Michael Woodruff

Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind seeks to explain why it is difficult for liberals and conservatives to get along. His aim is not just explanatory but also prescriptive. Once we understand that the differences between disputants spring from distinct moral views held by equally sincere people, then we will no longer have reason for deep political animus. Conservatives and Liberals have distinct moral views and they understand human nature differently. He claims that these differences are best understood by consulting an array of psychological studies, key genetic findings, and the theoretical underpinnings of sociobiology. After summarizing his arguments, we isolate and discuss the three most important and contentious issues in his book. We argue that although the project's motivation is noble and some of his findings are insightful, his key explanations, inferences, and prescriptions are wanting. We end by suggesting a way he could defend a weaker version of his view.

This commentary reviews data supporting circuitry reconstruction, replacement neurotransmitters, and trophic action as mechanisms whereby transplants promote recovery of function. Issue is taken with the thesis of Sinden et al. that adequate data exist to indicate that reconstruction of hippocampal circuitry damaged by hypoxia with CA1 transplants is a confirmed mechanism whereby these transplants produce recovery. Sinden et al.'s and Stein & Glasier's proposal that there is definitive evidence showing that all transplants produce trophic effects is also questioned.