I think that's probably right, but I don't think that means it's wrong that there are differences between people in what kind of moral considerations they find motivating.
I mean when I actually parse Haidt carefully it's not clear to me he is claiming all that much. Sure, he talks as if these 5 foundations were special but it's not clear…
I think that's probably right, but I don't think that means it's wrong that there are differences between people in what kind of moral considerations they find motivating.
I mean when I actually parse Haidt carefully it's not clear to me he is claiming all that much. Sure, he talks as if these 5 foundations were special but it's not clear he has made any explicit claim about them being some kind of maximally informative decomposition or anything which really leaves the claim as something just like: here are some ways people differ. And I think he has proved that people do differ in those ways -- even if not that it's intrinsic or even the most important way they differ.
So that's all I'm suggesting, that there do seem to be ways in which different people seem more compelled by different kinds of value considerations that seems like it's reasonably consistent over time to roughly same extent personality is. Maybe Haidt hasn't proven that but it's a relatively weak claim my priors support pretty well.
I agree with the concept of his research and am glad it exists as a starting point. But as far as I know he does claim that his findings are foundational and evolved even if different cultures emphasize them to different degrees
Yes, I think he does. I just kinda ignored that because I didn't see him spell out exactly what he meant by foundational.
I think you are probably right to critisize him but I also think it's a good way to read research -- if it's not operationalized it's probably not meaningful.
--
Though. as I said in my initial comment, there is clearly a limit to how much this can drive differences rather than vice versa given by the ability of people to adopt the values of their neighbors.
I think that's probably right, but I don't think that means it's wrong that there are differences between people in what kind of moral considerations they find motivating.
I mean when I actually parse Haidt carefully it's not clear to me he is claiming all that much. Sure, he talks as if these 5 foundations were special but it's not clear he has made any explicit claim about them being some kind of maximally informative decomposition or anything which really leaves the claim as something just like: here are some ways people differ. And I think he has proved that people do differ in those ways -- even if not that it's intrinsic or even the most important way they differ.
So that's all I'm suggesting, that there do seem to be ways in which different people seem more compelled by different kinds of value considerations that seems like it's reasonably consistent over time to roughly same extent personality is. Maybe Haidt hasn't proven that but it's a relatively weak claim my priors support pretty well.
I agree with the concept of his research and am glad it exists as a starting point. But as far as I know he does claim that his findings are foundational and evolved even if different cultures emphasize them to different degrees
Yes, I think he does. I just kinda ignored that because I didn't see him spell out exactly what he meant by foundational.
I think you are probably right to critisize him but I also think it's a good way to read research -- if it's not operationalized it's probably not meaningful.
--
Though. as I said in my initial comment, there is clearly a limit to how much this can drive differences rather than vice versa given by the ability of people to adopt the values of their neighbors.