#

The Rider and the Elephant

We like to believe we’re rational beings. That we carefully weigh evidence, make logical decisions, and arrive at our moral and political views through conscious, deliberate thought. We imagine ourselves as the rider, perched confidently atop the elephant of our body, steering with reason and clarity.

But what if I told you it’s mostly an illusion? What if the rider is just there for show—explaining and justifying where the elephant already decided to go?

This is the humbling argument Jonathan Haidt makes in his book The Righteous Mind. Reading it was a big “aha” moment for me. He basically says we’re not purely individual thinkers at all. A lot of our moral life is shaped by something much deeper and more social ,the collective mind. And honestly, I agree with him.

Your Gut Decides First

The Enlightenment gave us this picture of the rational individual ,someone who makes decisions free from bias or passion, reasoning their way to truth like a little philosopher.

But Haidt turns that upside down. His research shows:

  • intuition comes first, reasoning second.

When a moral question shows up, our brain delivers an instant gut reaction. Only afterward does our reasoning kick in. And most of the time, it’s not searching for truth ,it’s defending the decision we already made.

Think about the last time you argued about politics or values. Did you really pause, weigh all sides, and then calmly choose? Or did you feel something immediately - maybe annoyance, agreement, or even disgust - and then start building your case? If you’re human, it was probably the second one. Your rider wasn’t steering your elephant; it was writing PR for it. 😅

Why We’re 90% Chimp, 10% Bee

So if the rider is just a press secretary, where do these gut feelings even come from?

Haidt says they’re not formed in isolation. They come from evolution. Basically, we’ve been wired with moral “taste buds” to help us live in groups. We are individuals, sure, but also profoundly tribal. He puts it this way: we’re “90% chimp, 10% bee.”

The chimp in us wants independence and self-interest. The bee in us craves belonging, harmony, and sacrifice for the hive. Both sides shape how we see right and wrong.

Here are the six “taste buds” Haidt identifies:

  1. Care/Harm – protecting the vulnerable
  2. Fairness/Cheating – rewarding cooperation, punishing exploitation
  3. Loyalty/Betrayal – sticking with your group
  4. Authority/Subversion – respecting order and hierarchy
  5. Sanctity/Degradation – keeping things pure or sacred
  6. Liberty/Oppression – resisting domination and control

Different groups and cultures mix these ingredients differently. That’s why we often feel like we’re talking different moral languages.

Lost in Translation?

Take politics. Progressives usually emphasize Care and Fairness . They advocate for helping the vulnerable, creating equality. Conservatives lean across all six foundations, including Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity - which keep groups strong and traditions alive.

The clash? We end up talking past each other. What feels obvious and good to one side can feel unfair or even offensive to the other. And because our elephants are reacting from different foundations, our riders just double down.

It’s not that the other side is irrational. It’s that we’re tuned into different moral frequencies.

Bridging the Divide

So how do we live with this? If our minds are shaped as much by the collective as by the individual, how can we argue less and connect more?

Haidt suggests a few simple shifts that I’ve found helpful too:

  1. Humble your rider. Catch yourself when your “logic” is really just a defense of what you already feel.
  2. Look for the elephant. Instead of fighting someone’s arguments, ask what values are really driving them. Maybe it’s loyalty. Maybe it’s fairness. Maybe it’s sanctity.
  3. Speak their language. Facts alone rarely persuade. But if you can frame your point in a way that matches someone else’s moral taste buds, you actually stand a chance of being heard.

The Balance We Need

Here’s what I took away - the tension between the individual mind and the collective mind isn’t a bug ,it’s part of being human.

Too much individualism and we end up isolated. Too much collectivism and we risk losing our freedom. Both matter. Both live inside us.