The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 05. 2024
- View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/jonathan-ha...
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right, or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most. Jonathan Haidt studies how -- and why -- we evolved to be moral. By understanding more about our moral roots, his hope is that we can learn to be civil and open-minded.
Talk by Jonathan Haidt.
I'm convinced most people in the world are moderate, just want to live their lives in peace. What you see in the media on the far left and the far right, probably represent 1% of the actual population. Turn the media off and live your life and love your communities.
Couldn't have said it better myself
you are my god savior
That's a naive world view. The loudest amongst us usually gets his/her/their way. If left unchecked and unchallenged that 1% will pull society towards the brink.
@@mranderson3277 Im not trying to be argumentative at all, and i hope this doesnt come off aggressive, but i am truly trying to better educate myself, and be the most useful resource i can embody--I am struggling with how i might combat the "loudest" while not just being "louder", but by being an actual axiom for balance and knowledge. So, i guess my genuine question is: what would you suggest a reasonable (greatly generalizing myself here) person could do, in order to Check and Challenge the "loudest"? I understand each situation is intensely nuanced, and I am not asking for specific philosophies (unless you know of any) but I was hoping you might have some suggestions as to how to approach, Check and Challenge those "loud" people/establishments/ideologies. Any time taken for response would be greatly respected.
until socialism kicks in
I figure now is a good time to revisit this video.
No.
Jk
Yes
Jk.
Amen. But I fear we're all too late. Should be required viewing in universities. Low hopes for that.
What a wonderful comment. Made me literally laugh out loud. Very true dear friend, very true!
twown There are some people that willing to see the truth in this talk, don't worry. Two people that exemplify this are Bret Weinstein and Andrew Yang. I encourage you to look into them.
Here's an interview with Andrew Yang by CNBC to get you started :) czcams.com/video/x1RUfwnw9RQ/video.html
This is great. Just ordered two of his books. Wish I’d seen this a lot sooner. Much needed today in 2022
I think you will really like his book. Read it last year and it was so helpful in understanding our current political atmosphere.
Conservatives and Liberals are both wrong.
I've seen his books around but only sat down and watched this week. Wow. When thinking about someone telling me their point of view I now try to categorize them under the 5 variables.
Same!!
I really like his Righteous Mind book, incredibly insightful
as someone who is morally very conservative, I appreciate the respectful analysis of conservative thinking. Nice job!
nobody asked
@@notevennelson Comments aren't answers to questions...
@@notevennelson What's the purpose of your comment? I find it dismissive. Is this the open-mindedness that is so often espoused by liberals?
Same. It's nice to finally have someone ask why we conservatives believe what we believe and why, and not just haha you're all jesusland dumbfucks. I see constantly and consistently that at the bare minimum right wing values are purposefully looked at as obtuse and antiquated
you're a clown
Video: We need to these two groups to create a balance in our society.
Comments: The problem with the other group is...
Why would you want a balance?
@@StefanTravis There will always be a balance, no matter how much morality shifts. There will always be a balance if there is a center.
@@Moonawrathic _"There will always be a balance if there is a center."_
You've forgotten the center shifts. What's the balance between "Creationist gun-fondling Randians" and "Corrupt Clintons"?
@@StefanTravis Diversity is our strength!
Kawerau Woods no there will be war leftards will be destroyed
My goodness it's like the two different parties watched a completely different video
Lizzy F I think that's his point to some extent. He started with showing two reactions to art. I'm a libritarian so I have seen this fight playing out from the sidelines for years. I wondered if he would address us, but once again we are the ignored middle child. Lol
There are more than three political positions 😊
libertarians are just conservatives that don't hate gays...
Don't forget about us libertarians.
Christine Stone he was using known political ideological camps that people tend to gravitate towards based on his theory of the culturally nurtured moral mind. His point is that no matter where you self identify, you should consider, even if just for a period of time, that you are incorrect, and that one of the other groups (in your case, non-libertarians), might have a good counterpoint to your libertarian worldview.
I assumed responsibility for an unplanned child when I was 22 years old. It was not easy. At the time I was much more liberal than I am today. Becoming a parent, and having to think of the interests of my daughter, forced me to live my way into a new way of thinking instead of thinking my way into a new way of living. Thanks for reading.
No, becoming a parent (of an admittedly unplanned child) forced your CHOICE of "living" over "thinking". An understandable, most "forgivable" choice, but a choice still, NOT an excuse or perhaps even proper explanation (much, MUCH less commendation) for said choice.
If the centrists liberals don't attract you there is another option. Don't go with the wrong-wing nuts. They will only harm your life. Go further left. They will stand in solidarity with you, your family, and the community.
@@nineblessednineadorednined9214 What?
@@nineblessednineadorednined9214 As a thinker, I would expect you to not throw around logical fallacies so frivolously. You set up this false dichotomy of choosing “living” or “thinking” when you yourself chose neither.
@@JohnDoe-kn7ex Wrong, I didn't set it up.
I'm in Canada and this hasn't aged well. Our "Liberal" government can't even answer a question or tell the truth. They will see every Canadian out on the street starving.
He touches on that topic of the TEAM, you might start out with a high degree of openness; but once you join a team; you subscribe to it and are no longer open.
This applies more to the base of the pyramid, not the top. The top is almost always distortions of what they claim to represent.
Anything in excess causes degradation and destruction
Haight is not speaking about political parties. He is talking about the relative importance of five moral values to people who have voluntarily indicated their position of what might be called the left-right spectrum. In my opinion, the Canadian Liberal party, supposedly centrist, is trying to appeal to people at all positions on the left-right spectrum. Hence its supporting oil and gas pipelines to appeal to people who are not open to radical change in sources of energy and its rhetoric on shifting to a green economy to appeal to people who are.
I am a conservative and I agree with him mostly. The trouble is even though I'm open to change and other points of view I can't find a liberal who will even talk.
Roy Adamson I recently made a new best friend who is conservative and its helped me, as a liberal, understand that viewpoint.
@@Kimberly-nw4ud That is great, we conservatives aren't monsters, we want the best for mankind as do liberals, we just have different beliefs in how to do that.
Roy Adamson that's exactly right. She and I actually have the same values. When I first started to get to know her I thought she was a liberal and she thought I was a conservative. Luckily by the time we got around to that stuff we had already built respect for each other. Ir might have been different if the subject came up earlier.
@@Darkchosen051987 wow...ur truly drinkin the crazy juice...🤣🤣🤣🤣 two things:
1. Start at 3:30 (another 40 seconds earlier....feel free to tack on an extra 5 seconds and start at 3:25) forget about the earlier time u mentioned in ur post.
2. Watch the rest of this video from that point and L...I...S...T...E...N...do yourself a favor and come at this video in good faith.
Enjoy. 👌🏾
Right, exactly. So much for them being high in openness
"The great conservative insight is that order is really precious. It's really hard yo achieve, and it's really easy to lose."
That's why I am a conservative.
@@1cont and i hate the order you've created, we will forever clash
@@raziphaz2219 but if you don't want to descend into chaos, you have to accept that the change comes slowly and gradually. Most revolutions ends up worse than what they rebelled against.
@@1cont The next thing you need to realize is that things ARE changing. So what once helped keep the order, will not continue to do so forever. So if you want to avoid dramatic change, you need to help facilitate gradual change.
@@Damogen F your limp-wristed threats. Once you start paying Federal taxes I'll care what you have to say.
Excellent talk. Beware of anyone who - knowingly or unwittingly - seeks to polarise society.
Trump
jews
Wow. We need this more today than any day in US history. What a beautiful summation of what it is to be an American, I am looking at my Canadian Familia as well, and what we need to keep a healthy society in which our children can grow and prosper. Love one another people. We all bring strengths to the table. Keep the peace.
I'm a big fan of Jonathan Haidt's work. To the conservatives watching this - I see lots of comments below where people have stopped watching after a few minutes but this isn't quite what you think it may be. I'd only recommend that you persevere through to about the 4m30s point if not further. He is not some trojan horse for either the insane left or insane right but rather someone who has provided insights into how people arrive at their political viewpoints and also why polarisation is getting so much worse whether it be in the US or other democracies. Well worth watching no matter what your view points are.
@Spartan 506 always is a strong word. What's decaying us is social media
@@survivingsociety8592 social media is us, it's not it's own entity.
His basic lack of the understanding of how authoritarianism and and libertarianism lays across both groups makes all his his points moot. And starting off with insults doesn't help at all.
He was right when he stated that liberals don't mind some chaos to achieve their stated outcome while conservatives don't mind some people's oxen being gored to preserve order.
I’m a conservative, but I was a liberal. I just see more value, more truth on our side at this point in history. But I wouldn’t want to live in a world without liberals. This video is not a Trojan Hourse. (My opinion)
Crazy how this talk applies more today, than it did back in 2012.
It applies to any society with a political system in any time in history
@@marcodallolio9746 exactly
Jonathan Haidt deserves the Nobel peace prize for this.
This talk was in Feb 2008. It was, in my opinion, the peak of TED Talks. He punked them for being in danger of becoming an ideological echo chamber in such a clever way that they laughed and applauded him for it. I mean, he went in on them... "... if you understand this trait, you could understand why anybody would eat at Applebee's, but not anybody that you know." - hahahhahahha -
Jon: "this trait also tells us a lot about politics." -- and then gets them to self-identify as partisans, before explaining to them why this is a problem. In early 2008. Not New Years Eve 2012.
A master of his craft
I see some confusion in the comments. Hoping to clear that up. Its not "open mindedness" that liberals are high in, its "open to experience". Its a psychological term, and one of the big 5 personality traits. The 5 scales are vastly agreed upon by psychological academia to be our best understanding of the dimensions of our personalities. Try to not think about it as a conversational "open minded" nature but rather as where someone stands on this important psychological dimension. Everything he's saying is bang on with the literature on the topic.
Dude even though I think it is important you mention this, I think it is very hard to reach people that engage in this kind of discussion. Seeing the comments below this video shows us how much of what reaches your ears is changed in people's minds...polarization is so heavy and noone listen to the other side -.-
Amen!!!
thanks that very insight-full but I'm just wondering which guy voted for Bush? it wasn't clear to me
@@manaman6971 the one who was disgusted by the statue. Because conservatives tend to be less accepting of difference.
The problem with this talk is the implication in the introduction, that left wingers appreciate the great arts of the world more than conservatives. I find it hard to believe that he is bang on there.
The moral roots ...
1. Harm/ Care
2. Fairness/ Reciprocity
3. Ingroup/ Loyalty
4. Authority/ Respect
5. Purity/ Sanctity
Liberty / Oppression has been considered as a 6th dimension.
is he proposing that there's a defining genetic component to these moral roots?
@@joshuabruno I'd say it has value but goes with the communist "oppressor oppressed" mindset, which isn't productive for anyone and just casts blame. The rest are fundamentally different things
Behavior counts. Yes, Liberty/Oppression introduces the missing measure of ethics.
@@zy9662 No, what he's saying is the human brain is wired from the very beginning, to have experiences which "make sense morally", in short, we are wired as human beings from infancy, to be a moral agent.
Brilliant thing to reflect on here in 2022. I consider myself moderate with a desire for new experiences and appreciate values, morality, some traditions. I think this talk gets missed by some in that crowd but the fact that we’re not nearly as witty or as considerate as we think we are is incredible to recognize and reflect on. The fairness and purity chart literally lands the point with no additional effort. You can’t be an arbiter of fairness and prosperity and then ignore what it took to put you in a position to offer that. You have to drive balance and know where to lean to keep the ship afloat and let the vocal minority that can’t handle with it deal with it.
Take the political compass test
@@SSB_Its_Me_SB I’ve taken two. I’m almost dead center, not joking. I have the slightest lean right and I think it’s because of liberty driven ideals with some respect to tradition which pushed me a touch to the right, but nobody would look at my results and say “yeah that dude is clearly a ring winger”.
@@SSB_Its_Me_SB I took it again. Still nearly dead center. I am actually middle between left and right and skew slightly toward libertarian. Matrix reads 0 L/R, -1 Auth/Libertarian. Plus being left/top, minus being right/down.
@@SSB_Its_Me_SB just now saw a more detailed breakdown. -0.13, -1.08. I guess I’m truly a centrist by definition.
Criminal elements often have this desire to want their prey disarmed. Armed prey can mean being killed. Criminals want the only guns and weapons out of cowardice , out of fear of injury or death. The criminal wants all the power.
It's January 2021, now let's make this video go viral
Nice to hear the mention of Libertarians
Thought there would be more.
I missed what the venue was and when this took place, these variables would have affected the makeup of the crowd.
Mentionong them is the most they are worth.
@@TotalRookie_LV wow, Edgy! You're cool!!
@@aceof8S
More like old and grumpy, with little to no tolerance to BS (unless it's a part of a twisted joke).
TotalRookie_LV how is libertarianism BS?
When offered the blue pill and red pill the obvious answer is "hey free pills"
HA! Seriously, what happens if you take both? Must be some nootropic trip!
😂
@Obligate Carnivore
You'll actually be able to *divide by zero!*
I consider myself a conservative and I will take a little of both pills. I am more than happy to help other nations be better with OUR money, but I expect some sustainable living conditions for the citizens of those govt taking our money to be created and not what we have gotten. Little to no change and its still our fault. Hungry? Our fault. At war with one another, still? Our fault. Broken down infrastructure, even though we gave you a few trillion $ over the last few years? Our fault.
BS. I am all for helping but when you see no success, maybe other avenues need to be found other than lets bring everyone here to live even though that will become unsustainable before long.
Responsibility and working together as a team or chaos where nothing changes?
Meh, maybe I will pass on that blue pill.
Laura Kane: I think both sides are unhappy with ineffectual solutions and money not being used properly..
This is brilliant! I can’t thank you enough for putting this reality out here for all to learn from and if your truly open minded, you will! ✌🏼
If you start from a place of curiosity and possibly empathy when you are in the presence of someone who has differing views, you are much more likely to be open to exploring where they got their ideas/beliefs from. Most people in a conversation are thinking about a response when they should be listening to the person speaking. It takes skill and practice, something I am certainly working on.
It’s interesting that we all claim to want to have open and understanding discourse.
Open and understanding discourse means two things: that we’re willing to listen to each other and that we’re willing to be respectful of others views.
Most people, conservative or liberal have very poor listening skills and respect for one another.
On top of that if you really cared about finding solutions together - rather than engaging in inflammatory and redundant discussion, you would make great efforts to communicate in an intelligent way, being careful not to oversimplify issues and make generalizations about other people.
Lack of respect, listening skills, and over generalizations are what creates wars and we’re all guilty of it.
literally, even as a liberal the main thing I'm now against is cancel culture.
@@Jeiss_V as a conservative, I hate hate it to an extraordinary degree. I think that cancel culture violates liberal and conservative morals. It is extremely authoritarian, causes a lot of harm, and acts as purity test in a sense. Like a 5 in all of those areas. Honestly, it's strange that cancel culture started on the left considering how all those characteristics are more associated with conservatives (Haidt made that last claim in a different lecture I watched earlier. Stated that it started on the left, but is now partially being adapted by the far right who traditionally are ranked more similarly with those attributes)
i think there are 2 main issues here. at root i think most people like the idea of having true dialogue. but in practice they very rarely engage those muscles. the root cause for this is laziness and business. have you noticed that when you type more than a paragraph online, people start to openly mock you for the length of your response? this is a way for them to avoid investing time in the dialogue without admitting to themselves that they're being intellectually lazy. this way they can blame their refusal to openly engage on YOU. the irrational, sudden hostility they display is part of the package, because we usually overreact in a hostile way in scenarios where we're in denial. the more hostile we are, the more emotional we get, the easier it is to bury the cognitive dissonance. on the one hand we consciously can see what we're doing, but on the other hand we're layering so much hostility over it that we're sort of wilfully blinding ourselves to it. it's not quite conscious but it's not quite unconscious either. i would like to call it semi-conscious, because you can become aware of it, and i don't think it originates from an unconscious mechanism either. i think it's a learned behavior that becomes really severe habit. in any case, these hostile reactions are a tactic for avoiding conversation without acknowledging (to yourself or to others) your closed-mindedness. i think this demonstrates that one of our primary motives in avoiding dialogue is some combination of laziness, attention deficit, and boredom.
and i think this is the *root* cause, by that i mean it's the true roadblock. if you could eliminate this, i think you could eliminate the other causes. but with this poisoning your motivations it becomes very difficult to extricate yourself from this cognitive-behavioral pattern. it's almost comparable to a compulsive or addictive pattern. the reason i say that is because once you've started avoiding meaningful dialogue in this way, you're no longer exercising the mental modules that are responsible for critical thinking, open-mindedness, willingness to consider opposing viewpoints, willingness to acknowledge your mistakes, etc. i think we have an innate resistance to all these things, but they are muscles that can be trained. we can become critical thinkers with open minds who are willing to consider opposing viewpoints and acknowledge our mistakes. but very few of us are, because that's a lot of weight to lift. most of us are simply atrophied. trying to exercise those modules is simply painful.
think of it like going to the gym. someone who's really out of shape knows they need to exercise. they feel shame and guilt about it, and when they wrestle up the courage to do it, they get all excited. but then they'll take the slightest excuse to get out of it. slightly more traffic? oh, i'll just go tomorrow. etc. and in the event they don't flake out, when they do finally exercise, it's very painful. and i think exercising mental modules is just the same. someone who's been trapped in this mental/emotional cycle for many years might think they like the idea of open dialogue. they might sincerely wish for it. but that's when they're not under any strain. once they're actually confronted with a viewpoint that threatens their own, they instantly become lazy, busy, and hostile. they can't resist the temptation to flee, because they're too sensitized to the pain. instead of spending their mental energy on engaging with the topic of discussion, they devote their intellectual power towards coming up with excuses not to consider their "opponent's" viewpoint. ways to discredit him, or reasons why his opinion doesn't matter. in theory, everyone loves open dialogue. but in practice, it takes actual training to engage in it, just like it takes training to do any kind of strenuous exercise. and unfortunately very few people even start down the road to training because of that one core roadblock, people are lazy and busy and prone to boredom. so they stay trapped in the cycle.
that said, why do you think this problem seems to be getting worse? this is just a guess, but i think it's getting worse because the cultural institutions that previously encouraged open dialogue are eroding. i think people have always had the same propensity for laziness and boredom and excuse-making. but i think civilizations that have had really successful public dialogue have had really prominent social infrastructure for encouraging and rewarding debate. you can see this at work in some individual pockets of rigorous debate. there are still communities in the united states which revere open dialogue, often overlapping with those communities that value empiricism. but the united states had such successful public dialogue for most of its history because of the institution of the university. universities in america were modeled after those in england, scotland, and italy, which were founded on the principles established by the greco-roman-persian physiology/philosophy schools. that's the heritage of the university, so it's no wonder it turned out well. america has always had a cancerous mob, but there was at least debate in academia for most of american history.
but at this point the university has been in a bit of a slump that's been getting progressively worse for 30 years. the university was the prime mover of debate in this country, and it no longer even pays lip service to the principles of free dialogue and diversity of thought. the campaign for ideological conformity, motivated by a reflexive impulse to protect people from emotional trauma, has completely atrophied most university students. emotional strain is what causes these mental modules to grow. just like intercellular strain and indeed trauma are what cause your muscles to grow. so the students are more sensitive to ideological threat than ever before, and you can identify this as the makings of a positive feedback loop, because it's exactly sensitivity which causes the institutions to crack down on free debate. and it's precisely the lack of free debate which hypersensitizes people to ideological threat. apparently if you let this vicious cycle spin enough times, the students lose their minds and the institutions crumble.
we have a big problem, obviously. but i'm optimistic because i believe this has happened many times. institutions crumble but people do build new ones. humans are not simple creatures. there are very few perfectly positive feedback loops in any human system. things spin out of control for a while, but once a certain level of chaos is reached, some other part of our psyche kicks in, and a new growth cycle begins. i think we will do a huge amount of damage, but that's just the motivation required for us to start rebuilding our institutions, and hopefully work out a way to protect them from future erosion. i think that's how america was founded. the founding fathers worked out a way to stop the cycle of carnage, replacing it with a less volatile pendulum. but as time has worn on, i think the edge cases of that model have become apparent. the cracks in the veneer have started to spread and we've basically found the exception to the rule. but i think when we set about rebuilding the university culture, we can structure it in a way that prepares it for future attack, just like the founders structured the nation to resist the dynastic cycle. we often call it social entropy, of course, but there are actually too many factors to ever account for. it's always going to be one thing after another. but as we've seen in the ~120,000 years since humans migrated out of africa and started building proto-civilizations, this whole thing is an iterative process. we're going to miss something this time, but we'll catch it next time. and so on.
I dont claim anything. Neither does Trump.
Listen to yourself talk first : The same phenomenon behind bipolarisarion is the same one behind this “tripolarisation” that you Centrists
We hate you just as much as you “hate” us; this is why we don’t take your seriously and end up giving up and wanting to see you take sides
superb TED talk. As a liberal, I feel inspired to be more open-minded to conservatives.
I am a conservative. I am also more open minded. I wish more people could watch this and become more understanding. I wish everyone see this video. And we could stop the tossing the blame and work together. Like he said in the video everyone has some reason for their ideas.
I agree with both. Once we accept others and actually begin to acknowledge the differences, then we would be able to find the balance of our two sides and start to work with each other in a positive balance with universal progression, not against where it causes us to cement ourselves in our own beliefs and work to over power the other.
I'm a conservative, but I have long believed that progressives and conservatives need one another. Someone has to move the ball forward, but someone also has to keep us from throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Progress will probably happen whether conservatives want it to or not. But progress has to be guided and controlled, otherwise we have chaos and/or anarchy, which causes harm. Before a restraint is removed, we must ask why it is there in the first place, and what will happen if it is removed. I call myself a conservative not because I fear change or progress, but because my voice is likely the one asking those questions.
I understand myself even less now. I'm a liberal on the moral compass and I'd die before becoming an accountant. But I strongly believe that conservative policy is best in most cases.
Every time I try to understand conservatives I get hit with “that man deserved death, he was high” or “the radical left is DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY” so it’d been hard for me. I just want to know how many seem to think that minor crimes or inconveniences warrants death
A world without religion is still a world of rules of conduct. Peace isn't dependent on faith. It's dependent on cooperation... Peace to all!
Jonathan Haidt is more relevant than ever; he has much to say and I hope to hear more from him in the future.
This comment section proves that Jonathan did a good job.
People from both ends of the political spectrum claiming he spoke on their behalf.
He spoke on his own behalf, as every action by any living organism is intrinsically "selfish", that is the action is always being done for the individual performing it, regardless of how altruistic it may appear from the outside.
Yeah, the other side totally didn't get what he was saying.
That's now how I saw it. I thought he did a good job of identifying the two sides and why we have difficulty understanding each other and finding ways to live together peacefully, seeking the best solutions to our problems. We could make great strides if we saw the other side as having something important to contribute and invite them to discuss issues with us and work together.
what about now aldous? left has gone off the rails xD
@@denisthornhill8856 haha, you see the irony?
I want to hear my opponents, the problem is they don't want to hear me. They don't want even discuss, they just want to continue to be blind. Well, maybe I'm blind, but nobody tried to rationally explain how.
Maybe you have to be the first one who is listening. Then they'll open up.
Just start talking to them and let them know that you're genuinely interested. I got to talk to a right-wing troll calmly because I approached his opinions with genuine curiosity and not belittling righteousness or mockery or anything of the sort.
@@hopedean6424 I've always trying to stay calm, my opponents either don't want to talk at all or be very emotional and don't want to argue ratinally.
@Nob the Knave I'm not on conservative side.
@Kurt E. Clothier I can't say what sort of issue it is, because it is forbidden by google rules to discuss.
I like his ending statement about "a passionate commitment to the truth" - I wonder if he still would make that comment 10 years later when statements like "my truth" are so common.
I’ve noticed that even those that call themselves “political centrists” speak about “us vs them” as Prof Heidt does in this talk.
I read his book “The Righteous Mind” and it’s a fantastic book. It covers all this and more in great depth. One of the most interesting books I’ve read. It even got me to realize how much we attempt to rationalize and justify everything in our life as a defense, and it helped me to stop doing that.
is he proposing in this bookk that there's a defining genetic component to the moral roots?
@@zy9662 most ppl have the same base morals i believe. Everything after that is idealism and tribalism, learned behavior if you will. Genetics probably play a role in peoples' propensity to violate their own morals or what they know is right, but probably not in what they believe beyond that. We all know killing and stealing is morally wrong, even the ones who do it. If those type of things were genetic, some people truly wouldnt see the problem with it, and if that was the case, then it actually WOULDNT be wrong across the board and that would def be reflected somewhere in society. But people can be lead to and/or make themselves believe it can be right in the name of some purpose, which goes back to "learned behavior". Genetics probably does play a role in our propensity to be gullable or follow tho, at least to some extent, but a large part of that is also learned
So you prefer political propaganda over an honest view of mankind... How will you be able to get along with all of mankind if your so biased?
@@hopefloats3299 at what point in this comment thread did anyone say they preferred political propaganda? Lol
@@zy9662 he hasn't really read the book.
It deeply dismays me to see that so many commenters obviously didn't learn a ounce of moral humility from this video.
Because the universe is infinite and you are finite and thus wrong about at least some things.
@@XanarchistBlogspot Yes, thank you. We all know we've got a lot to learn, but so many of us(myself included) act like we know it all.
@Greg Roberge Tolerance isn't the center of curious humans' universe. It's the minimum barrier for entry to or communication with that universe. It's the first thing you encounter when approaching that universe from outside, because it's all the way out on the border. If parts of the left are stoking our own tribal impulses, it's because we're seeing the fallout of what Haidt's survey demonstrates: a significant chunk of humanity holds tribal loyalty near or above the importance of all other moral considerations. I will agree that it's not our strength, and we're never going to match or beat tribal traditionalists at that game, but just as they are going to have a hard time dealing with us without reaching that minimum threshold of being tolerant, we're not going to get far with them without recognizing that they believe they're in a fight and that we're the other team.
It's difficult to "learn" from a guy who in the very beginning claims being a leftist is having a moral high ground. There's quite a bit he could learn from me.
Yep. You and I are the only ones that have all the humility we need. Maybe even too much. :)
As a conservative (libertarian) i'm actually more open minded than most liberals and too liberal for most conservatives. I'm fine with that.
Exactly how I feel. Im open minded, love to travel and try new things, love to talk to strangers about the weather...Im Libertarian
You’re not alone.
I wish that there was some context given here. For instance, where was the talk given and what group was attending? I infer that his audience is American ("in a liberal college town", "60 miles north of Lynchberg Virginia") and wealthy ("You're all epicures" who could afford to choose a French restaurant and turn up their noses at Applebees). Perhaps even elitist?
He refers to other speakers and subjects which we know nothing about..
I also wish that there were questions and discussion included. Surely some of his audience would have questioned some of his assertions. I certainly do (as a Canadian liberal).
Why add context? We’d only have the honest and full truth that way…..
10 conservatives, the others were too afraid to raise their hands
WildMoonChild I assume you mean they are scared they will get attacked
Merciless Warrior yeah
that's what I thought too. even the libertarians seemed cautious. I wonder if the Lefties can see how scared we are of them? remind you of anything?
Cranky Old Crone abused children and their fathers
@@iamisaid2295 And you think the reverse hasn't been the case? Traditionalism has ruled over liberalism as well. The ideal that liberals are crazy. And that, can often lead to resentment and vengeance when the shoe is on the other foot. Now Liberals are creating a world where Conservatives are crazy. It's a conflict cycle.
I am a huge lefty but never had I heard it explain in a way like this! This whole time I'm beating my brain asking how can the RIGHT be so blind but in fact it was me being blind to their beliefs. I'm more confused then ever but this is good because I want to understand more now then ever thank you very much!!!!!
Oh come on, you need to get in somebodies face. Charge em with a group organized crime. Make them sorry for thinking it's their money they worked for. Never let them think they are better than you. There are no consequences for breaking established old white guy rules.
DON'T TAKE THE RED PILL!
@@u2mister17 confusion growing 🤔
order and chaos, too much order stunts the growth of a civilization which is why liberalism is important. When liberal ideas star snowballing out of control they lead to chaos, so civilization needs to maintain order as well. Walk the path of Tao, the middle path yin and yang... which is why I believe the 2 party system though faulty doesn't have the problems parliamentary democracies have and it's true the other way around as well. no system is perfect so you just do your best to keep the boat from rocking too much, cause you have no idea who might be flung overboard when it goes too far, too much order is like being in the doldrums you'r not going anywhere and will inevitably die if you don't keep moving, but you need a well structured hierarchy so that the ship gets to where it needs to go and every one is happy with the destination, or you might find your self on a island in the middle of no where and half your crew has mutinied. A deadly predicament for everyone involved.
I'm really glad you think that way!! It's difficult keeping my conservative beliefs to myself because I'm afraid my friends will see me as close-minded! We need to have open discourse and not demonize pwople who think differently!!
@@flypig698 Well said
This has actually helped me understand something about myself. I've always wondered why I have a more conservative view in a seemingly ever progressive world. It would be because I prize loyalty above almost all else. Loyalty to a person, people, those you care about.
Semper Fidelis
I would agree, and add -loyalty to the ideals that protect them
@@stratosphere2323 Yes, it is. I'm glad you finally figured that out.
Maybe it's because he was only allowed a short amount of time, but he only scratched the surface of the conversation. The same metric that says those with a libedral temperment are more open-mindedness also says that conservatives rank a little high in conscientious. and lower in neuroticism.
Nazis were very loyal. Religious zealots are very loyal. Cult members are very loyal. Abuse victims are often very loyal to their abusers.
Loyalty in and of itself is not a noble trait nor a malevolent trait. Being “loyal” is often used as a descriptor to prevent self inquiry. If you never allow yourself to ask, “why am I loyal to this? Is it fair? Humane? Decent?” then you never really have to consider that your loyalties may be misguided or even sadistic.
This is so informative and well explained, I sincerely hope to be half the professor he is one day.
No my mm ki hmm I am know I hmm lj JK kk Blu he k JK lkkk kk I'll my no hmm jink no NM NM NM NM m hmm hmm hmm no kk no nlk HK l kk lol kk kk kk hmm kk lkl JK l kk lklk kk kk know all k kk l JK kk kk kl JK KK kk kk kk k all kk l kk kk ikl kk kk kk kk l kk l JJ kkki kk kk kk kk kk kl ok I'll go JK kk l JK JK JK kk kk l JK l JK JK kk JK knjjkkki kk kkkkkkkkklk JK kkkkll JK l JK JK JK JK l JJ kk kkkkkkkkklk JK JK l bunk b kk kjkkl JK JK JK know lkkljkkkkkl I'll kkllk JK kk kk kk k up JK kkkkk JK l kk hmm k kk l JK l JK l kk kk kk kk kk jkkkkkklll kk JK kkkkk kk kk k kk kjkkl JK JK l JK JK lkkk kk kjjjjkjjjkno kkkkkkklk kk kk no moo llk kk k JK kkkkk KL lli JK kk kjl kk kjl no hmm lol kk kk k kk
What he left out in this talk and what he did mention in his conversation with Sam Harris on Harris' podcast, maybe because he didn't have that data yet at this point, was that they also asked liberals and conservatives what they thought people with opposite views would say in the test. And what came out was that conservatives pretty much understand what liberals think and what their rational is for thinking that, and liberals have no clue as to why conservatives hold certain views.
This struck me as weird since liberals more or less see themselves as being empathic and open minded, but when it comes to emphasise with conservatives you often hear them say:"I can't understand how you can think like that." or something along those lines.
The Sam Harris podcast with Haidt is worth listening to if you enjoyed this tedtalk.
This is why many young liberals become more conservative as they age and gain some wisdom. No one disagrees with the motives behind liberalism, which is why we can understand it, but you learn that the world is not that simple, and what seems like the obvious right choice can be anything but. Unfortunately liberals are too idealistic and closed minded to see this simple truth, they honestly believe that if you disagree with them it is only because you have some nefarious intentions. The world is a big Disney movie for them.
I want to take this test I am progressive and I think I know conservatives fairly well. But I would need the clarification of a modern Trump conservative or an intellectual conservative that knows what conservatism is.
@@dukeofbread2545 I believe it was yourmorals.org
I don't know if the tests are still the same though. I unfortunately can't go to the website due to the new privacy laws for websites in the EU.
@@Meganmaggiemay free speech is fleeting
This feels completely backwards to me. I'm very left wing and I understand everything about why conservatives and libertarians think the way they do. But I've constantly found that they have no understanding whatsoever about how I arrived at my moral compass. This is commonly shown with all the accusations of "media brainwashing" (even though I've never watched the news) or "NPC programming." Conservatives have shown time and again that they simply don't understand how someone can be left wing if they aren't brainwashed into that position.
Well this has aged well
cackhandedlefty I really hope that is sarcasm
Harry Millar
Nope.
It's worse now
@K T One of the basic drives of the left is continuous change and the removal of all established limits and boundaries. There's also some really good videos on a channel called John Mark where he talks about the psychology of the Left and the Right. The Fourth Wave, a channel that talks about heroes and virtue, and how they're being represented in comics and the marxists who are currently running the whole industry into the ground, also has several incredibly well-done insights into the Left's mindset scattered in his videos.
As a liberal I am respectful and open to hearing conservative view points. I am sick of the one-sided thinking and vitriol each side has for the other. Make America United For Once...
As a conservative what he said sums it up very well. “They believe that order is precious and hard to achieve, and that it is very easy for order to collapse into chaos, so it must be protected at all costs.”
Burn down the order
In swimming, there are rules you have to follow if you want to swim fast. If you just say "let me swim however I want", you're never going to be very fast/efficient in the water.
In math, there are rules you have to follow if you want to arrive at the right answer. If you just say "let me do whatever I want with the numbers", you'll never arrive at any useful answer.
In music, there are rules you have to follow in order for the music to "sound good". If you just say "let me do whatever I want", well, chances are, it will just sound really bad.
In literally everything imaginable, the path to optimal/perfection is far narrower than the path to chaos. Fighting for freedom almost always leads people down a less efficient/optimal path simply because there are always far more wrong ones than correct ones.
But order is tricky! Whose order…who decides what order looks like? How much order can be enforced before we infringe on freedoms? Where is the line between order and freedom and who decides that? That’s why there is this huge divide. As he said…left leaning people fight for the weak and oppressed (as traditional morality tends to leave them behind)! They want change and progress even if it challenges order. Liberals don’t desire chaos, but if flattening hierarchies and emancipating the underdogs brings chaos then so be it.
The French Revolution is a great example of this. Overthrowing the monarchy led to lots of temporary chaos, but in the end…it was worth it. Same with the abolitionist movement. This led to the civil war, but through all the chaos…the slaves were freed! Order in society is good, but not if it comes at the expense of people’s liberty, dignity, and overall well-being
Be the change you want to make in others. No one has “talked” me into their side. Action speaks louder than words. I have long since come to believe that people are not what they say, and that it is best to disregard their talk and judge only their actions.
I followed that ideology but what I found is that what a person says is also necessary to get an overview of where they incline. And to judge whether that person truly believes what they are saying, they have to be questioned deeply about it and not simply have small talk. Of course this is where things get messy but words sometimes can also give a good testament of the person's character or inclinations.
Existence before essence, we are what we do.
Convincing you to join a side 😂 white people think they’re so amazing the need to be wooed into believing in human rights for all 😅
Being a centrist, I tend to get blasted from all sides.
Such is my lot in life.
Voice of tReason bring libertarian is same
Thats a good thing. Means ur more balanced.
Being a centrist means you're able to think for yourself. If you walked out of a cave yesterday (after having liven there for 20 years, cut off from society), and you were asked your position on the various issues without influence of your "peers" (Family, friends, Church, etc) and using your own sensibilities, it would be extremely likely that you would fall to both the left and right on different issues. That's just common sense. Of course, common sense is in very shot supply nowadays.. Facebook friends IMO are a perfect metaphor for our times. People who spend a lot of time on FB tend to live in a bubble, and can't relate at all with perspectives outside of their circle. Hence the extreme right or left. A society is doomed when its moderate voices are no longer taken seriously (or even heard, as in the U.S.). Moderation is considered good in every aspect of life -- except, it seems, in U.S. political ideologies.
... Everyone gets attacked by every side of things... when I was a libertarian i attacked libs and cons. When i was a con i made fun of centrists and libs... and now that i'm a lib i make fun of everyone else.
There's really no such thing as a liberal, a conservative, a centrist anyway - just by saying you're a centrist, i have no idea what ideas you believe in, and which you don't. You could believe in high taxes but want strong borders for all i know.
Me too, being a left-centrist who tends to hang out with people further left, or sometimes further right than me.
Excellent, Jonathan! I look forward to seeing and hearing more from you. This provides a foundation for the common understanding we need to achieve to Foster the cooperation we need, not only between "liberals" and "conservatives" (it seems to me that the "powers-that-be" use these labels or distinctions to keep us divided and conquered; I'm an interdependent myself), but between and among all individuals and groups. Let's listen to each other, and have peace and cooperation in the World - what do you think??
Interesting approach. The speaker says that people should reach out and learn about others, but starts out by belittling the "other side." It endeared him with his in-person audience, but likely not to a more diverse internet audience. This causes approximately half of his online audience to tune out before they can hear his points.
I get the impression that at some point 3 months ago somebody posted this video on a partisan forum as proof of their moral superiority to the opposing view, with no sense of self awareness.
Very inciteful!☺
@RightisRight what about his talk was biased?
I’m a Christian and a left leaning independent . I’ve been accused of being a “fake” Christian because I’m not a Republican . It’s a trip. Most of my friends are liberals and some are conservatives. We love each other all the same and rarely discuss politics together - especially in this climate. I think we all have something to offer and it shouldn’t be rooted in political ideologies. Just be kind. ❤️
I find it bizarre that so many "christians" allow their politics to come first. Jesus was both far more conservative and far more progressive than any of us. To follow Jesus you can blindly follow a political team (you may tend to lean either way but if you're consistently leaning the same way on every issue then what's remaining that's Christian)
SAMURAI 武士 that’s not necessarily true, and not very kind of you to say in my opinion. I’m a pretty far right Catholic. A lot of my conservative tendencies come from the fact that I don’t trust the government and politicians to properly handle the needs of the people. I believe that the Church can accomplish more than the American government ever will. Just because I’m conservative doesn’t mean I don’t care about others, just that I don’t trust the government.
LM , When your political ideology aligns with killing babies in the womb where do you draw the line between right and wrong? I certainly wouldn't expect all Christians (a REALLY thrown around word today) to be Republican, but I certainly wouldn't be expecting to find them "Left leaning" when the Left promotes it's own brand of morality and expects the rest of us to "SHUT UP AND PAY FOR IT".
steve demoe so did you forget the whole “unity between parties” thing that the OP was going for?
@@rosyreverie Please review Catholic Social Teaching again, particularly the Call to Family, Community, and Participation which doesn't exclude or excuse you from the social life of politics just because you don't "trust" the government. In fact it names the role that government must play and we must seek to shape it in, because it is government, not the Church that can create justice-seeking economic policies under the principle of subsidiarity. Or just go dive into Evangelii Gaudium...
Norm MacDonald explained why this man doesn't own a dog.
This video is from 2013. In the ensuing years since this was filmed, politics became the new religion.
so Ironic. but the entire talk is basically only condemning the "team" or "herd" mentality that we all have, and all the comments to this video below are just more... derivations of exactly what he was arguing is the problem.
♥️ Kept scrolling until I found a comment that suggested someone actually watched the video... It took quite a bit of scrolling 😟
+NatsGhost Exact same sentiment here. I think this talk just goes right over the head of anyone with an iq less than 130.
I don't usually like ted talks but this man was spitting mad facts
I mean dr haidt is a very prominent and one of the most cited researcher in the field of moral psych
Almost all ted talks are profound wys?
Spitting mad facts? Thats debatable, depends on what you believe.
@@alkatmerc5156 cope
I usually like TED talks, until they made this polarizing political video.
I feel like that on the extreme left we see naivety.
On the extreme right we see paranoia.
We are all degrees in between.
In the end we are better off with a balance closer to the middle.
Writing from ten years in the future (2022)... Y'all are in for a wild ride.
Everyone that watched: that was a really good lecture, I'm gonna try and be more open to make changes and be more accepting.
Comments section: the problem with the other side is........
... And the things we learned go out the window and everything's back to the normal fighting as usual!
Haidt invoked the Gray Fallacy. The stances of political parties changes places along ideological lines all of the time. There's no reason why it is the right thing to do would be between the two wings, nor would it stay equidistant from each side throughout all time.
Such an underrated comment!!
This deserves more likes
This was the comment I was looking for
I'll be more accepting if only you agree with me.
I have been liberal and conservative. It all depends on the situation.
This may actually be one of the best TED videos I’ve ever seen. It explains the psychology of liberalism and conservatism so well.
*current liberalism and conservatism. It wasn't like this always. People in small and tradicional communities value ingroup loyalty much above all.
It explains liberals's delusional point of view of the psychology of two groups of people where they see one of higher value and position than the other. This TED talk shows no knowledge of actual conservatism.
@@DuMaster447 Ingroup loyalty to the detriment of a great country. I guess we can blame both sides for that.
I absolutely see truth in what he says, but why do Republicans favor small government and liberals favor large government if what he says is all true?
The laughter at "dumbf***istan" is very telling.
'Open' people are also noted for their narcissism and psychopathy.
This is amazing. I felt both attacked and validated multiple times while watching this and yet I want to debate and talk more about this. I think it's inspiring me, more than most things have in a long time. I feel like I have more research to do now. Thank you.
TThat's the point: you get some things right, some things wrong.
This man is obviously attacking good, clean, proper, God-fearing Republican White folk.
Wow, you felt this to be fair and balanced! Well, because he pandered to your views and maybe a little jab
here and there it's easy to see how you would call this production Fair and Balanced!
I hope you'll include Haidt's book, "The Righteous Mind" in your research. The subtitle is 'Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion'.
It covers a LOT of ground, and he brings the receipts from studies in Anthropology, Sociology and of course his own research into Moral Psychology. I learned so much.
@@michelep6300 Thank you for the book recommendation! I'll look into finding an audiobook on YT or check around next time I'm at the library :)
@6:53: (A bit before)
"Sports is to war as pornography is to sex" - Jonathan Haidt
Great talk. I don't know who said it originally, but I love the saying: "A bird needs two wings to fly".
Bad example. The 2 wings on a bird work in harmony & are controlled by the same brain. Not so in politics.
A person's freedom ends where another man's freedom begins.
The only ones which we prohibit or cast laws upon are those people who step on the freedom of others.
Not as biased as I thought it was going to be. Very good talk.
+Carla Granger Settle down, snowflake. He didn't create that image, he used it specifically because he knew he'd be talking to a mostly liberal audience and the point of his research is to explode misconceptions people have of other groups (like what liberals think of conservatives and vice versa).
If you couldn't figure that out from watching the talk, then maybe you do come from Dumbfuckistan.
Hyperpandas and yet he is still full of shit
+Carla Granger Well, on his side he has data based on tens of thousands of people (possibly hundreds of thousands at this point), and on your side you have the inability to understand an 18 minute talk on youtube. He may have the stronger argument....
Hyperpandas I will admit I have low tolerance now days. I am very tired of all the bs president Trump is actually offering change for good. Jobs strengthening our borders med insurance that really is affordable. Personally I don't know anybody that was against Obama because he is half black. It was his in everyone's face anti Americanism.
Carla Granger Anti-American? How so?
He was doing so good until the end when he says, “everyone thinks they are right...some problems require us to change other people.” This is a perfect example of how we can be aware of others problems and be completely blind to our own problems. It’s also funny how often this blindness shows up in literally back to back statements when people talk.
Thinking we need to change other people comes into it believing 2 fallacies:
1) I am right
2) I can change other people
The idea that we need to change others can happen in all forms of extreme ideology. As a personality trait though, it tends to be more common for those that lean to the left. It comes from being open to change which makes all forms of change seem possible, including changing others. Conservatives tend to resist change which forces them to accept things as they are, which includes people.
All you can do is change yourself and constantly strive for the truth. The left needs to focus on changing themselves instead of others. The right needs to focus on being more open to change, so they can be more open to changing themselves.
Reed Hardin best unbiased comment in this comment section
@@Mary-tn9qv; You stole my thought! Bless you.
@@Mary-tn9qv; You stole my thought! Bless you.
a little bit of his authoritarianism is showing
You literally just ran into the same problem yourself. You just assumed that the right/left can, or even should, change...
15:47 "If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between _for_ and _against_ is the mind's most worst disease." --Sent-ts'an c. 700 C.E.
I once heard a talk given by a Zen master. A student began to ask a question of a political nature, and in the process added, "and I just hate that..." The Zen master stopped him and said "don't make hate. making hate makes hate seeds, and that just makes more hate." He paused, and then said: "also, don't make like." Making like not only makes "like seeds" but also for the things you don't like "makes hate seeds." Another pause, and then: "so what can you do? Make 'clear' seeds." The lesson (among my favorites) is about Zen clarity. Best to meditate on what is the ultimate perception of reality. (Quotes not precise, it's been a long time, and I'm not a scribe.)
This is why the Asian world was easily conquered and despite all its resources and people has been dominated by people that pick sides and stand for something instead of just sitting on the fence. If you pick a side you will make one friend and one enemy, if you don’t pick a side you will gain two enemies, neither side will have your back. Of course, it is important to discern which side is right before choosing one.
@@JA-jx1hk Sorry, I don't mean to be snarky, but there is so much more to what's involved here that I really have to point out that your view about picking sides is in reality very shallow. Anyway, do you have any idea what it would mean to conquer a Zen master?
@@TesserId You will always have to pick your allegiances eventually. The rural russian farmers felt the same way, “it’s just a silly culture war” until the Bolsheviks showed up with weapons and declared the farm was theirs now.
@@JA-jx1hk There's a Zen story in which a country is being overrun by conquerors. A general enters a temple to find a lone Zen master in meditation. He raises his sword to cut down the Zen master. The Zen master says: "coming nobody, going nobody; what do you want?" Taken aback, the general drops his sword.
If you want to enact change in your world, enact change in your community. Do this by hearing and understanding the challenges people in your community face. Once you understand those challenges, help to solve them. Everyone has challenges, and in my experience everyone will accept help. When you’ve helped someone, and they have accepted your help, regardless of their moral values, you will have built a bridge between yourselves and them. And you will have found someone to help you enact change in your community, and in doing so, in some small part enacted change in your world.
In this comment section: thousands of people who don't understand the basic political compass or basic politics, and faithfully believe that their side is always the least violent and most moral side.
@Largesse1000 He was talking about you all, not summoning you to comment back to him.
It's like the message of this video went over their heads
People think politics is one-dimensional, when two-dimensional is literally an insult to a single person...
Violence is not innately bad. So I don’t care about that. But my side is definitely the most moral side, seeing as people on my side actually affirm objective morality to begin with. To most people on the other side, morality is simply a vague sense of fleeting emotions influencing decision making. To us, it’s an eternal metaphysical system all are bound to. You tell me which side is gonna be more consistent and cohesive long term.
Excellent. If there is one thing good I feel about the Trump administration, it's that it has forced us to all think more deeply about where we stand and why. I have people in my family that I love dearly who voted for Trump while I myself am staunchly opposed to him. I have to, I must do my best to understand where they're coming from. I come from a social background of being amongst radicals, punks, bohemians. I had to quit social media - the treatment that some far-left-leaning acquaintances of mine dole out to conservatives made me livid. I am really anti-violence and I see call-out culture as merely bullying. I don't understand how anyone, on either side of the coin, can expect someone to listen to what they have to say with an open mind if they are bullying them or using violent language. We all have to live in this world, together, and violent tactics, call-out culture, ostracizing... this is nothing more than fascism. Some of my left-leaning acquaintances have a lot of trouble seeing this... We aren't really on a straight-line with a left or right, but the two ends of the line are coming back together to make a circle... By the way, I love Sarah Schulman's "Conflict is Not Abuse." It's relevant to the ideas here.
czcams.com/video/MhPbO7CoBF8/video.html
czcams.com/video/CTq-hkR-yAc/video.html
The problem with the Trump administration is the what he said at the end. It completely lacks any sort of "passionate commitment to the truth". It's one thing to have genuine disagreement and discourse over policy, but that's not possible when one side has no real interest in cooperating or even trying to be reasonable. It seems like every other sentence coming out of this administration and the congressmen that back it is lies and misdirection. We are seeing criminals and corruption abound worse than it's been years.
Jillian Musielak great comment and I feel the same way.
@@drakke125Channel I think you've misunderstood me. I feel like this post pretty clearly negates what I wrote as it seems you haven't quite took in what I said, or chose not to, and instead just imposed your own agenda here. I'm in no way conservative - I do not identify with any particular ideology nor will I subscribe to one.
@@stevenclark5173 True, but I've never come across anyone directly in the Trump administration, just those who have fallen victim to it - let's call it like it is. My question is would you (not you personally but you know what I mean) throw stones at someone who has been victimized, brainwashed, manipulated, in a word, abused? It's inportant to listen to them, earn trust and respect, so you can lay the foundation for a possible discourse.
I am conservative, but love variety and always like to try something new.
I noticed on the hand raising part that about a third of the audience raised their hands as Liberals, about a quarter of them raised their hands as Libertarians, and they DID NOT show the number of people that raised their hands as Conservatives, and just said it was about 8 or ten.
As a Liberal you will be quick to think "that's because that's about right". But is it? And what if it isn't?
Thank you, i've always thought you have to be conservative with yourself and liberal to your neighbours.
We can't deny peoples experiences of the world, but we can learn to better co exist, to do that, understanding and accepting ourselves, is KEY to understand and accept each other
We're a lot more similar than we like to accept, its just that we don't like to show to each other.
Niinii !!!!
Blue Lions TV - A Chelsea Channel 💯💯
@Emma Mary thats how the us works right now, the inclusive and amazing left will practically hate you for being right wing, yet right ring doesn’t gaf if you are right or left
@@zachsuarez1830 i mean ;
- "right ring" representatives notoriously discredit, gaslight, insult, bully and slur left-wing representatives, ESPEcially in the US (eg: Trump, Shapiro, pretty much everyone at Fox news) which i would say is gaffing at least one (1) bit
- establishing that you're left or right infers you identify with their view point, and quite many of the right's views are to-say-the-least inconsiderate to the suffering of minorities and marginalised groups, which i'd say is, y'know, something some people are right to be angry at ???? cuz maybe peoples' "views" shouldn't negatively affect the vunerable ??
That's exactly the way I've thought about it too!
I tend to agree with many commenters here that dividing people into left and right leaning ("liberal" in the North American sense and "conservative") is simplistic, especially when you are looking at periods of social breakdown and decay. Populist movements around the world are gaining traction. I live in Latin America, where populism is viewed as intrinsically left-wing, whereas in Europe and the US it is seen as right-wing. Regardless of this, Trump - or Farage in the UK, or Le Pen in France - is the closest you could find to say, Chavez or his pea-brained successor in Venezuela, despite the alleged difference in ideology. What drives such movements as far as I can see is the desire to belong to a collective that is numerically strong and has a clearly defined enemy, and people are inclined to accept a degree of authoritarianism for the sake of the feeling of security and belonging this brings. So the divide is really between collectivists and individualists, where the latter are on the defensive pretty much everywhere in the world at present, and I think when you look at it that way, Haidt's message here is as timely as ever: people need to park their prejudices and lower their hackles and make more of an effort to try to understand the legitimate aspirations and fears of the other side, and look for win-win solutions.
Very well put and insightful I couldn't agree more. I never really thought about it that way but now that I do, it does seem like a basic human instinct. Unfortunately, the right wing in the US is absolutely not interested in compromise or conversation. I have tried many times in person and online to have a decent discussion to no avail. I would tip toe on eggshells to not upset them and be as respectful as I can but they are just to emotional
As a conservative minded individual, the closed minds I've seen have always been on the left. Every conservative I know routinely takes the time to listen to the other sides argument, but no liberal, left side individual has ever been quite long enough to listen to my side...closed minds...always
Well, by definition, populism is a right-wing ideology, even if the party that is parading it is left. It's just the way it has been historically defined. On top ot that, I am pretty sure that collectivists and individualists don't really have much to do with left or right wing. It is independent of those things. For instance, communism and fascism both have strong collectivist mentalities, but they are on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Brillant - may I quote you! You have got it figured out! Bravo! :-)
Well, there is leftwing populism and there is rightwing populism. It's intrinsically leftwing in South America because you still have a lot communist countries. There was fascism in Europe and the extreme left part of our political spectrum has historically been narrowed out during the cold war (as in almost all of the Western World). Populism only means 'claiming the support of the masses or of all the people, while giving simplified solutions to very complex problems, often in a derogatory manner towards holders of any other ideas, sometimes accompanied with a dramatization of any current situation'. Populism doesn't claim a side, it can be on anyone's. This brings us to the extreme of the left, which is communism and to the extreme of the right, which is fascism.
Libertarianism as an ideology of small government and a lot of freedom (while not in the extremes, is regarded as the middle) does have it's own extreme, which at the end is the 'extreme of the middle'. Some examples also exist in the U.S., where people want to get rid of fundamental government institutions (like the police for example).
The difference between extreme and radical is that an extremist is someone very far to either side on the political spectrum, while a radical is open to using violence. (
Tribal ways of life have allowed us to make amazing things, but have also created a never ending perpetual cycle of violence towards our own. As John said you have to step out of your moral matrix in order to see what's truly right, and truly wrong without the confines of what your told.
I think the biggest problems is the media really plays up the extremes. Most people aren't like that. Most Republicans aren't that extreme, nor are Democrats. In reality people are far more complicated and nuanced.
It seems nowadays that people on the "right" tend to be way more open to conversation than people on the "left".
That's true.
@nate nah libs tend to avoid discussions since they know they can't argue with feelings
@@bromo8874 Only that the dems ideology is mainly based on feelings
@nate lmao all these responses and you won't reply. Because that's why liberals do they insult and call conservatives horrible and refuse to have a discussion about it because that's "harassment"
I’m very open minded however the right at the moment denies the facts of reality when it come to so many issues for example climate change, universal healthcare, legalization of drugs, etc
Thank you to anyone here trying to be able to empathize and understanding the 'other' side better.
What if we're talking about openness, but we choose a different example?
What if the conservative and liberal stereotypes, right up front, were touring Italy and were invited to an Italian Army weapons demonstration?
Now which of the two is more likely to react negatively?
Assumptions in the test itself drive the results we see.
This lecture proves that I'm right.
Remember we are all human and share a planet. We must care about each other and better ourselves.
Tell that to a Republican.
Soapandwater6 that doesn’t help. You literally just watched a TED talk on that.
@@beamarie8041 I don't have to agree with the TED talk.
Soapandwater6
So do you not agree with unity and cooperation between the parties?
@Michael Sweeney 🤣🤣🤣
Cool concept. I've been trying to start learning more about the conservative point of view, and I think this finally gives me a bit of a starting point. It's hard because a lot of people who lean on the right side are SO different, that it takes a lot of work for me to try to understand their side. There are some parts where I'm simply left baffled and confused, but I still try. It also doesn't help that it feels like current political representatives are rather extreme to one side or the other, leaving me to wander in search of people who are level-headed and open to considering different points of view.
We're called libertarians. 😁
youre clueless, i hope you have now learned more.
This was very liberating, especially in these times of extreme political dualism, people are generalizing way too much these days based on certain group identity, which is scary in it's own way
People are beginning to stop doing that though, which is very good.
I personally credit trump to it.
Imagine back in 2012, seeing a Republican against the IRaq war since day one, being the few politicians that have the balls to call Bush and Mconnel war criminals.
I dont know about other people, but its not very different these days.
Its not morals.
Its about natural liberties, vs abstract liberties.
Natural liberties as in the right to do things that would be possible without a state.
Natural liberties means access to clean water, but not free government provided water.
Abstract liberties is the right to do things in general, regardless of the government or corporations.
Instead of access to clean water, your given a service to free water.
Instead of access to cars, something that would exist without a state structure, its access to trains and public transit, something that is only possible thru a governance structure.
Thats at least my view abt it.
Im with the natural liberties side.
I think abstract liberties can be very exploitative. Imagine saying "I want the right to food" and expecting it to be given without any contribution from you.
I really think politics should be grounded in reality as much as possible.
I have never watched a bad Ted Talk. That being said, this was far and away the absolute best and most mind blowing of them. I for one am really going to give this my all, to try and become a better Grinch.
I have noticed myself getting stuck in an echo chamber. This was a perfect challenge for myself without just someone saying I was wrong that I quickly dismiss.
For anyone who liked this Talk, I highly recommend Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind
Great book
10:35 morality painting
11:55 cooperation decays without punishment
I am liberal and in my opinion Jonathan Haidt said a lot of unrelated things
'Liberal' does not mean left wing. At least not in the UK. 'Liberal' is essentially the belief that the individual is the most important societal unit (as opposed to various collective groups), and this faith in individualism underpins liberal ideology (on both the right, as in 'Classical Liberals', and on the centre or left, as in 'Modern Liberals').
Contrast with Conservatism, which is characterised by a belief in pragmatism and a negative view of human nature, and Socialism, which has its foundation on the collective as the supreme unit within society.
lol
then why so many liberals act like tribalism. they usually force their feeling and sensitivity to other and command the rich to divide no relation with their will even though they are people who won't divide to the pooler than themselves. and always throw away the logic of other party and just emphesize their sensitivity and when the other don't sympathize usully treat them like facist.
U would be correct, if it played out that way in real life. Group identities is the way of life for leftists now. Conservatives want to uphold the constitutional right of individual freedom.
I like to compare the two parties of the USA as left brain right brain
And this guy presenting is showing his own bias and can't even be objective, so it's difficult to believe anything he says
@@markkar3192 Showing bias doesn't necessarily mean you should discredit him? Besides, I think he's actually conservative
If I remember correctly, liberals are centrists, actually.
I'd like to see an updated analysis, now that liberalism has been replaced by progressivism's inevitable consequence.
@Rusty Shackleford Actually, the idea of a political center is mostly just fantasy. I mean,what is the moderate point of view on abortion,gun control or immigration. It would be very hard to come up with one, at least a legitimate one.
Once you realize that the left has always been about hate then you can more easily see through their agenda and even predict what kind of ideology, lies and propaganda such people would attempt to push the very same thing that the left already pushes.
@@leekenyon8705 Lol, way to demonize. Neither the left or right is "about hate", and both sides have hateful members. If you see the average leftist as being hateful when most of their stances are all about preservation of rights, then I think it says more about you than them.
James Oakes
While there where violent, authoritarian regimen on both sides, "hate" is an ideological term, not a structural one.
And fascism, the ideology of violence, comes from the right. A reaction against modernity.
You might argue Marxism has a hate component, but I would disagree - class struggle is depersonalized and a violent revolution doesn't have to have any deaths whatsoever. Fascism, on the other hand, is a direct confrontation with minorities for who they are.
@@jamesoakes4842 The left does not want white people to have rights.
I would love to hear an update on this based on reactions to covid lockdowns between parties and conspiracy theorists
But was Napoleon really short?
Loved reading Haidt and Joshua Greene in a moral psychology class last semester.
The five personality test rated me high to openness yet I am conservative.
This is probably one of my favorite videos EVERRRR....literally can watch it over and over, can listen to this guy for hours
I'm scored in the 99 percentile for "Openness to experience."
I'm classical liberal, however, on some issues, I'm completely conservative because wisdom and common sense both dictate it so on certain issues regarding security, fairness, opportunity and a level playing field for all.
"Security" is a trigger word in the U.S. (and to some extent elsewhere), which can be used to justify all means of tyranny.
@@deantaylor5177 Like weaponizing the Justice Dept. and FBI to do your political hit jobs on former Presidents.
I hate how the two-party system in America makes it so easy to hate the “other,” and I highly value increased understanding and dialogue between people who think differently. At the same time, in my opinion, this video has an “enlightened centrist” perspective that seems to think that not taking sides on anything is the ideal solution. But when it comes to solving oppression, you can’t just act like the oppressors and their victims both have good points. You have to be “for and against” something if people are being harmed. I also question what “institutions and traditions” conservatives are supposed to be preserving. Are these the same institutions that disenfranchised women and legalized slavery?
You demonstrate the liberal blindness so well. Conservatives are able to see what is worth preserving in historical institutions while also agreeing that they can change for the better - as indeed they have. America ended the disenfranchisement of women and legalized slavery. And conservatives were front and center in driving those changes. After all, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican who ended slavery, and Dwight Eisenhower was a Republican who proposed and delivered the Civil Rights Act.
Much of the news we receive these days is presented in such a way as to encourage us to see things in a certain way. Our goal, through this understanding, must be to step out of the ring and make up our own minds on each issue.
@k Wow.....way to engage in the propaganda machine and undermining the message of OPs statement...... (countdown to edgelord 'sheeple' or 'hey thats just how I feel. you can believe whatever you want' laced reply in 3...2...)
The fact that we have two parties that represent over 300 million people is ludicrous. Our government would benefit greatly by a multi party system where party affiliation would become less important and policy will be what actually matters.
Dean Pagliaro Well I hope we see a sect of the Democratic Party challenge the California elitist. They are destroying a once great state and driving the middle class into other states in droves.
I completely agree. The two party system leads to individuals joining a team. Folks are no longer required to think for themselves but form opinion based on what the rest of their team thinks. Lot's of people have strong oponions they are not prepared to defend about issuses they do not understand. Both parties disgust me in their own special way.
He gave a three-way choice: liberals, conservatives, Libertarians. However, only one of these is an actual political party, the Libertarians. Libertarians are a lot more conservative than Republicans, and Socialists are for totalitarian government, while Communists are for all the people being equally poor, and only the government having money and things. But he was discussing general left-wing and right-wing ideologies, not parties.
@PringlesKing William That points to a flaw in our system and how it needs to change, not that it shouldn't change. Our winner takes all system with the electoral college is broken, and leads to the voices of over 2 million people being silenced (not that I wanted her as president). If we gave our electors proportionally, not only would we be able to give voice to more people (think a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas for example) we would also be able to have a system like many European nations where we can have people win that didn't have more than 50% of the vote by forming coalitions or a minority government. This would benefit smaller parties because they would be able to get electoral votes without winning an entire state, only a portion of it. Right now in our system a lot of people's votes are counted up and thrown away because they didn't win the entire state, it's really flawed. This leads to 95% of campaign money being spent in 14 states and 99% of campaign time in 14 states because they already know that more than 50% of people will vote for them in these other states. This causes a lot of people's voices and states to be ignored.
That third party needs to seek out something much more qualified than any of the status quo
The issue with this way of thinking is that often peace and negotiation isn't a real option for some groups. Many times throughout history the "in-group" has sought to completely exterminate the "outgroup" and the when the outgroup pleaded for assistance, they were met with "why can't everyone just get along". I'm not saying that's what Haidt is saying here, but these sorts of things can be used as justification by those comfortable with their positions in society to ignore the problems of those who were not.
He asked who's liberal and who's conservative, and then he added libertarian. But she specified that he was referring to social issues ( as opposed to economic issues ) So a savvy political scientist/sociologist really should have known that on social issues libertarians don't need their own category because they are socially liberal just like liberals.