00:00:21
Well, we're here to talk with
Dr. Jonathan Haidt from New York University, about his book that
came out last year, <i>The</i>
00:00:27
<i>Righteous Mind: Why Good People
Are Divided By Politics And</i> <i>Religion</i>. It's great to have you
here, John. - Thanks.
00:00:34
Great to be here at Wharton. - Thank you for
joining us. One of the— one of the big questions your book
wrestles with is why is it so
00:00:40
hard for liberals and
conservatives to understand each other? Why?
- Why? Well, the very nature of
morality, the big thing that it
00:00:48
does, that I think isn't
sufficiently appreciated, is that it binds us into groups
that can do things in the world.
00:00:54
In the animal kingdom, the only
time you get cooperation is pretty much kinship. You get
pairs of individuals
00:01:00
occasionally. But elsewhere in
the animal kingdom, it's just family. And human beings have
this incredible capacity to come
00:01:08
together in groups and do big
things. And when you look back at the early history of
cooperation, you always find
00:01:14
temples, gods, religion. People
circle around sacred objects. That binds them together. But at the
same time it blinds them. They
00:01:22
can't think for themselves, or
they become partisan, they become members of the group.
Liberals and conservatives in
00:01:28
America, now— each country has its
own particular battles. Liberals and conservatives are bound around
different sacred values, sacred
00:01:36
principles, and they absolutely
cannot understand each other. They are forbidden from
understanding each other lest
00:01:41
they be kicked out of their
tribe. And you published the book last
year. Have you— has anything happened
00:01:46
to change your mind? Let's see. Well, since
publishing the book, not really.
00:01:55
I've— the book has gotten a good
reception— right, left, center, libertarian—except on the far
left. Some people on the far
00:02:02
left hate it, and the New
Atheists hate it. But those are groups that I criticize in the
book. So that's not surprising.
00:02:10
I changed my mind a lot while
writing the book. And when I started writing the book, I
still considered myself to be a
00:02:14
partisan liberal. And I actually
began the project— I began shifting over from just studying
morality across cultures to
00:02:21
studying morality across
political cultures as though they were different nations. I
started that after the 2004
00:02:28
Kerry loss to George W. Bush.
And I wanted to grab Kerry and the Democrats by the lapels and
say, "Don't you know how to make
00:02:35
a moral argument? Why do you
keep appealing to self interest and my policy will do more for
you? Can't you make a moral
00:02:39
argument?" So I got into the
political psychology business originally to help the
Democrats. And along the way, in
00:02:47
really trying to, to get inside
the head of people from different moralities, I came to
see that each side sees certain
00:02:54
truths and insights and threats
that they're right about. So you've been on an ideological
journey of your own. And it is
00:03:01
possible for people to change
their minds? - Yes, all you have to do is study
morality for 25 years, and try
00:03:07
to write a book in which you
state the other side's case sympathetically. It should be
possible.
00:03:11
I asked the question about the
possibility of changing your mind because you do embrace, in
the book, a fairly strong
00:03:18
version of moral intuitionist
theory. - Right. - Of how people work through puzzles of this sort.
Could you say a few words about
00:03:27
that? - Sure. - Of what moral
intuitionism is, and its implications for our capacity to change.
- That's right.
00:03:33
So a dominant thread in
the history of philosophy is rationalism, the idea that we
are or at least could be
00:03:40
reasoning creatures. And if we
can cultivate our reason, then we will rise above the fog of
emotions, see the truth, we can
00:03:47
talk to each other, and we will
find laden truth. And my book is a sustained argument against
that. I side very much with
00:03:54
David Hume, the 18th century
Scottish philosopher who said that reason is and ought only to
be the slave of the passions.
00:03:59
And so what I believe the
empirical evidence from psychology shows is that our
reasoning tends to be post hoc.
00:04:06
Our reasoning about moral issues
tends to be something we do after we already know which way
we want to go. And we send our
00:04:12
reasoning out like a press
secretary. The President says the press secretary to say,
"Justify this position." He
00:04:18
doesn't say, "Go look at the
notes about how we came to this position and explain that to the
people." He says, "Justify this
00:04:24
position, using whatever
arguments you think would be most persuasive." And that's the
way our reasoning is. And this
00:04:30
is why we are so good at giving
each other reasons, but then the other person doesn't change
their mind. And we think, "Well,
00:04:35
they must not be sincere. I
mean, this is a great argument. Why aren't you changing your mind?"
The trick to changing people's
00:04:40
minds is to first get them
leaning your way. First, make them see a conclusion. Feel it.
Think about— think about Martin
00:04:49
Luther King's "I Have a Dream"
speech. It is a kind of argument, but it's an argument
couched in metaphors and soaring
00:04:54
rhetoric. It opens your heart
first, and then the metaphors can get in. And then you see the
logic of it. So I actually do
00:05:01
believe quite a lot in the
importance of reason for persuasion. Just, it has to be
reason that follows intuition,
00:05:07
not excludes it. So if you were President of the
United States right now, what would you do to encourage more
civil dialogue between liberals
00:05:21
and conservatives, that the
current president United States is not doing? The number one top priority for
this country is political
00:05:29
reform, to get our political
institutions working better. Everyone agrees that Congress
has gotten much, much more
00:05:36
polarized since the 1980s. There
are a lot of reasons for that. The people have gotten a little
more polarized. There's plenty
00:05:42
that we could do as citizens.
But the real problem is the dynamics of one institution in
particular, the US Congress. So
00:05:50
there's a group called No
labels.org, which has a great set of solutions. We all know
that we need campaign finance
00:05:56
reform, we need electoral
reform, these things are going to take 10 or 20 years if we
ever get them at all. They have
00:06:01
some simple fixes, the most
important which is change the legislative calendar back the
way it was before Newt Gingrich,
00:06:07
which is, Washington is in
session for five days a week. And then it's off for one week
a month. When Newt Gingrich came
00:06:16
in, he told the incoming
freshmen, "Don't move to Washington." Prior to then, they
all lived in Washington. They
00:06:22
served on committees together on
school boards, or their wives or spouses did. They knew each
other. They knew each other's
00:06:29
kids. They had personal
relationships. Now, think about it. Politicians, what do they excel
at? They're warm, incredibly,
00:06:38
socially-skilled people. That's
how they got into this business. They're able to make deals with
each other. That's— that's their
00:06:45
great skill. And you take an
institution that—that has trouble as it is, that has all
these divided powers as it is.
00:06:52
And then you say, "How about
let's separate the two sides, they no longer know each other,
no friendships, they don't ride
00:06:58
on the same little buses under—
little train cars underneath the Capitol anymore, there's
separate— separate cars for
00:07:02
each. Let's end all personal
relationships, and now have them work out difficult issues." It
can't be done. So that's where
00:07:08
we are. So there are a lot of
simple fixes to Congress that would go a long way towards
basically getting it to work
00:07:13
better. And if Congress wasn't
so polarized, that would— that would dampen down the messages
out through all the polarized
00:07:19
media, that we all have to hate
each other and that the other side is going to destroy the
country. - So
00:07:25
John, at the end of chapter four
of your book, you write that no one has ever invented a new
business ethics class that has
00:07:33
demonstrably changed the
behavior of the students after the classroom experience. And
now at NYU Stern, you have begun
00:07:40
teaching business ethics. Why? Well, yes, they— because they
asked me to, and I couldn't say
00:07:48
no. And because I made it sound
kind of hopeless in the book. And I stand by that, that a
single standalone course,
00:07:57
meeting twice a week for a
semester, can't put ethics into people's heads so that when
they go out into the work world,
00:08:06
and they're faced with
requirements or pressures to do something, falsify something,
hide some information from a
00:08:11
customer, they're gonna remember
their ethics classes and say, "Oh, but
00:08:15
this is wrong." There's no
evidence that that can happen. The evidence in social
psychology about the power of
00:08:21
simple situational pressures is
so overwhelming that I don't think an ethics class can really
do that much. What I'm hoping we
00:08:29
can do at Stern is— is make the
class just a part of a two-year process in which we are
socializing them into
00:08:38
professionalism. What does it
mean to be a business professional? When they first
show up at Stern, like students
00:08:44
all over the country at every
school, there's a period of openness where everyone's trying to
figure out, "How should I be?
00:08:49
What's cool? What's the right
way to, you know— what's the way to be successful here?" We teach
our ethics class in the middle
00:08:55
of the second year. It's way too
late. They already know how to be a Stern student. And so
what we're trying to do is get a
00:09:02
lot more of the content into the
very first week, move the intensive class into other parts
of the first year, and then get
00:09:08
some of the content in every
single class, where there— where we'll discuss norms of
professionalism. But even more
00:09:14
important than that, because I
think that we're so limited in our ability to behave ethically
in the face of situational
00:09:20
pressures, I want to teach our
students how to do ethical systems design. How to take all
the flaws and weirdnesses of
00:09:28
human nature and work with them
to design organizations, startup companies, where people are
always concerned about the
00:09:36
reputation. People are concerned
about reputation even more than money, in most cases. How can we
set things up so that people
00:09:43
will, in a sense, guard the
reputation by doing the right thing? That's the most important
single principle.
00:09:50
So did these liberal-conservative
differences that are so pronounced in the political
sphere manifest themselves in
00:09:57
the domain of business ethics?
Are there some aspects of ethics that are trans-ideological and
other aspects that— that polarize
00:10:03
people just as political issues
do? - Yes, the core issues of business
ethics— again, I'm new at this.
00:10:08
But from what I'm picking up,
some of the core issues are things like fiduciary duty. You
have an obligation to people who
00:10:13
are hiring you to do a job, to
fulfill a contract, to put their interests first. I don't see any
partisan difference there. Other
00:10:21
issues, like corporate social
responsibility, are clearly partisan issues. One of the
hottest topics in business
00:10:26
ethics is how can we get
companies to honor or maximize the triple bottom line, not just
the financial bottom line, but
00:10:33
also social benefit and
ecological benefit? Obviously, this is going to appeal to
students on the left and not on
00:10:40
the right. Let's see. I don't
know of issues that would appeal more to students on the right.
Conservatives tend to focus more
00:10:48
on personal responsibility.
Liberals tend to focus more on victims and the poor. But the
core of the course seems to
00:10:56
be non ideological. So the Friedmanite
libertarians, for example, tend to view any deviation from
fiduciary responsibility to
00:11:08
shareholders as a form of theft.
- That's right. - De facto theft. That's— that's strong position. Is that—
have you come across that
00:11:21
position? And—
- Oh, yeah, I do. Yes, I read— I read the article where
Friedman lays that out, it's a
00:11:25
very persuasive case. And I
think if we truly had efficient markets, in which there were no
externalities, in which there
00:11:33
was no despoiling of public
goods, in which there was perfect information, and people
weren't allowed to deceive and
00:11:40
cheat, then I think the Friedman
argument would work. And I believe Friedman was very aware
of that and— and wasn't saying,
00:11:47
"Oh, just maximize shareholder
value, no matter what the situation." If we had— if we had
such good markets, where
00:11:54
companies couldn't be foisting
costs onto unsuspecting victims, then I think there would be a
lot to be said for it. But we
00:12:01
don't have such a — such a— such a
system. Government regulation is necessary for— to achieve
much of that. And that's what
00:12:09
things are so polarized about.
What's the role of government? Is it, do you have a maximal view in
which government has to strain—
00:12:14
restrain the corporations? Or
do you have a minimal view, in which government is the problem,
and the more we can shrink it
00:12:18
down, the freer business will be
to create value. You don't see very many
companies, though, overtly
00:12:24
endorsing the Friedmanite
position. Virtually all companies I've come across seem
to endorse some form of CSR,
00:12:30
corporate social responsibility.
Has that been your experience also? I mean— - Well, you know.
- Putting— TJ Rodgers and so forth.
00:12:35
You know, but most people are in favor of
motherhood and apple pie. I mean, they have to say
something. There's no cost to
00:12:41
saying it. I would want to know
how much they put in the way of resources towards backing that
up. And I'd be surprised if it
00:12:48
was uniformly the case that— or
overwhelmingly the case— that companies are sincerely
committed to CSR.
00:12:53
Okay. So let's— let's circle
back to the press secretary metaphor that you use earlier,
when you were describing moral
00:12:59
intuitionism. Are you able to
distinguish what fraction of the embrace of corporate social
responsibility is purely press
00:13:09
secretary posturing, as opposed
to a genuine internalization of a moral priority?
00:13:15
I can't. I don't know how to do
that. The main thought I've had so far in my one year in the
business world, and at the Stern
00:13:23
School of Business, is that
whatever you want to say about business, it varies a lot by
sector. So a company like Nike,
00:13:30
or Starbucks, or Google, which
greatly prizes its reputation with consumers, and has a
tremendous cachet because of
00:13:38
that reputation. Those companies
are really susceptible to boycotts, public criticism. They
care about the reputations. And
00:13:46
so I think they do— especially
when their feet are held to the fire— they really do make a
sincere commitment to corporate
00:13:51
social responsibility. Companies
that don't face consumers— so, just from reading Michael
Pollan's book <i>The Omnivore's</i>
00:13:57
<i>Dilemma</i>, the big agribusiness
companies. You know, Archer Daniels Midland and the other
ones that, people don't even know
00:14:07
their names. So I would be very
surprised if they took corporate social responsibility seriously.
There's not much economic
00:14:13
incentive for them to do it. So again, cycling back to the
press secretary metaphor, which
00:14:18
is really an intriguing one.
You've got the President of the United States, and you have— you have
his press secretary, and the
00:14:25
press secretary is there to
explain and defend what the President does. He's not a
policymaker, per se. He's a
00:14:31
secondary justification
function. And that's— that's quite explicit. So— but yet
you're optimistic about attitude
00:14:40
change within a moral
intuitionist framework. It would be as though the press secretary
were telling the President what
00:14:46
to do, as opposed to the
president telling the press secretary what to do. So if you look at it just as an
individual, we are all so
00:14:53
flawed. We're all such— so bad at
reasoning when our interests or our moral values are at stake. So
we're not going to get better
00:15:01
reasoning and change just by
helping individuals to reason better. But when you put us
together into networks and
00:15:08
systems and companies and juries
and— and legislative bodies, that— we can correct each other's
flawed thinking. Basically, the
00:15:15
big problem is the confirmation
bias. We're all so good at confirming what we want to
believe. But if there are other
00:15:20
people out there to disconfirm
it, if we have no relationship with them, we just hate them and
disagree with them. But if
00:15:26
they're members of our company,
if they're friends, if they're fellow scientists— this is why
it's so important to have
00:15:31
ideological diversity in the
sciences. Because if everybody shares certain assumptions, and
there's nobody there to question
00:15:37
them, then yeah, you get bad
reasoning. So I'm a big fan of thinking about institutions as
ways that we've developed to put
00:15:45
people together in ways that
correct for or cancel out our flaws. We see plenty of moral
change over time. It's not
00:15:52
because of logic, I think. If
you look at, for example, civil rights, interracial marriage,
these were disgusting to many
00:16:01
people in America 50 years ago.
But over time, the attitudes change. It's not because of
arguments. It's because you get
00:16:07
used to it. There's a lot of
research now on gay marriage. Why is gay marriage— why are
attitudes about gay marriage
00:16:13
changing so fast? It's not
because the arguments that were made back in the '80s, suddenly,
people understood. "Oh, I see."
00:16:20
It's because people saw <i>Will and Grace</i>.
It's because in the '80s,
00:16:24
most gay people are in the closet.
But since 5% of all people are gay, and now they're mostly out
of the closet, suddenly,
00:16:29
everybody knows seven gay people
and a lot have one in their family. When you get used to
something, you — it loses its
00:16:35
shock value, it loses disgust
value, and now you're just much more open. So moral progress is
possible. And if you take an
00:16:42
intuitionist view about how you've
got to get the intuitions, right first, you've got to speak
to the elephant as it were, not
00:16:47
the rider. Speak the elephant
first, get— get him going the right direction, then the rider
will come along. And that's
00:16:52
what's happening on gay
marriage. We might might have a problem
with mixing metaphors here.
00:16:56
We've got elephant and rider.
We've got President and press secretary, and I'm fixated on
President and press secretary at
00:17:01
the moment. But okay, so— so
the president might— the press secretary might come back to the
President and say, "I can't sell
00:17:09
this anymore. The
reputational cost to you, Mr. President is too great. You're going
to have to change. - That's right.
00:17:14
But that would be one feedback
mechanism. - That's right. - Or— - Exactly.
- Press secretary might quit.
00:17:20
- Yep. That's right. That happens. That's right. So
it's not— so when Hume said
00:17:24
reason is the slave of the
passions, that's too strong a metaphor. A slave doesn't talk
back to its master. That's why
00:17:30
I like press secretary or lawyer.
A lawyer does his client's bidding, but he can say, "Excuse
me, sir, I will do this, if you
00:17:36
insist. But this is a losing
case, and you will look bad, and it is my fiduciary duty to
advise you." So there are
00:17:42
feedback mechanisms like that.
And again, I think we're seeing that on— you know, on gay
marriage and other issues.
00:17:48
People— in certain social
circles, people would feel ridiculous arguing for things
that they could easily have
00:17:52
argued for 10 years ago. So, you obviously— your— your
book has been widely read and
00:17:59
widely praised. What's the
best critique you've seen of your— of your position?
00:18:08
Well, one critique is that I'm
pretty critical of liberals. And I'm not critical enough of
conservatives. And I think
00:18:16
that's true. When I wrote the
book, because I had been thinking so much about what
liberals don't see about
00:18:22
conservatives, that's sort of
what I specialized in. So I really tried to help liberal— and
no— and the only people I meet
00:18:27
are liberals. And the people
that mostly read these books are liberal. So I was kind of
addressing liberals. And I
00:18:33
should have said some of the
things where I think conservatives are wrong. One of
the main ones is that while
00:18:41
liberals, I think are too quick
to try to take apart the law of karma, liberals kind of want to
stop bad behavior from leading
00:18:49
to bad consequences. And that's
a bad thing to do. Society decays when you don't have swift
punishment. But conservatives
00:18:55
act as though the law of karma
is actually true. That is, people who are suffering now are
suffering because of something
00:19:01
they did in the past. And that
is sometimes true. Liberals have a complete ban on blaming the
victim, which means they can't
00:19:07
figure out a lot of— a lot of
social facts. But conservatives I think are a little too quick to
blame victims, and to not see
00:19:14
how a disadvantage can
accumulate and lead to a downward spiral. So I do wish I
had been more even-handed in my
00:19:21
criticism and praise of both
sides. I do praise both sides. So the concept of deservingness
is a— plays a pivotal role here in—
00:19:28
- Absolutely. -— in producing ideological
divergence. And you're suggesting that conservatives
believe too much in the concept
00:19:39
of deservingness and liberals
not enough? Or— -Deservingness going forward—
- Split the difference? - No. Deservingness
00:19:45
going forward is— is a great
idea. A lot of people realize this, as I did, when you become a
parent. You know, of course, I
00:19:51
will never spank my child. But
you want to be loving and gentle. And you discover that
you get a bratty kid. And what my
00:20:00
wife and I found very quickly
was when we use the 1-2-3 magic method, which is when he's
misbehaving, you say that's one,
00:20:06
that's two, that's three,
timeout. Automatic, quick, rapid punishment— doesn't have to be
severe. Rapid punishment, boy do
00:20:13
you get behavior change. And a
lot of our liberal friends are trying to reason with the kids.
They don't want to impose power,
00:20:19
they don't want to punish, they
said, "Was that a wise choice or an unwise choice?" So I think
over and over again,
00:20:26
conservatives stand up for
equity. That is, if you do something bad, you should be
punished. If you do something
00:20:31
good, you should be rewarded. In
fact, I show some signs in the book and in my talks, a sign from
the Tea Party, "Stop punishing
00:20:39
success, stop rewarding failure."
That's about as direct a plea for the law of karma as you
could have. Conservatives— I'm sorry.
00:20:47
Liberals, in contrast— I have a
sign, "Tax the wealthy, fair and square. How can they let us go
hungry?" See, if there are people
00:20:54
who are hungry, well, then, of
course, the rich should pay more taxes, we need to be equal." So
liberals value equality. And if
00:21:01
you push for equality, that
often requires you to violate equity. And we see that in
affirmative action, we see that
00:21:07
in Title Nine, which mandates
almost equal outcomes in sports, so that all of our schools are
desperate to try to get women
00:21:14
into sports, and they're trying
to push men out. They don't have enough money to pay for the men.
So we don't have equal
00:21:18
access to sports in a lot of our
schools, because Title Nine is an effort to get equality of
outcomes. Conservatives are
00:21:23
livid about that. And liberals
think, "Oh, well, why isn't there equality of outcome? It must
still be sexism."
00:21:29
So you're able to weave together
these conflicting strands of argument in a very sophisticated,
integratively complex way. How—
00:21:37
but most people don't think that
way. Right? If you're a partisan, then you
cannot think that way. The press
00:21:44
secretary tends not to say,
"Well, on the one hand, the Republicans are right about
this, but the Democrats are
00:21:49
right about that." If he does
that, he's fired. So if you're partisan, you cannot think in an
integrative— that's what your
00:21:56
research shows. The further you
are out to the extremes, the lower integrative complexity
tends to go on most issues. And
00:22:04
most Americans are not that
extreme. Most Americans will put themselves on one side or the
other. But they're not that
00:22:09
extreme. Our political life is
dominated by more extreme elements, bolstered by the
media, which has a business
00:22:15
model that also does not cater
to integrative complexity. So we're bathed in arguments from
people who are not integratively
00:22:22
complex. I think it takes some
doing, some seeking, some effort to find ideas on— on the other
side. And when you do, I mean,
00:22:30
that, to me, has been the great
enlightenment. I'm very familiar with liberal ideas. I've been
reading them my whole life. When
00:22:36
I started reading conservative
ideas about social order, about the value of tradition, about how
easy to to lose social order,
00:22:44
they really struck me as a
revelation. And same with libertarian ideas. For example,
here's— this is such a simple
00:22:50
formulation I heard the other
day. Libertarian philosopher David Schmitz said, "A free
market society is a giant game
00:22:57
in which you win by making other
people better off." And that was such a simple and clear
description of the way
00:23:05
libertarians see the free market,
and how basically, free markets really do encourage us all to
create something that other
00:23:10
people want and will pay money
for. And then we're all better off because of it.
00:23:14
So insofar as you believe the
country would be better off, we'd be better off both as
individuals and as a society if
00:23:20
more people could think in these
more integratively complex ways. What specific things can be done
educationally and politically
00:23:31
to induce that so you get— get—
get people to socialize more with each other in Congress is
one thing. You've had other
00:23:37
other suggestions? Could we— I
think, as we conclude, it would be useful to work through the
most specific suggestions you
00:23:44
have for how do we can get out
of this quicksand. Let's look at, what can we do as
individuals and in education.
00:23:52
There's a line from one
Shakespeare play, "First kill all the lawyers." That's not what I'm
recommending. It's first kill
00:23:57
all the math classes beyond
algebra. Stop wasting so much of our students' time learning math.
It's not useful, it's not
00:24:03
helpful. Teach them more civics,
and in those civics classes, teach them the history of
liberalism, conservatism, teach
00:24:10
them ideological history, make
the— get them prepared to treat these long idea— long
intellectual traditions with
00:24:16
respect. Second, teach some
statistics. Cut the calculus. I mean, sure, if students want to
take it, fine. But everybody
00:24:24
should learn statistics. That
actually helps you understand the data that's coming in from
the social sciences and other
00:24:29
places. So even in high school,
we can do a lot more to prepare our students for citizenship,
not for 19th century notions of
00:24:36
an exercised brain that can do
math and Greek. In our universities, it would be nice
if we could have more open,
00:24:44
honest debate, and be a little
less sensitive about people claiming hurt feelings. I think
our universities should be
00:24:50
places of debate and discussion.
And our culture is so litigious and has fostered the
idea that everybody has a right
00:24:57
to not have their feelings hurt.
This is a bad thing. This means we never get to talk with people
who differ from us, we run away
00:25:03
from such discussions. So
there's a lot we could do to help our thinking. But I don't
think we— we don't need to all
00:25:11
become more integratively
complex to get better outcomes. Our political institutions could
put together simple-minded
00:25:17
thinkers in ways that get
integrated with complex outcomes, as long as they don't
demonize. So that to me is the
00:25:23
key. I'm not out to change
people's minds and move everybody to the center. I'm out to make
people stop demonizing the other
00:25:29
side. To say, "I disagree with
you." You know, "You and I disagree about the right way to
help the poor," or whatever the
00:25:35
issue is, or the environment.
"But I see that you have ideas that draw on certain— your side
is sensitive to certain threats
00:25:46
that my side doesn't see
very well." So I would urge— urge viewers to go to Asteroids
club.org, the website I started, that
00:25:55
helps people see that each side
perceives asteroids coming towards the Earth that the other
side just has its head in the
00:26:00
sand, it won't even acknowledge.
So I think there is a lot that we can do to stop demonizing,
and come to at least respect our
00:26:08
intellectual differences.
- Thank you. Thank you so much, John,
for joining us. The book is <i>The</i>
00:26:13
<i>Righteous Mind: Why Good People
are Divided By Politics and</i> <i>Religion</i>. It's been great
talking with you and
00:26:20
we wish you well. Thanks so much, Phil.