational Tail (Intuitions come first, reasoning follows)

6. According to Damasio, why does damage to the vm prefrontal cortex, which seems to rob individuals of emotions, also significantly impairs their judgment:? Can’t murder someone, for example, because feelings of horror rush in – without the emotional basis, person knows right from wrong but its all academic. Thus every option – good or bad – was as good as every other. Decision making was impaired in every area, even ones that appeared to be purely rational (like picking the best washing machine). 7. What is the point of the ‘cognitive load’ tasks? What did Haidt conclude from his studies using these methods? If moral judgements require reasoning, then they should take longer under cognitive load. In Haidt’s experiment they didn’t. 8. Compare how you think you would react vs. how your parents might react when asked to drink roach juice, or sell your/their soul (even if it was a non-binding contract). (We were all over the place on this one. I suspect that, on average, parents would be less likely to do this than their kids, on the grounds that kids are, on average, ‘WEIRDER’ than their parents. Chapt 2. The Intuitive Dog and the Rational Tail (Intuitions come first, reasoning follows)

Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model 9. Look carefully at Haidt’s social intuitionist model. What is the most likely route by which a person might change his or her moral judgment? Social persuasion (but see #10). How does ‘confirmation bias’ figure in here? I leave this one for you. Think on it. 10. So, according to Haidt (and Dale Carnegie), what is the best way to try and change someone’s mind on a moral issue? Talk to their elephant. Which you do by listening to them, showing empathy, trying to understand (feel?) their position.