for viewpoint diversity on campus. The steps include
Look inside the mind. Learn a little bit of psychology to see the tricks the mind plays on us, making us all prone to be self-righteous, overconfident, and quick to demonize “the other side.”
Understand the moral matrix. Learn how each team or tribe builds a comprehensive worldview that can explain everything, while making it harder for its members to think for themselves.
Venture beyond your moral matrix. Step outside your own moral matrix by exploring the mindsets, perspectives, and principles of progressives, conservatives, and libertarians.
Pointer from Tyler Cowen.
I think that my book, The Three Languages of Politics, does a good job with these three steps. For the remaining steps, Haidt’s other resources are needed. My book will be out in two days, and it is available now for pre-order.
This is a great formula for moderation — that no side will ever voluntarily adopt, because as soon as you do, your enemies have won.
Exactly what I was going to say. It only works as long as everyone does it. The first person to stop will win prompting everyone else to stop as well to play on even ground.
I’m actually an optimist on this. There isn’t a core reason why academia has to be regressive, but see my hypothesis below.
Arnold, you are absolutely right, Three Languages is perfect for the project. We have added it to Step 4, the central step where we try to get students to step outside of their own moral matrix and see that there are multiple frames, stories, languages, etc.
Thanks for pointing this out.
My thought is that because academia is exclusionary by nature, that almost any signals are exploited.