How to Leave a Comment

We’ve asked you to leave comments for posters on this blog throughout the summer, it’s only fair we share directions for you so that you know HOW to comment on a post.

Directions:

  1. Click on “___COMMENTS” at the end of the post you’d like to write about.
  2. You’ll see the comments already submitted. Take a look at what’s already there. For college audiences, originality is important!
  3. Below the comments, you’ll see a dialogue box—“Leave a Reply”
  4. Enter your text in this box—please check grammar, spelling, and mechanics before you submit the comment. you will not be able to edit once you’ve posted.
  5. You’ll be asked to choose an identity. If you haven’t already set up your account, simply follow the prompt: No Google Account? Sign up here. (You do NOT have to use a Google email address. You can use any email address you’d like. If you already have a Google account of any kind, you can use that. Or–even better–you can use your new UMD e-mail address.) We ask you not to make anonymous comments because we want students to stand behind their statements.
  6. You will also be asked to complete the Word Verification as a security measure.
  7. You can Preview your comment before you publish it. (We recommend that you do so!)
  8. Click “Publish” when your response is ready to be posted.  (It may take a moment to show up on the blog.
  9. Please note that comments can be redacted by blog administrators for any reason. Be kind in your replies. The UMD community is reading!

Some terms to know:

Blog: A web-log/journal posted online for others to read and comment on

Post/Posting: The main part of the blog; each has a title and is dated. Only assigned contributors can “post” on the blog. 7 days worth of posts will show up on the main page. For older posts, at the bottom of the main page, you’ll see a link that says “Older Posts.” You can click that or go to the “Blog Archive” on the right hand side of the blog—scroll down; it’s toward the bottom of the page. (More on this below.)

Comments: At the end of each post is a hot link that says “___ COMMENTS.” (The blank spot will have a number, depending on how many comments have been submitted.) If you’d like to read what other folks have to say about the post OR if you have something you’d like to share about the post or other comments, this is the place to do that.

QUESTIONS? email acox1@umassd.edu Or leave a comment on this post.

42 thoughts on “How to Leave a Comment

    • acox1umassd says:

      Hi, I have to go through and manually approve them and sometimes it takes me a day or two to get there:) Should appear now!

  1. Ralph Jean-Baptiste says:

    After reading this book my interest in psychology increased. I found it intriguing how Haidt is able to break down the thinking of people, from children, college students, and politicians. What grabbed my attention the most was his ability to explain the different foundations and the impact it has on human’s emotions. The five foundations described cause a majority of people to become sensitive towards the symptoms of the foundations, such as signs of suffering(Care/Harm) and even the signs of feeling betrayed or cheated(loyalty).

  2. Elio Younes says:

    In the Book, The Righteous Mind, Haidt explains how he believe that “people were fools who ignored the importance of human nature and tried to reason there way to morality.” I truly back this quote up, because I believe the human nature is way to complex and trying to reason your way to morality on this specific top will never work. I believe you must look at the human nature with an open mind and not try to reason your way to morality.

    • Edison Duran says:

      I really feel like this book is mainly about morality and how its messed up human society truly is now. I completely agree with you. People believe things right and wrong due to their morals. But no one truly knows what is right versus wrong in my opinion.

  3. From the beginning of this novel I felt as though Author, Jonathan Haidt expressed very important topics, such as the development of one’s character(bottom of page 5). There are many ways one can interpret this book, and the given examples that are provided make readers question/and or realize what their morals really are. The main thing that stood out to me was how Haidt acknowledged morals being developed within a home environment as you are a child. It’s important to know that everyone is different because of different backgrounds growing up. This is not to say that because our parents taught us to believe one way, we will stay the same way. But just to know that our minds and thought processes evolves to become our own is what intrigued me.

  4. Mitchell S. says:

    In Jonathan Haidt’s, The Righteous Mind, Haidt infers how the human mind seeks to be right and doesn’t want to be told what to do. If a human wants to believe something, all they have to do is see if they can believe it, as in, if it is a possible conclusion to believe. If they can believe, even if it the reason they found is not fully supported, they can stop thinking now that they have justification to believe. On the other spectrum, if they are told they must believe something, finding one piece of evidence against it is enough to prevent them from having to believe. I find it interesting that the human mind is stubborn enough to stick to their resolutions as long as they can convince themselves they are right, even with false evidence.

  5. Mitchell S. says:

    In The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, Haidt brings up the issue of morality frequently, as it what is considered “right” and “wrong” by society and why society thinks this way. In an extreme case of deciding the morality of ones actions, on page 170, Haidt describes a situation that occurred in the year 2001, when one man killed another man and ate him after getting full consent from the man about to be killed. Most people would say that this is horrible and immoral, but because of the “victim’s” consent there is technically no wrong that occurred. The reason for people’s negative reactions is because of their initial reaction, or the “tilt of their elephant” going in one direction rather than the other. Because of the initial reaction of disgust and degradation that occurred, it become harder for them to justify why the consensual consumption of another human being is wrong, despite the presence of consent. I again find it interesting how humans think they are correct, and continue to think they are correct, when other evidence is present that denies their original conclusion.

  6. Dorvens Victorin says:

    In the book, The Righteous Mind, Haidt changes my point of view about how humans act, such as the different stages as a child growing up to adult to create a perfect being. Throughout this book, what really got me thinking was the difference scenarios Haidt comes up with to see if it is morally wrong in society. For example the right to eat your own pet after the pet dies, in society it is morally wrong for a owner to eat his pet dog once its died but its not morally wrong to eat a pet chicken after it dies.

    • Nolan Bergeron says:

      I agree with Dorvens Victorin because every person has different circumstances which dictate how they make their decisions, one of which could be their financial circumstance. Someone with money may perhaps deem it morally incorrect to eat their pet after it dies while someone who is without and starving would see it as necessary.

  7. Alexander Dies says:

    I the book the book “The Righteous Mind,” Haidt seeks to enlighten the people with a deeper awareness of human nature and why people do what they do. It is about learning what drives people to makes decisions, good or bad, and how we interact with other.

  8. After reading The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt has enlightened me on the prospective of other cultures morals. Thinking back to the beginning of Jonathan Haidt’s book he talks about how a family dog gets hit by a car and they eat it. In western society we would find that disgusting and morally wrong but lets say if that happened in third world country we would have a different view on them eating the family pet.

    • I agree with you Latrell Spencer. I think that Haidt did do an exceptional job on delivering his point on the values and differences between cultures. There are people of different religions and back rounds who do things that may seem a bit immoral to people of other cultures simply because not everybody in the world is aware to the different life styles that people live.

    • Andrea Fellows says:

      I also agree with that because morality in this world sometimes depends on the culture or the place you live..In many cultures abuse to women and animals is perfectly normal and happens on a daily basis. However, here in the U.S we usually would find that completely unacceptable. You really have to think about the different perspectives when dealing with all of the different kinds of cultures in the world.

  9. Nicholas Wall says:

    The Righteous Mind changed my view on what Humanity seeks and how it defines itself. Haidt demonstrates amazing metaphysical view point on how humans react to their respective societies ideals of what is right and wrong. It makes one wonder if a person designed the beginning of a societies rules based on morality, need to survive, or some combination of the two. On one side of a group, the leaders may decided that the moral thing to do is correct. On the other side, the leaders may say they need to do what is needed to survive. Haidt explores the idea that compromise is hard to come to, simply because humans don’t like to be wrong.

  10. Edison Duran says:

    I feel as if this book focuses on society’s view towards things. If society says its wrong, people automatically deem it to be wrong. But what if it really isn’t. As stated earlier in the book with the dog scenario, people would find that beyond disgusting, they find it morally wrong. But who gets to decide whats right and whats wrong? this makes me think about a different situation. A lion kills a dog because it needs to feed its children. But if a man kills a dog its viewed as murder, or the their is something wrong with the man.

  11. Abbey Barber says:

    Jonathan Haidt talks about what is moral and what is not in his book “The Righteous mind”. To me I think everyone has different morals on matters. When it came to the dog incident, I was completely grossed out by it and thought that the scenario was wrong. After I thought about it I realized that it was just how I saw it. In another country someone that doesn’t have much food might think that it would be okay to eat the already dead dog. Depending on the persons situation they will act differently.

    • Haydon Bergeron says:

      I agree with Abbey Barber, everyone has different morals on life and matters. It is all Depending on each persons situation and standing in life. People have to do what they have to do to survive. The right between what is right and wrong is often a grey area that people cross when they are faced with dire situations with the mindset the ends will justify the means. People have historically always made questionable decisions when it comes to protecting or providing for the ones they love for example.

    • Nolan Bergeron says:

      I agree with Abbey Barber in that each person does have their own morals and ethics. What may seem normal to one individual may be entirely different to another based on numerous factors. Examples could include religion, ethnic background, and simply the neighborhood you were brought up in.

  12. Nii Lawson says:

    “Morality binds and blinds” serves as a justification of the fact that, a persons definition and understanding of what is right determines how that person acts in a given situation. One is most likely to commit an egregious act if one is on a quest for absolution, thus a persons definition of what is right can lead that person into making wrong decisions and committing heinous acts.

  13. Abbey Barber says:

    When Haidt says “people were fools who ignored the importance of human nature and tried to reason their way to morality.” It makes me think about how most people will follow society as a group and conform to the general populations reasoning behind morality. Instead of looking at the circumstances around the incident and then judging what is the right or wrong thing to do.

    • Joe Antosca says:

      I agree with this statement, the vast majority of people are so quick to judge one another when learning perhaps the most basic things about them or their culture as a whole. After reading the book it was much more evident how important it is to take a second, even if it’s after the fact, to think about why you had that initial judgement and if it were truly representative of your own thoughts.

  14. Alexander Dimes says:

    My opinion of Haidt’s 90% chimp, 10% bee metaphor is that humans are instinctively born to take care of themselves before they take care of others. We have our personal interests (our mainly chimp mentality) and we have our community interests (our bee mentality).

  15. Nii Lawson says:

    “Morality is like a tongue with six taste receptors” is just like using an algorithm in solving a problem. As compared to heuristics,using an algorithm takes a longer time in attaining a solution,yet it is very efficient. Similarly, morality been like a tongue with six taste receptors implies that, one will analyse a problem from various points of view or perspectives before procuring a solution, hence, it is most likely the outcome would be reliable and valid.

  16. Keith Hickey says:

    Haidt”s explanation of how we are 90% chimp and 10% bee and the explanation of the “hive switch” shows that when we bind together to fight for a common goal it brings out the best in us.

    • Joe Antosca says:

      Absolutely true, now wouldn’t it be fantastic if the human race as a whole could work together in achieving common goals? of course competition’s healthy when it comes to things like space exploration or discovering new cures for disease. What shouldn’t be competed over but rather an all inclusive goal are things like poverty and hunger in third world countries.

  17. Keith Hickey says:

    The Righteous Mind has taught me to make less moral judgments, and has helped me understand that everyone has different views when it comes to religion and politics.

    • Julian Pica says:

      I agree with you. In his book Haidt isn’t the slightest biased on any arguement. He simply provides evidence for both sides of a debate. He executed this well especially with his many research surveys and analysis of the human brain and it’s tendicies.

    • Haydon Bergeron says:

      I totally agree with this concept. In this day in age it is far to common for people to cast judgment on another based on a single bad decision. If everyone was held to that same standard who would truly be without fault.

  18. Andrea Fellows says:

    I enjoyed some parts of The Righteous Mind because i enjoyed when Haidt discussed how people have certain morals and values but cannot explain why they feel something is right or wrong sometimes. For example, when Haidt did the surveys about the man sleeping with his sister many people thought it was totally wrong but couldn’t really give a legitimate explanation as to why it was other than “that’s just weird because it’s his sister.” In hindsight i enjoyed the philosophical approaches Haidt took in this book/

  19. Ivanna says:

    My favorite part of the book was part 2 because it was interesting to learn where our morality stems from. Part 2 of the book was also the most fun and enjoyable part to read for me. From part 2 of the book I learned to be more objective instead of judgmental to others morality and where they get it from.

  20. Ivanna says:

    I agree with Haidt’s theory of human beings are individuals but also like and gain from groups. His theory can be applied to sports because every individual player wants to see improvement in themselves but also benefits from a well working team.

  21. Adrian Niles says:

    I can relate to this because in High school I was the type to always work by myself on projects. This was mainly because I kept to my self a lot and I would only worry about my self.

  22. Adrian Niles says:

    I do think that this experience will influence my actions as I enter the college environment. This is because of that one time when I was force to work in a group and I realized that a small part of me likes working in groups.

  23. Adrian Niles says:

    I do think that this experience will influence my actions as I enter the college environment. This is because of that one time when I was force to work in a group and I realized that a small part of me likes working in groups

  24. Therese Bechara says:

    When I started to read The Righteous Mind I did not know what to expect. Once I started to read I understood that Haidt was trying to make a point. Morality is subjective. To an extent, humans have a preconceived sense of right from wrong; but morality also differs depending on one’s background (nature vs. nurture). I think the take away message is to understand that there is no “human moral conduct” book; “good people are divided by politics and religion” because we have various understandings social standards and point of views.

  25. Alexander Petropoulos says:

    I thought The Righteous Mind was a good book because it made me look at certain morals that people have in way that i didn’t look at before

  26. Julian Pica says:

    I too enjoyed the test subjects reactions to one of Haidt’s research surveys.I think the driving force behind the test subjets’ answers is the way the were were brought up (not nature). Haidt states that intuition comes before reasoning so the subjects were more than likely told that incest is morally wrong, leading to a negative reaction and automatic turn off of the story. But as they impulsively anwered with disgust, they jumped so quick to a conclusion with little to no answer to justify their decision whether incest is right or wrong.

  27. Kheyla Orival says:

    The Family who ate their dead dog

    I believe that the family who ate their dead dog is neither wrong or right morally. I believe that because it was their dog, they could do what they please with it. After all they did own the dog but out of respect for the lost of their dog, they should not have eaten the dog. But Given the circumstances, they could have eaten the dog for multiple purposes. For example, The family could have been extremely poor and had absolutely no food in the house and figured that since the dog is already dead, they could eat the dog to save the family from perishing due to starvation.Is it then morally wrong to eat the already dead animal? Would it be wrong then to say that the family lacks morals, when they were just starving and desperate for food? If given another circumstance, and the family eats the dog because it was rumored to be delicious or because of some kind of sadistic ritual , then it may be morally wrong to eat the dog. In conclusion, it may or may not be morally wrong because if no one is absolutely sure why they have done what they have done that could question their morality, then it is neither right or wrong.

  28. Kheyla Orival says:

    In Haidt’s book, He had mentioned how he ran into a Moral Philosopher who said that children just happen to know when something is wrong or right on their own. This philosopher used the example of children playing a game and when the opponent does something that is supposedly wrong or cheating, the other opponent automatically identifies it as wrong. He claims that these accusation were not taught but acquired on their own. I believe that this is false because the child had to be taught what was right or wrong others how would the child know that is was the opponent cheating. There would have to be a set of rules, and the rules would have to be taught.

  29. Ernest Frimpong says:

    Haidt’s statement about we being concerned about what people say about us though much of the concern is unconscious makes sense.Because sometimes we do care about what people think or will think of us in deciding what to do without realising it but not all time.though

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s