Jonathan Haidt

ix
Source: Taft School

Summary

Jonathan Haidt (pronounced “height”) is a social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1992.

Haidt’s research examines the intuitive foundations of morality, and how morality varies across cultural and political divisions. Haidt is the author of The Happiness Hypothesis (2006) and of the New York Times bestsellers The Righteous Mind (2012) and The Coddling of the American Mind (2018, with Greg Lukianoff). He has given four TED talks. In 2019 he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Since 2018 he has been studying the contributions of social media to the decline of teen mental health and the rise of political dysfunction. His most recent book is the New York Times #1 bestseller The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.

OnAir Post: Jonathan Haidt

News

How to Save TikTok — and Fix the Internet Too
Politico, Project LibertyMay 15, 2025

Project Liberty is an organization building solutions that help people take back control of their digital lives by reclaiming a voice, choice and stake in a better internet.

Today marks one year since Project Liberty announced The People’s Bid for TikTok, a broad consortium of technologists, investors, community leaders, parents and creators working together to acquire TikTok’s U.S. operations, without its algorithm. A reimagined TikTok would rely on a cutting-edge decentralized infrastructure that keeps an individual’s data secure and gives people complete control over their digital lives.

Last year, when the federal government mandated that parent-company ByteDance divest TikTok’s U.S. operations or face a ban, Project Liberty saw a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help Americans reclaim a voice, choice and stake in the future of the web. We set out to acquire TikTok to reimagine the app and the internet more broadly as a beacon of data empowerment and digital sovereignty.

TikTok, with its 170 million American users, is a microcosm of the modern internet. Its invasive data collection practices don’t just present a pressing national security risk to the U.S.; they also power toxic and addictive algorithms that, according to experts like social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, endanger our mental health and stunt our children’s social and emotional development.

About

Mission Statement

My mission is to conduct research on moral psychology and use those findings to help people understand each other, and to help important institutions work better. 

The institutions and systems I work on are:

  1. Universities: I co-founded HeterodoxAcademy.org, I co-wrote The Coddling of the American Mind, and I serve on the advisory board of the University of Austin.
  2. Corporations: I founded EthicalSystems.org, I will be writing a book on capitalism and morality, and I serve on the advisory board of Acumen fund.
  3. Liberal democracy: I co-founded The Constructive Dialogue Institute (formerly OpenMind), I wrote The Righteous Mind, I wrote an essay on How nationalism beats globalism, I’m writing a book titled Life After Babel, and I serve on the board of BraverAngels.org and the advisory board of Persuasion.
  4. Schools and families that are overprotecting kids: I co-wrote The Coddling of the American Mind, I co-founded LetGrow.org and serve on its board, and I’m currently writing The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.
  5. Social Media: I am active in the community of researchers who are studying the transformative effects of social media on adolescent mental health, and on liberal democracy. We are searching for reforms and norms that will create better social media. I am writing a book titled The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. 

 

Source: Personal Website

Contact

Email: Chief of Staff

Web Links

Videos

Move Fast and Fix Things: How We Can and Why We Must Build a Better Internet

June 29, 2022 (46:41)
By: The Aspen Institute

The internet has brought an explosion of new ideas, possibilities, and progress. But as the Web has evolved, extractive and predatory models have become dominant, shifting the internet’s awesome power from people to major platforms. Algorithms and financial models behind these platforms have fueled polarization, incentivized the spread of misinformation, eroded democratic institutions, and stretched social fabric to the brink.

At the heart of this is social media, which has transformed how we connect, consume and share information, and create community. With the dawn of Web3 and a new internet era on the horizon, we have a unique opportunity to build the digital infrastructure needed to restore trust and support a stronger democracy, fairer economy, and more just society.

This conversation was part of the 2022 Aspen Ideas Festival.

Speakers: Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership, New York University Stern School of Business

Frank McCourt, CEO, McCourt Global; Founder, Project Liberty

Now in its 18th year, the Aspen Ideas Festival is the Aspen Institute’s signature summer public event. Among the key themes explored at this year’s festival are conversations around the concepts of Heat, Power, Connection, Trust, Money, and Beauty.

From June 25-July 1, 2022 more than 300 leaders and innovators gather in the Rocky Mountains to engage in deep and inquisitive discussion of the issues that shape our lives and challenge our times, spanning politics, business, science, the arts, education, and more. #AspenIdeas

For more information about the Aspen Ideas Festival, visit https://www.aspenideas.org

Research

Moral Judgement

Source: Personal Website

All of my research is ultimately about morality. I study how people come to know what is right and wrong, how this knowledge is based in emotions and intuitions, and how morality varies across cultures. At the heart of my research is the “Social Intuitionist Model,” which lays out an account of how moral reasoning and moral emotions work together to produce moral judgments. In brief, the model says that moral judgments are like aesthetic judgments — we make them quickly and intuitively. We know what is right and wrong in much the same way we know what is beautiful. When called on to explain ourselves we make up reasons after the fact. Moral reasoning does affect judgment, but this happens primarily in between people, as they talk, gossip, and argue (hence the “social” part of the model).

The Social Intuitionist Model has been extended into “Moral Foundations Theory,” an account of how a small set of innate psychological systems form the foundation of “intuitive ethics,” but each culture constructs its own sets of virtues on top of these foundations. The current American culture war can be seen as arising from the fact that progressives try to create a morality using primarily the Care foundation, along with Fairness (as equality) and Liberty (related mostly to identity issues). Conservatives, especially social conservatives, use all of the modules, including Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Plus, they see Fairness as referring to proportionality, not to equality of outcomes. (The theory owes a great deal to Richard Shweder‘s account of the “Big 3″ moral ethics: Autonomy, Community, and Divinity).  I strive for a complete explanation of morality, including its evolutionary origins, brain basis, development within cultural context, and cognitive mechanisms. I have been particularly interested in moral judgments about harmless yet offensive situations, often involving sexuality or food taboos, for these topics allow us to see moral judgments that cannot be said to be about protecting innocent victims.

For a full account of my research on moral psychology, please read The Righteous Mind, or visit RighteousMind.com

For information about Moral Foundations Theory, including scales to measure people’s endorsement of the five foundations, please visit www.moralfoundations.org.

To participate in research on moral psychology and to see how you score on the moral foundations, please visit www.yourmorals.org.

Capitalism and Morality

Source: Personal Website

Soon after I moved to NYU-Stern, in July 2011, Occupy Wall Street broke out. Suddenly the whole world was debating the ethics of capitalism. And they were doing it using the three principles of moral psychology: 1) Intuitions come first (even economists could be seen engaging in constant post hoc justification), 2) Use of different moral foundations (Care and fairness-as-equality on the left; Liberty and fairness-as-proportionality on the right), and 3) morality binds and blinds (political parties and movements were coalescing around pro- or anti-capitalist leaders and ideas). The arguments about economics, public policy, and capitalism itself were often weak arguments, and not just in the USA. Europe was torn between pro- vs. anti-austerity movements. East Asian democracies were growing increasingly polarized along a left-right axis, with the right being the pro-business side.

I therefore decided that my next book would be a sequel to The Righteous Mind, only now applied to economic matters: Three Stories about Capitalism: The Moral Psychology of Economic Life. (See outline of it here).

What I’m trying to do:

My goal is to depolarize capitalism — to help people all over the world think clearly about capitalism and economics, whatever their politics. If people in democratic societies can think more calmly and flexibly about capitalism, business, and economics, they will be less prone to persuasion by demagogues (or merely by their partisan friends). And if economic conversations become less polarized and more pragmatic, economic policies will get better and prosperity will rise. There is no one right form of capitalism, no form that is ideal for all countries. But there are many bad forms, many bad ideas that can doom countries to a downward spiral (just compare Argentina and Venezuela to Singapore and Sweden).

Below you can find the essays and talks I have given as I do research and develop ideas for the book. You might also want to visit my page on Business Ethics.

Here are my essays on capitalism

Here are the major lectures I’ve given on capitalism:

  • Zurich Minds (2014): Three Stories about Capitalism

 

  • Here is a blog post drawing out the main points of the talk: Increasing dynamism and decency.
    • You can also see the “two stories” videos separately here:
    • Story 1: Capitalism is exploitation
    • Story 2: Capitalism is liberation

 

  • At Aspen Ideas festival (2015), on the big picture of capitalism, and why ethics pays.
    • Here are two blog posts explaining the key ideas in the talk:
      • Buddha makes the business case for ethics, and 2) Ethical Systems Design can reduce income inequality.
      • Ethical Systems Design can reduce income inequality.
  • Here is a lecture on Capitalism I gave in Korea in 2015, on EBS, with Korean subtitles:

 

 

Politics, Polarization, and Populism

Source: Personal Website

My colleagues and I developed Moral Foundations Theory to understand differences between cultures, but early on we noticed that it was helpful for understanding the different moral “matrices” of left and right within each nation. You can see our empirical and theoretical publications here. Our main academic review paper is here.

As political polarization increased rapidly in the USA during the Bush and Obama years, I turned my attention from basic research to applied, asking: How can moral psychology help us understand the forces making American democracy so dysfunctional? And how can moral psychology help citizens understand each other across the political divide? Those were my two main goals in The Righteous Mind.

While writing that book I stepped out of the progressive moral matrix I had lived in since high school and became a committed centrist: I came to believe that each side, each political movement, understands some social processes and moral truths very well, but goes blind to others. I came to believe that partisanship of any kind causes motivated reasoning in social scientists, just as in all other human beings. I began to grow concerned about the quality of social science research, given the increasing homogeneity of political beliefs in all social sciences (with the exception of economics, in which the Democrat-to-Republican ratio is merely 4 to 1).

I co-founded several projects to apply moral psychology, including CivilPolitics.org (with Ravi Iyer and Matt Motyl) and AsteroidsClub.org (with Liz Joyner). See also the report of the AEI-Brookings Working Group on Poverty and Opportunity, which provides a model for doing evidence-based public policy in a politically polarized time.

I was working on these problems for several years when the rate of change began accelerating in 2015. There were moral meltdowns on university campuses and populist rebellions across Europe and the USA. Faith in Democracy is waning rapidly. Illiberal movements on the right (such as the Alt-right) and the left (such as identity politics and “safety culture“) are gaining strength and ramping each other up, hyper-activating  the tribal psychology that I described in The Righteous Mind. I am extremely alarmed. Peaceful and open multi-ethnic democracies are wondrous creations, given our tribal heritage, and two bands of arsonists (the extremists) are flinging matches at them all across the Western world, while the more reasonable majorities on each side just point their finger at the extremists on the other side, and everyone is immersed in a river of outrage-inducing news, not all of it real (for left or right), courtesy of social media and its mobocratic algorithms.

So this is what I’m working on in 2016 and 2017: 1) repairing the intellectual climate in universities via the collaboration at HeterodoxAcademy.org, 2) writing a book on capitalism, morality, and democracy, 3) using moral psychology to improve business ethics, and 4) writing a book with Greg Lukianoff on how universities came to teach bad thinking, which is making education, workplaces, and democracy so much more dysfunctional.

My major essays and talks on political psychology, polarization, and populism

If you are interested in current events and want to read or watch just one or two things, choose from among those preceded by **

  • On Populism and Nationalism — How and why they are shaking the world now

In 2015 and 2016 I wrote a series of 3 essays that tell a coherent and cumulative story about how capitalism set in motion a series of economic and psychological changes that led to today’s battle between “globalists” and “nationalists.” It is not a coincidence that similar conflicts are playing out in diverse nations.

  1. How Capitalism Changes Conscience (Center for Humans and Nature, 2015)
  2.  ** When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism (The American Interest, July 2016)
  3.  The ethics of globalism, nationalism, and patriotism (Sept. 2016)
  4. Donald Trump supporters think about morality differently than other voters. Here’s how. (Vox, with Emily Ekins, Feb. 2016). An analysis of the moral foundations of voters in the US Presidential primaries.
  5. Audio of my conversation with Nick Clegg, “The rise of populism and the backlash against the elites”. At Intelligence Squared, London, Nov. 2016.
  • On the causes of dysfunction and rising polarization in American politics
    1. ** The top 10 reasons American politics is so broken (Washington Post, with Sam Abrams, Jan. 2015)
    2. Keynote address to American Psychological Association, on political polarization, incivility, and intolerance (August 2016)

 

  • On how to forgive, co-exist, and get along despite political polarization and animosity
    1. We need a little fear. (New York Times, Nov. 2012). My attempt to encourage cross partisan understanding in the wake of the 2012 Presidential election. The “asteroids” idea presented there led to…
    2. TED talk: How common threats can make common (political) ground (December, 2012)
    3. ** How to get beyond our tribal politics. (Wall Street Journal, Nov. 2016)
    4. ** TED conversation with Chris Anderson:”Can a divided America heal?” (November 2016)

 

  • On political polarization and rising illiberalism in American universities
  • Here are some other lectures I’ve given on political psychology and polarization:

Viewpoint Diversity in the Academy

Source: Personal Website

Truth is a process, not just an end-state. The Righteous Mind was about the obstacles to that process, such as confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, tribalism, and the worship of sacred values. Given the many ways that our moral psychology warps our reasoning, it’s a wonder we’ve gotten as far as we have, as a species. That’s what’s so brilliant about science: it is a way of putting people together so that they challenge each other and cancel out each others’ confirmation biases and tribal commitments. The truth emerges from the interaction of flawed individuals.

But something has happened to the academy since the 1990s. As the graph below shows, it has been transformed from an institution that leans to the left, which is not a big problem, into an institution that now has very little political diversity, which can be a big problem in some disciplines.

Nowadays there are no conservatives or libertarians in most academic departments in the humanities and social sciences. (See Langbert, Quain, & Klein, 2016 for more recent findings on research universities; and see Langbert 2018 for similar findings in liberal arts colleges.) When everyone shares the same politics and prejudices, the disconfirmation process breaks down. Political orthodoxy is particularly dangerous for the social sciences, which grapple with so many controversial topics (such as gender, race, poverty, inequality, immigration, and politics). America needs innovative and trustworthy research on all these topics, but can a social science that lacks viewpoint diversity produce reliable findings?

What I am trying to do

I am a non-partisan centrist, and I am very concerned about the loss of viewpoint diversity in the academy. I believe the problem is amplified by the rising political polarization of the United States more generally. I therefore teamed up with two dozen professors in psychology and other disciplines to create the site HeterodoxAcademy.org. Our goal is to make the case, consistently and forcefully, that the academy must increase viewpoint diversity in order to function effectively. We launched the site in September 2015.

  • If you want to understand the cultural transformation that has occurred at American universities since the 1990s  here is a list of my writings on the subject, augmented by some of the best essays by others:
    • The Coddling of the American Mind (2015, With Greg Lukianoff, in The Atlantic). This essay gives an overview of the new culture spreading across universities, in which a subset of students demand “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” and administrative mechanisms for cataloguing and punishing “micro-aggresssions.” We explain where this culture came from and why it is bad for the students’ own mental health, as well as being devastating to the free exchange of ideas upon which the pursuit of truth depends. In 2017 I followed up this line of argument in an essay co-written with Lenore Skenazy that showed how paranoid parenting and the loss of unsupervised play in childhood has created a fragile generation of kids that is receptive to the new safety culture. We show how this new culture may be making kids “too safe to succeed”.
    • Where microaggressions really come from. (2015) This is my summary of an extraordinary essay by sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning. They show how a new “culture of victimhood” is emerging on America’s most progressive college campuses in which the main paths to gaining prestige are either to advertise one’s victimhood or to attack others in the name of defending victims. This culture weakens students and guarantees unending strife.
    • True diversity requires generosity of spirit (2015). This is a case study of one of the most egregious witch-hunts so far — the persecution of dean Spellman at Claremont McKenna, for the crime of writing a helpful email with one ambiguous word. I say why current diversity approaches should be reconfigured around the principle of charity — we must give each other the benefit of the doubt if we are to reap the benefits of diversity.
    • How Marcuse made today’s students less tolerant than their parents (2015). by April Kelly-Woessner. Describes the resurgence of influence of Herbert Marcuse, who argued in the 1960s that true “liberating” tolerance requires suppressing all non-progressive voices. Kelly-Woessner shows the big split in American opinion on matters of free speech: Millennials embrace Marcusian ideals much more than did previous generations, and it is this moralistic illiberalism that leads to the witch-hunts and ultimatums that are sweeping across American college campuses since Halloween 2015. (Two months after Kelly-Woessner posted the essay, Pew research published strong confirmation of her argument: 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities).
    • The Yale problem begins in high school (2015). This is a report of a strange experience that happened to me when I gave a talk at a progressive private high school. I came to see that “the Yale problem” — the angry demands for changes that will make future generations even angrier — has its roots in high school. Many students at elite schools are learning to judge ideas not by their content but by the “privilege” or victimhood of the speaker. They arrive at Yale (and other colleges) unready to participate in a marketplace of ideas because they want adult authorities to ban many sellers from the marketplace before they deem it safe to enter. (This mentality is not found in most students, but those that hold it tend to have outsized influence on administrators who want to avoid controversy.)
    • How concept creep is closing down minds (2016). This is an essay I wrote with Nick Haslam in The Guardian (UK) explaining Haslam’s academic paper on “concept creep.” The campus trend to lower the bar on concepts useful for extending victimhood culture (e.g., bullying & trauma) may end up making students more fragile and depriving them of challenges to their favored ideas. For a condensed version of Haslam’s paper click here.
    • How concept creep is closing down minds (2016). This is an essay I wrote with Nick Haslam in The Guardian (UK) explaining Haslam’s academic paper on “concept creep.” The campus trend to lower the bar on concepts useful for extending victimhood culture (e.g., bullying & trauma) may end up making students more fragile and depriving them of challenges to their favored ideas. For a condensed version of Haslam’s paper click here.
    • Intimidation is the new normal on campus. In 2017, in the wake of the election of Donald Trump, passions grew stronger and we began to see actual physical violence on campus as a response to speakers deemed unacceptable. The violence at UC Berkeley and at Middlebury was a wakeup call to many professors, and we saw a sharp rise in applications to join Heterodox Academy. In this essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education I explored the causes and implications of these trends. Even though actual violence is still rare, the fact that a non-orthodox speaker might draw a protest crowd, and the protest crowd might contain members of antifa (including some students) means that anyone who challenges the political consensus on campus must now at least think about issues of physical safety and be worried if a crowd of students approaches. It gets worse. As physical intimidation from students on the political left was increasing ON campus, threats of violence from the political right OFF campus were becoming much more common too, with death threats and racist slurs aimed at professors who said something provocative (and sometimes outrageous) that got picked up and sometimes distorted by right-wing media. I explained the causes and consequences of this alarming new development in a blog post at HxA titled Professors must now fear intimidation from both sides.
    • Are words violence? The second most unfortunate trend on campus in 2017, after the rise of actual violence, was the rapid spread of the idea that words are violence (and therefore, violence to stop people from speaking is justified self defense). An op-ed in the New York Times, by a psychologist I like and admire, tried to ground this argument on neuroscience: words can cause stress, stress can cause physical damage, therefore words can be violence. I thought the essay made some logical errors (words can cause physical harm, but that doesn’t mean that they are violent) and some psychological errors (such as misunderstanding antifragility, and recommending policies that would make students more fragile). I showed why the op-ed was wrong and harmful (but not violent) in an essay in The Atlantic, with Greg Lukianoff: Why its a bad idea to tell students words are violence.
  • If you want to understand the changes that have occurred in the social sciences, and how the loss of viewpoint diversity can sometimes damage the validity of the research, here is my suggested reading list:
  • If you want to read criticisms of me and my colleagues at Heterodox Academy, here are the major ones. (It’s really strange… there are occasional slurs but hardly any arguments have been offered against us.)
  • If you want to DO something about the problem, and you teach or work at a university, college, or high school, consider assigning any of these resources to all students, in order to help them understand that truth is a process all-too-easily subverted by normal moral psychology:
  • Here are the major talks I have given on viewpoint diversity.
  • Here are some additional essays I have written on the topic:

Business Ethics

Source: Personal Website

After each wave of business scandals, some people say that the business schools must do a better job of teaching ethics. But is teaching ethics the best way to improve business ethics? In ch. 4 of The Righteous Mind I wrote:

Nobody is ever going to invent an ethics class that makes people behave ethically after they step out of the classroom. Classes are for riders, and riders are just going to use their new knowledge to serve their elephants more effectively. If you want to make people behave more ethically, there are two ways you can go. You can change the elephant, which takes a long time and is hard to do. Or, to borrow an idea from the book Switch, by Chip Heath and Dan Heath, you can change the path that the elephant and rider find themselves traveling on. You can make minor and inexpensive tweaks to the environment, which can produce big increases in ethical behavior.

A few months after I wrote those words, NYU-Stern hired me to teach its business ethics class. OK, that’s a little awkward, but I stand by my words. I certainly think it’s good for business students to take a course on business ethics, but I don’t think that one course will improve ethical behavior years later, when social forces in real work settings overwhelm whatever lessons students learned in class.

What I’m trying to do

If we really want to improve ethical behavior in business, we must grab the bull by the horns and change those social forces. That’s why I created the website EthicalSystems.org. It’s a collaboration among dozens of the leading researchers in organizational ethics. It’s an attempt to turn business ethics research into a rapidly advancing and cumulative enterprise. It’s “Nudge” for businesses, but it’s much more. Ethical Systems offers research-based advice on how to create an ethical culture, how to be an ethical leader, and much, much more. We are trying to support a long-term shift from the current and sometimes exclusive focus on “compliance” to a broader emphasis on ethics and ethical culture. (This is what compliance officers tell us they would like to do, and it is what William Dudley of the New York Fed called for in a major speech in 2014.) In 2017 our focus is on developing the best set of tools to measure the ethical culture of any organization. We’ll give them away for free. Our goal is to “make ethics easy.”

Below you can see my own writings and lectures on behavioral approaches to business ethics. You may also be interested in my page on Capitalism and Morality.

 

Social Media

For my most updated research, see anxiousgeneration.com.

The two questions I have been studying, along with my main writings for the general public:

1: Is social media a major contributor to the rise of adolescent anxiety and depression that began in the early 2010s?

2: Is social media causing an increase in political dysfunction?

  • Haidt, J. (2022). Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid. The Atlantic. This essay is my main statement. It gives a narrative overview of the case, drawing on the collaborative review below. It is a precis of the book I am now working on: Life After Babel: Adapting to a world we may never again share, due out in 2025.
  • Haidt, J. (2022). Yes, Social Media Really is Undermining Democracy, Despite What Meta Has to SayThe Atlantic. Meta responded to my “Uniquely Stupid” article, giving me a chance to respond to them and develop my argument further. I say what each of us can do as individuals, which I had neglected to address in the original essay.
  • Haidt, J., & Rose-Stockwell, T. (2019). The Dark Psychology of Social NetworksThe Atlantic. Tobias has deep knowledge of social media and the tech community. Combining his expertise with mine on moral psychology, we laid out exactly how the architectural changes made to Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms between 2009 and 2012 caused the social and political chaos of the late 2010s.
  • Haidt, J., & Bail, C. (ongoing). Social Media and Political Dysfunction: A Collaborative Review. This document collects and organizes more than a hundred published studies that address the question of whether social media is a major contributor to the rise of political dysfunction and the decline of democratic health that occurred in the USA and other Western democracies in the 2010s.
  • I am currently summarizing all of this work in a book titled Life After Babel: Adapting to a World We Can No Longer Share, which will be published in 2025.

Academic articles on social media and adolescent mental health:

  • Haidt, J. (2020). A guilty verdict. Nature, 578, 226-227. [Nature forum debate on social media and mental health, paired with Nicholas Allen].
  • Twenge, J. Haidt, J., Joiner, T., & Campbell, W. K. (2020). Underestimating digital media harm. Nature Human Behavior. [This is a response to Orben & Przybylski, 2019, who had reported that the association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use was no larger than the association of well-being with “eating potatoes.” We show that Orben and Przybylski made six analytical decisions that resulted in lower correlations, and that when you zoom in on social media for girls, and only control for demographic variables, not psychological ones, the associations are much stronger.]
  • Twenge, J., Blake, A. B., Haidt, J., & Campbell, W. K. (2020). Commentary: Screens, teens, and psychological well-being: Evidence from three time-use-diary studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 181. [This is our response to a different article by Orben & Przybylski (2019), on diary studies. We show, once again, that when you zoom in on girls using social media, rather than all kids using all screens, you find substantial associations with bad mental health outcomes.]
  • Twenge, J., Haidt, J., Blake, A. B., McAllister, C., Lemon, H., & Le Roy, A. (2021). Worldwide increases in adolescent loneliness. Journal of Adolescence [We found the only global measure of adolescent mental health, buried in the PISA dataset on educational outcomes. When you look at the 6 questions related to loneliness at school, you find a global increase in loneliness that begins between 2012 and 2016, which matches our findings for the mental health crisis in the USA, UK, and Canada. See our summary of the findings in this New York Times op-ed]
  • Twenge, J. M., Haidt, J., Lozano, J. & Cummins, K. M. (2022). Specification curve analysis shows that social media use is linked to poor mental health, especially among girls. Acta Psychologica, 224. [This is our strongest response to Orben & Przybylski, 2019. We re-ran their SCA analyses, on the same large datasets, and showed that when you reverse their analytical decisions–especially to include psychological controls and to mix boys and girls–you find much larger correlations, between social media use and harm, for girls, equivalent roughly to r = .20, which is quite large for a public health threat.]

My video lectures/interviews about social media:

First: Here is a Youtube playlist with all of my talks on social media’s effects on teen mental health and democratic norms and institutions. Plus a few comedy clips on the topic. A few of the videos stand out as the most important ones:

      • My most complete presentation was on the Lex Fridman podcast in June of 2022. I directly address and rebut Mark Zuckerberg’s claims––made on Lex’s podcast a few months earlier––that social media is, on the whole, good for teen mental health and for democracy.
      • On the Joe Rogan show, 2019, I laid out the evidence that smartphones/social media plus overprotection are the two major causes of the adolescent mental health crisis that began in the early 2010s. We talk about what we’re doing with our own kids. I argue for the importance of free range childhoods; Joe disagrees. Below is a 20 minute clip. Full two-hour discussion is here, Episode 1221.

     

      • On 60 Minutes, 2022, I talked about how social media is causing “structural stupidity” and damaging American democracy:

     

      • At the 2023 ExcelinEd National Summit on Education, I give my first public talk on The Anxious Generation.
      • In The Social Dilemma, I talked about the rising rising cost of social media use on adolescent mental health.

       

     

  • Additional resources:

    • Political Reform Imperatives [early stage collaborative review doc, building off of the reforms proposed in my “Uniquely Stupid” article. Not ready for prime time. Curated with FixUsNow.org]
    • Social Media Reforms [Created with Zach Rausch and Camille Carlton from The Center for Humane Technology]
    • Haidt, J. & Park, Y (ongoing). Free Play and Mental Health: A Collaborative Review. (This document collects and organizes the published studies addressing the question: would more free play, especially in elementary school, reduce rates of depression and anxiety disorders? The decline of free play may be a large part of the backstory of the teen mental health crisis that began around 2012. This is the beginning of a collaborative review; we have not yet sent it out for contributions and critiques from other scholars)
    • The Ledger of Harms — a list of research publications on seven different areas of harm caused by social media. At the Center for Humane Technology, where I am an advisor.
    • The Social Dilemma, a documentary about the effects of social media on mental health and society.
    • Psychology of Technology Institute, where I am on the scientific advisory board.
    • Here is the outline of my next book, The Anxious Generation. It will be published by Penguin Press in March 2024.
    • Here is the outline of the second book I am writing, Life After Babel: Adapting to a world we can no longer share. It will be published by Penguin Press in 2025.
  • Collaborative review documents:

    • When I began to study the effects of social media on adolescent mental health, in 2019, I found it impossible to keep track of the many conflicting studies. I started collecting the most important ones in a Google document, then I started organizing them by method, and then I invited other academics to tell me what I had missed or gotten wrong. These publicly visible “collaborative review” documents make it easy for anyone to acquaint themselves with the research literature on the many topics listed below. They offer the abstract and a direct link to each study. I invite any academic researcher to request editing permission for any of the docs and then add studies, comments and objections. Most are curated by Zach Rausch and me, sometimes along with an expert on that topic. You can view all of the Google docs at jonathanhaidt.com/reviews.

More Information

Jonathan David Haidt (/ht/; born October 19, 1963) is an American social psychologist and author. He is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business.[1] Haidt’s main areas of study are the psychology of morality and moral emotions.[2]

Haidt’s main scientific contributions come from the psychological field of moral foundations theory,[3] which attempts to explain the evolutionary origins of human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, gut feelings rather than logic and reason.[4] The theory was later extended to explain the different moral reasoning and how they relate to political ideology, with different political orientations prioritizing different sets of morals.[5] The research served as a foundation for future books on various topics.

Haidt has written multiple books for general audiences, including The Happiness Hypothesis (2006) examining the relationship between ancient philosophies and modern science,[6] The Righteous Mind (2012) on moral politics,[7] and The Coddling of the American Mind (2018) on rising political polarization, mental health, and college culture. In 2024, he published The Anxious Generation, arguing that the rise of smartphones and overprotective parenting has led to a “rewiring” of childhood and increased mental illness.

Biography

Early life and education

Haidt was born to a secular Jewish family and was raised in Scarsdale, New York. His grandparents were Russian and Polish natives who immigrated as teenagers to the United States, where they became garment workers.[8] Haidt described his upbringing as “very assimilated”, identifying as an atheist by age 15.[9] His father, an Ashkenazi Jew,[10] was a corporate lawyer. The family generally were New Deal liberals.[11]

At age 17, Haidt recalled that he experienced an existential crisis upon reading Waiting for Godot and existential literature.[10] After attending Scarsdale High School, he was educated at Yale University, graduating magna cum laude in 1985 with a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy, then briefly held a job as a computer programmer before pursuing graduate studies in psychology at the University of Pennsylvania,[12] where he received a Master of Arts and PhD in the field in 1988 and 1992, respectively, on a graduate fellowship awarded by the National Science Foundation.[13] His dissertation was titled “Moral judgment, affect, and culture, or, is it wrong to eat your dog?” and was supervised by psychologists Jonathan Baron and Alan Fiske.[14] Inspired by anthropologist Paul Rozin, Haidt wrote his thesis on the morality of harmless but disgusting acts.[15]

From July 1992 to June 1994, Haidt was an NIMH postdoctoral fellow at the University of Chicago, where he studied cultural psychology under the supervision of cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder.[14] Haidt called Shweder “the teacher that most affected me”.[13] At Shweder’s suggestion, Haidt researched moral complexity in Bhubaneswar, India,[16] where he conducted field studies and “encountered a society in some ways patriarchal, sexist and illiberal”.[11] From July 1994 to August 1995, he was a postdoctoral associate with the MacArthur Foundation under psychologist Judith Rodin.[14]

Academic career

In August 1995, Haidt became an assistant professor at the University of Virginia (UVA), where he was eventually named an associate professor in August 2001, then a full professor of the university’s psychology department in August 2009.[14] He remained at Virginia until 2011, winning four awards for teaching,[a] including a statewide award conferred by Governor Mark Warner.[17] Haidt also earned a reputation for challenging the general assumptions in moral psychology.[15] His research, centered on the emotional origins of morality with particular focus on the emotions of disgust and elevation, led to the publication of The Happiness Hypothesis in 2006.[18]

In 1999, Haidt became active in the new field of positive psychology, studying positive moral emotions.[19] This work led to the publication of an edited volume, Flourishing, in 2003. In 2004, Haidt began to apply moral psychology to the study of politics, doing research on the psychological foundations of ideology. This work led to the publication in 2012 of The Righteous Mind. Haidt spent the 2007–2008 academic year at Princeton University as the Visiting Professor for Distinguished Teaching.[20] In July 2010, he delivered a talk at the Edge Foundation on the new advances in moral psychology.[21]

In 2011, Haidt moved to New York University’s Stern School of Business as the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership, relocating to New York City with his wife, Jayne, and two children.[11] In 2013, he co-founded Ethical Systems, a non-profit collaboration dedicated to making academic research on ethics widely available to businesses.[22] In 2015, Haidt co-founded Heterodox Academy, a non-profit organization that works to increase viewpoint diversity, mutual understanding, and productive disagreement.[23][self-published source] In 2018, Haidt and Richard Reeves co-edited an illustrated edition of John Stuart Mill‘s On Liberty, titled All Minus One: John Stuart Mill’s Ideas on Free Speech Illustrated (illustrated by Dave Cicirelli). Haidt’s current research applies moral psychology to business ethics.[1]

Research contributions

Haidt speaking at the Miller Center of Public Affairs in Charlottesville (March 19, 2012).
Haidt speaking at the Miller Center of Public Affairs in Charlottesville (March 19, 2012).

Haidt’s research on morality has led to publications and theoretical advances in four key areas.[24]

Moral disgust

Together with Paul Rozin and Clark McCauley, Haidt developed the Disgust Scale,[25] which has been widely used to measure individual differences in sensitivity to disgust.[25] Haidt, McCauley and Rozin have written on the psychology of disgust as an emotion that began as a guardian of the mouth (against pathogens), but then expanded during biological and cultural evolution to become a guardian of the body more generally, and of the social and moral order.[26]

Moral elevation

With Sara Algoe, Haidt argued that exposure to stories about moral beauty (the opposite of moral disgust) cause a common set of responses, including warm, loving feelings, calmness, and a desire to become a better person.[27] Haidt called the emotion moral elevation,[28] as a tribute to Thomas Jefferson, who had described the emotion in detail in a letter discussing the benefits of reading great literature.[29] Feelings of moral elevation cause increases in milk produced during lactation in breastfeeding mothers,[30] suggesting the involvement of the hormone oxytocin.[31]

Social intuitionism

Haidt’s principal line of research has been on the nature and mechanisms of moral judgment. In the 1990s, he developed the social intuitionist model, which posits that moral judgment is mostly based on automatic processes—moral intuitions—rather than on conscious reasoning.[32] People engage in reasoning largely to find evidence to support their initial intuitions. Haidt’s main paper on the social intuitionist model, “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail”, has been cited over 7,800 times.[33]

Moral foundations theory

A simple graphic depicting survey data from the United States intended to support moral foundations theory.

In 2004, Haidt began to extend the social intuitionist model to identify what he considered to be the most important categories of moral intuition.[34] The resulting moral foundations theory, co-developed with Craig Joseph and Jesse Graham, and based in part on the writings of Richard Shweder, was intended to explain cross-cultural differences in morality. The theory posited that there are at least five innate moral foundations, upon which cultures develop their various moralities, just as there are five innate taste receptors on the tongue, which cultures have used to create many different cuisines. The five values are:[35]

  1. Care/harm
  2. Fairness/cheating
  3. Loyalty/betrayal
  4. Authority/subversion
  5. Sanctity/degradation

Haidt and his collaborators asserted that the theory also works well to explain political differences. According to Haidt, liberals tend to endorse primarily the care and fairness foundations, whereas conservatives tend to endorse all foundations more equally.[35] Later, in The Righteous Mind, a sixth foundation, Liberty/oppression, was presented. More recently, Haidt and colleagues split the fairness foundation into equality (which liberals tend to endorse strongly) and proportionality (which conservatives tend to endorse strongly). In this work, they also developed the new revised Moral Foundations Questionnaire-2 which has 36 items, measuring Care, Equality, Proportionality, Loyalty, Authority, and Purity.[36] He has also made the case for Ownership to be an additional foundation.[37]

“The elephant and the rider”

One widely cited metaphor throughout Haidt’s books is that of the elephant and the rider. His observations of social intuitionism, the notion that intuitions come first and rationalization second, led to the metaphor described in his work.[38] The rider represents consciously controlled processes, and the elephant represents automatic processes. The metaphor corresponds to Systems 1 and 2 described in Daniel Kahneman‘s Thinking, Fast and Slow.[39] This metaphor is used extensively in both The Happiness Hypothesis and The Righteous Mind.

Political views

Haidt describes how he began to study political psychology in order to help the Democratic Party win more elections, and argues that each of the major political groups—conservatives, progressives, and libertarians—have valuable insights and that truth and good policy emerge from the contest of ideas.[40][41] Haidt’s first essay in this area was titled “What Makes People Vote Republican?”[40][42] Since 2012, Haidt has referred to himself as a political centrist.[40][43][44][45]

Haidt has participated in efforts to reduce political polarization in the United States.[46] In 2007, he founded the website CivilPolitics.org, a clearinghouse for research on political civility.[7] He is on the advisory boards of RepresentUs, a non-partisan anti-corruption organization; and Braver Angels, a bipartisan group working to reduce political polarization.[citation needed]

In a 2011 Ted talk, Haidt argued that liberals and conservatives differ in their value systems and that disciplines like psychology have biases against conservative viewpoints.[47]

In 2019, Haidt argued that there is a “very good chance American democracy will fail, that in the next 30 years we will have a catastrophic failure of our democracy”.[48]

Reception

Haidt was named one of the “top global thinkers” by Foreign Policy magazine in 2012, and one of the “top world thinkers” by Prospect magazine in 2013.[49][50]

Although describing himself in 2007 as an atheist,[51] Haidt argued at that time that religion contains psychological wisdom that can promote human flourishing, and that the New Atheists have themselves succumbed to moralistic dogma.[51][needs update] These contentions elicited a variety of responses in a 2007 online debate sponsored by the website Edge; PZ Myers praised the first part of Haidt’s essay while disagreeing with his criticism of the New Atheists; Sam Harris criticized Haidt for his perceived obfuscation of harms caused by religion; Michael Shermer praised Haidt; and biologist David Sloan Wilson joined Haidt in criticizing the New Atheists for dismissing the notion that religion is an evolutionary adaptation.[51]

David Mikics of Tablet magazine profiled Haidt as “the high priest of heterodoxy” and praised his work to increase intellectual diversity at universities through Heterodox Academy.[52]

In 2020, Peter Wehner wrote in The Atlantic, “Over the past decade, no one has added more to my understanding of how we think about, discuss, and debate politics and religion than Jonathan Haidt.” He added that, “In his own field, in his own way, Jonathan Haidt is trying to heal our divisions and temper some of the hate, to increase our wisdom and understanding, and to urge us to show a bit more compassion toward one another.”[53]

Selected publications

Books

The Happiness Hypothesis

The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (2006) draws on ancient philosophical ideas in light of contemporary scientific research to extract potential lessons and how they may apply to everyday life.[54] The book poses “ten Great Ideas” on happiness espoused by philosophers and thinkers of the past – Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Buddha, Jesus, and others – and then considers what modern scientific research has to say regarding these ideas.[55]

The Righteous Mind

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012) draws on Haidt’s previous research on moral foundations theory. It argues that moral judgments arise not from logical reason, but from gut feelings, asserting that liberals, conservatives, and libertarians have different intuitions about right and wrong because they prioritize different values.

The Coddling of the American Mind

The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018), co-written with Greg Lukianoff, expands on an essay the authors wrote for The Atlantic in 2015.[56] The book explores the rising political polarization and changing culture on college campuses and its effects on mental health. It also explores changes in childhood, including the rise of “fearful parenting”, the decline of unsupervised play, and the effects of social media in the last decade.[57]

The Anxious Generation

The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness (2024) examines the impact of modern technology and parenting trends on children’s mental health. Haidt posits that two major factors have contributed to a significant shift in childhood experiences and a subsequent increase in mental health issues among young people: The widespread adoption of smartphones and the rise of overprotective parenting styles. He suggests that these factors have fundamentally altered how children grow up, leading to what he terms a “rewiring” of childhood. He argues that this transformation began late in the first decade of the 2000s and has had detrimental effects on children’s well-being.[58]

A review of The Anxious Generation by journalists Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri on the If Books Could Kill podcast purported that many of its cited studies are methodologically weak, and do not support the claims Haidt makes in the book.[59][full citation needed]

Articles

Footnotes

  1. ^ Haidt received three teaching awards from the University of Virginia: the Outstanding Professor Award in 1998, the All-University Teaching Award in 2003, and a second Outstanding Professor Award that same year.[14]

References

  1. ^ a b “Jonathan Haidt – Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership”. New York University Stern School of Business.
  2. ^ Saletan, William (March 23, 2012). “Why Won’t They Listen?”. The New York Times. Retrieved July 19, 2024.
  3. ^ McNerney, Samuel. “Jonathan Haidt and the Moral Matrix: Breaking Out of Our Righteous Minds”. Scientific American. Retrieved July 25, 2019.
  4. ^ “The moral matrix that influences the way people vote”. The Guardian. November 14, 2016. Retrieved July 25, 2019.
  5. ^ Winerman, Lea. “Civil discourse in an uncivil world”. American Psychological Association. Retrieved July 25, 2019.
  6. ^ Ott, Jan (February 20, 2007). “Jonathan Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis; Putting Ancient Wisdom to the Test of Modern Science”. Journal of Happiness Studies. 8 (2): 297. doi:10.1007/s10902-007-9049-2.
  7. ^ a b Saletan, William (March 23, 2012). The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt”. The New York Times. Retrieved December 19, 2018.
  8. ^ Tippett, Krista (June 12, 2014). “Jonathan Haidt: The Psychology of Self-Righteousness”. On Being. Archived from the original on June 17, 2015. Retrieved April 17, 2020.
  9. ^ Wehner, Peter (May 24, 2020). “Jonathan Haidt Is Trying to Heal America’s Divisions”. The Atlantic. Retrieved July 17, 2024.
  10. ^ a b Oldfield, Elizabeth (March 27, 2024). “Jonathan Haidt on Religion, Psychedelics and the Anxious Generation”. Theos. Retrieved July 17, 2024.
  11. ^ a b c Jenkins Jr., Holman W. (June 29, 2012). “Jonathan Haidt: He Knows Why We Fight”. The Wall Street Journal.
  12. ^ Jargon, Julie (May 10, 2024). “Technology: Jonathan Haidt Blamed Tech for Teen Anxiety. Managing the Blowback Has Become a Full-Time Job”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 18, 2024.
  13. ^ a b Smith, Emily Esfahani (June 26, 2012). “Conservatives have broader moral sense than liberals, says ‘Righteous Mind’ author”. The Washington Times. Retrieved July 18, 2024.
  14. ^ a b c d e Haidt, Jonathan (December 2014). “Jonathan Haidt: Curriculum Vitae”. New York University. Retrieved July 16, 2024.
  15. ^ a b Jacobs, Tom (June 14, 2017). “Morals Authority”. Pacific Standard. Retrieved July 20, 2024.
  16. ^ Wade, Nicholas (September 18, 2007). “Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes?”. The New York Times. Retrieved July 21, 2019.
  17. ^ Nelson, Kirsten (January 21, 2004). “Governor Warner Announces TIAA-CREF Virginia Outstanding Faculty Awards Recipients for 2004”. State Council of Higher Education for Virginia. Archived from the original on May 1, 2007. Retrieved July 19, 2019.
  18. ^ Welch, Gina (Spring 2009). “In Pursuit of Happiness: Psychologists explore everyone’s favorite emotion”. Virginia Magazine. University of Virginia. Retrieved July 20, 2024.
  19. ^ “Jonathan Haidt, Ph.D. | Authentic Happiness”. University of Pennsylvania. 2012. Retrieved July 20, 2024.
  20. ^ “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People, Particularly Intellectuals, Are Divided by Politics – An America’s Founding and Future Lecture”. James Madison Program. Princeton University. May 8, 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
  21. ^ Madrigal, Alexis C. (July 29, 2010). “The Five Moral Senses”. The Atlantic. Retrieved July 20, 2024.
  22. ^ Brockman, John. “Jonathan Haidt, Biography”. Edge Foundation, Inc. Retrieved July 20, 2019.
  23. ^ “Our Story”. Heterodox Academy. Retrieved July 4, 2021.
  24. ^ Caldow, Stephanie (January 28, 2019). “Jonathan Haidt: The Contributions of a Moral Psychologist”. PositivePsychology. Retrieved July 26, 2019.
  25. ^ a b Haidt, Jonathan; McCauley, Clark; Rozin, Paul (1994). “Individual differences in densitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors” (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 16 (5): 701–713. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90212-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 28, 2016. Retrieved July 15, 2019.
  26. ^ Haidt, Jonathan; Rozin, Paul; McCauley, Clark; Imada, Sumio (1997). “Body, Psyche, and Culture: The Relationship Between Disgust and Morality”. Psychology & Developing Societies. 9 (1): 107–131. doi:10.1177/097133369700900105. S2CID 144762306.
  27. ^ Algoe, Sara B. and Jonathan Haidt. 2009. “Witnessing excellence in action: The ‘other-praising’ emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration.” Journal of Positive Psychology 4:105–127.
  28. ^ Haidt, Jonathan. 2003. “Elevation and the positive psychology of morality.” pp. 275–289 in Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-lived, edited by C. L. M. Keyes and J. Haidt. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  29. ^ Jefferson, Thomas. [1771] 1975. “Letter to Robert Skipwith”, pp. 349–351 in The Portable Thomas Jefferson, M. D. Peterson ed. New York: Penguin.
  30. ^ Silvers, J., and Jonathan Haidt. 2008. “Moral elevation causes lactation.” Emotion 8:291–295.
  31. ^ Haidt, Jonathan (April 1, 2012). “Why we love to lose ourselves in religion”. CNN. Retrieved July 19, 2024.
  32. ^ Liao, Matthew (2011). Bias and Reasoning: Haidt’s Theory of Moral Judgment. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 108–127. doi:10.1057/9780230305885_7. ISBN 978-0-230-30588-5. S2CID 146369020.
  33. ^ Haidt, Jonathan (2001). “The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment” (PDF). Psychological Review. 4 (108): 814–834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814. PMID 11699120. S2CID 2252549.
  34. ^ Haidt, Jonathan; Joseph, Craig (2004). “Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues”. Daedalus. 133 (4): 55–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555. JSTOR 20027945. S2CID 1574243.
  35. ^ a b Graham, Jesse; Haidt, Jonathan; Nosek, Brian A. (2009). “Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (5). American Psychological Association: 1029–1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 19379034. S2CID 2715121.
  36. ^ Atari, Mohammad; Haidt, Jonathan; Graham, Jesse; Koleva, Sena; Stevens, Sean T.; Dehghani, Morteza (November 2023). “Morality beyond the WEIRD: How the nomological network of morality varies across cultures”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 125 (5): 1157–1188. doi:10.1037/pspp0000470. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 37589704.
  37. ^ Atari, Mohammad; Haidt, Jonathan (October 10, 2023). “Ownership is (likely to be) a moral foundation”. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 46: e326. doi:10.1017/S0140525X2300119X. PMID 37813408.
  38. ^ McNerney, Samuel. “Jonathan Haidt and the Moral Matrix: Breaking Out of Our Righteous Minds”. Scientific American (blog)). Retrieved February 2, 2013.
  39. ^ Haidt, Jonathan (October 7, 2012). “Reasons Matter (When Intuitions Don’t Object)”. The New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2013.
  40. ^ a b c “Interview with Jonathan Haidt”. Interviews with Max Raskin. Retrieved June 11, 2024.
  41. ^ Haidt, Jonathan (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon Books. pp. 343–361. ISBN 978-0307455772.
  42. ^ “What Makes People Vote Republican? | Edge.org”. www.edge.org. September 8, 2008. Retrieved June 11, 2024.
  43. ^ Jonathan Haidt [@JonHaidt] (January 23, 2018). “huh? I have never been right of center. I have never voted for a republican, nor given a dollar to a conservative candidate or cause. I am a centrist, a JS Mill liberal, who is now politically homeless” (Tweet). Retrieved July 27, 2020 – via Twitter.
  44. ^ Goldman, Andrew, interviewer. July 27, 2012. “A Liberal Learns to Compete“. The New York Times. Retrieved July 27, 2020.
  45. ^ Weiss, Bari (April 1, 2017). “Jonathan Haidt on The Cultural Roots of Campus Rage”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 7, 2017.
  46. ^ Wehner, Peter (May 24, 2020). “Jonathan Haidt Is Trying to Heal America’s Divisions”. The Atlantic. Retrieved December 17, 2024.
  47. ^ Henriques, Gregg (January 1, 2012). “Jonathan Haidt’s Moral-Political Psychology”. Psychology Today. Retrieved March 27, 2024.
  48. ^ Kelly, Paul (July 22, 2019). “America’s Uncivil War on Democracy”. The Australian. Retrieved March 27, 2024..
  49. ^ “The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers”. Foreign Policy. November 26, 2012.
  50. ^ “World Thinkers 2013”. Prospect. April 24, 2013.
  51. ^ a b c Haidt, Jonathan (September 21, 2007). “Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion”. Edge Foundation, Inc. Retrieved April 29, 2023.
  52. ^ Mikics, David (July 21, 2019). “The High Priest of Heterodoxy”. The Tablet. Retrieved October 30, 2019.
  53. ^ Wehner, Peter (May 24, 2020). “Jonathan Haidt Is Trying to Heal America’s Divisions”. The Atlantic. Retrieved June 3, 2020.
  54. ^ Flint, James (July 22, 2006). “Don’t worry, be happy”. The Guardian. Retrieved July 18, 2019.
  55. ^ Carter, Christine. “Book Review: The Happiness Hypothesis”. Greater Good Science Center. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved July 18, 2019.
  56. ^ Lukianoff, Greg; Haidt, Jonathan (September 2015). “The Coddling of the American Mind”. The Atlantic. Retrieved October 18, 2022.
  57. ^ Singal, Jesse (September 26, 2018). “How ‘Coddled’ Are American College Students, Anyway?”. New York Magazine. Retrieved July 18, 2019.
  58. ^ Remnick, David (April 20, 2024). “Jonathan Haidt Wants You to Take Away Your Kid’s Phone”. The New Yorker. Retrieved August 13, 2024.
  59. ^ Hobbes, Michael; Shamshiri, Peter (August 8, 2024). The Anxious Generation (book review podcast, 120 min.). If Books Could Kill. Event occurs at an unspecified time. Retrieved December 17, 2024.[full citation needed]

Additional sources


    Discuss

    OnAir membership is required. The lead Moderator for the discussions is onAir Curators. We encourage civil, honest, and safe discourse. For more information on commenting and giving feedback, see our Comment Guidelines.

    This is an open discussion on the contents of this post.

    Home Forums Open Discussion

    Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
    Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
    Skip to toolbar