"Two incompatible sacred values in American universities" Jon Haidt, Hayek Lecture Series
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 06. 2024
- On October 6, 2016, Professor Jonathan Haidt gave a Hayek Lecture at Duke. The event was co-sponsored by the programs in the History of Political Economy (HOPE), Philosophy, Politics, & Economics (PPE), and American Values and Institutions (AVI). The event was open to the public, but also served as a guest lecture in Professor Jonathan Anomaly’s PPE course.
Professor Haidt argues that conflicts arise at many American universities today because they are pursuing two potentially incompatible goals: truth and social justice. While Haidt thinks both goals are important, he maintains that they can come into conflict.
According to some versions of social justice, whenever we observe a disparity of outcomes between races, genders, or other groups, we should infer that injustice has been done. Haidt challenges this view of social justice and shows how it sometimes leads to violations of truth, and even justice.
Haidt concludes that universities should be free to pursue whatever goals - truth or social justice - they want, but that they should make it clear which of these two goals is their “telos” - their highest purpose. He ends with a discussion of his initiative, HeterodoxAcademy.org, to bring more viewpoint diversity to universities in order to improve research and learning.
Subscribe to our CZcams Channel for more!
Follow us at / dukepolisci
Like us at / dukepolisci
Follow us at / dukepolisci
Produced by Shaun King, Duke University Department of Political Science Multimedia Specialist
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
What a wonderful time we're living in. I can watch tons of lecture by interesting people for free, from home, whenever I want. This is one of the most beautiful sides of internet and of this era.
Hell yeah. I see a lot of doom and gloom these days, but people should take a moment to relax and reflect on just how incredible the information age is. There's an almost infinite amount of knowledge available at our fingertips. It's a wonderful time to be alive if you ask me.
There's an almost infinite amount of knowledge and it's being quickly censored.
Download and backup, the book burnings have begun.
@@MadsterV I think it's rather the opposite. Censorship has never been so weak, relatively speaking.
@@taurtue I would agree 20 years ago. We've started going back since. If I type certain words here, you'll never be able to read this message. People self censor when talking. Other people will say things they don't believe in for fear of losing their jobs. It keeps escalating. People are getting retroactively censored.
The problem is, a TON of bullshit and dogma and political correctness gains traction.
"The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about, yet refuse to investigate."--- Dr. Wayne Dyer
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ---Upton Sinclair
Those are some damn good quotes, thanks for sharing
"So, 2016 is a strange year."
*2020*: hold my beer
This was a month before Trump was elected he had no idea
Best response I've seen in a while!
I guess this year was trying out for Guinness world record.😆🤣😆
This is the first time the hold my beer meme made me laugh aloud
Great comment! So naturally I (and every other testosterone filled male) wants to best it. Maybe the second line: *2020* (thinking) "I don't even have to put my beer down for this.". Nah.....can't best it. Nice job.
I am a Chinese majored in Computer Science. I think the gender study major in the west should never exist as an academic department, and it is toxic to the entire intellectual atmosphere in the University. Note that I strongly support women rights movement in the past centuries.
In the Universities in mainland China, we have a department called "School of Marxism studies." They apply modern social science theory to research on "Marxism with Chinese characteristics". Their publication is also nice looking, in a serious tone, with all the modern social science theories, but their entire goal is to prove:
"1. Marxism is right."
"2. Marxism with Chinese characteristics is still Marxism."
"3. China is still a socialist county on the road to communism."
There is tons of Ph.D. and professors in the "School of Marxism studies," however, I think they are so ashamed of their pseudo-science research that few of them dare to speak to STEM student to say: "Look, I am a scientist as well." Awarding that subject with the Ph.D. title is a shame to the entire academia. Why, because if they want to do real research in Marxism, they should do it in a proper philosophy, politics or economics department, so that their research can be challenged, disputed, proved or disproved by peers of a different view. In "School of Marxism studies," your conclusion is already there, what you need is to prove it with an eloquent essay.
As a rule of thumb, an academic subject should not be established as such that its research (or pseudo-research) is revolving around an orthodoxical ideology. Whether such political ideology is just or unjust is another matter, science and research are entirely about Truth, not ideology.
In scientific research, we need to report our funders so that other scientists can know that if there exists a channel of interest to cause potential bias. Confirmation bias and vested interest are fairly common issues in STEM researchers. However, in each STEM field, different sides can argue and dispute over the publications so that any hypothesis is attacked, examined, and finally prove or disproved over time. To summarize: every researcher has his own belief and his own bias; To arrive at truth, in STEM we ask the opposition forces to attack each other vigorously so, in the end, we found the truth that withstands the challenge.
In physics, you can prove Newton Classic physics is wrong (or flawed). You will have a huge outcry in the circles, you will have both allies and enemy, but your career and physics research goes on. The simple matter is: the entire field of physics (or any STEM subject) do not depend on the orthodoxy of one particular set of theory or ideal. The subject that is founded on one particular set theory or ideal is religion.
In women study (or any other other identity politic pseudo-research), the entire founding structure is wrong in the first place. I am not arguing about whether today's women study is good or bad, rational or irrational. I think any Ph.D. in STEM major will realize the fact that the system design of current women studies as an academic research system will cause a massive confirmation bias and a whole industry of vested interest in the field itself.
Do you believe some Ph.D. in women study can publish a research hypothesis that white males are the disadvantaged social groups?
Do you believe some Ph.D. in women study can publish a research hypothesis that male are inherently more intelligent (by whatever particular measure) than the female, so that men are better at some jobs?
The above hypothesis is false IMO, but it is an important thinking game. It proves that there is a "right answer" and "wrong answer" of morality in the research, so some hypothesis will never be raised, and some conclusion will never be drawn. Moreover, graduates from women study virtually cannot find any job except being a teacher of women study or an activist. So if their researchers find that women are under institutional discrimination, the entire field benefit from it by collecting more funds and secure more teaching positions or jobs like "chief diversity officers in google"(As a CS student I burst into tears when I first heard of such title :P ).
I am not arguing whether "women are under institutional discrimination" is true or false (I believe the claim is justified in someplace in China), I merely point out that there exist a chain of vested interest here. Most importantly, if someday, someone proves "women are under institutional discrimination" is untrue, if would dis-establish the entire field. Can you imagine the severity of it? The entire field of study will be demolished, that will be equivalent to proving Allah does not exist to Muslim. That is to say, hypotheses or research to disproving an certain argument in “women's study” will be an existential threat to all the Ph.D. in the subject and getting everyone so mad at you because their entire life, entire research, and future career will be fertile.With such a closed loop of positive feedback without negative review, it is therefore never a wonder for me that women study become an echo chamber and radicalized.
Looking back in history, we would know that such moral ideal is a bad idea in reach science theory. Darwin theory which portrays a cold-hearted evolution by natural selection is not a welcoming thought in many religious people and defy the sanctity of the men. Many radical political thoughts (which cause mass murders) in modern time are inspired by Darwin theory. However, academia is not church; we should seek truth (however uncomfortable).
Darwin can be good Christian when he is a man in daily life, but when he begins to work as a scientist, he must distance himself from what he believes or what he would like the world to be. In research, the scientist ceases to be a man; he becomes the embodiment reason itself. After the research, he recovers his morality and ideal. A scientist may then decide to hide the uncomfortable discover, or burn it because it will bring injustice when misused. I think many people outside of STEM emphasis on too much on humanity, too little on the reason. They do not realize the importance of this duality of personality when discovering the truth require our cold-hearted rationalism, and hiding the harmful truth from public require our warm-hearted humanity.
I think every true scholar who is interested in women study, with the dream of obtaining truth, should leave that particular echo chamber. Real researchers on women’s issue should go back to common political science or sociology department where there is not a particular agenda or central ideology. Their theory may be completely right, but it needs to put outside of the echo chamber and face strict scrutiny to as befitting the academic standard. Having a feminist reviewing the paper of another feminist will not produce any real science.
I really aprecieted your coment. Here in Brazil, we're living the same situation. A worldwide problem, as we can see it...
Yes, when on gender studies courses, professors indoctrinate students with ideas such as 'gender is socially constructed, even biological sex is a social construct, clearly the intellectual atmosphere on campus is massively compromised. Moreover, the influence that that gender studies have on social policies in the real world due to the above ideas can be highly toxic. For example, the current trend for proceeding too readily with transition surgery, for people diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria -especially with young people.
Nevertheless, gender, and race are important areas of study - as long as they are studied with due academic rigor. For example how culture and religions impact on gender roles and stereotypes is a worthwhile area to look into.
Wei Li, do you have Departments of gender studies with sub branches such as 'queer' studies in Chinese universities?
Somehow, I think not.
@@BootyBot me too, but I already know it has some value 😂
Excellent.
I’m just commenting so I can find this later and read it when I’m on a computer and not exhausted. But thank you for sharing such a detailed and thoughtful CZcams comment!
Social justice is an ideology.
Truth is not.
Quite. It seems Haidt’s aim here is to invite everyone’s ownership in committing to the notion of the truth
The Independent Whig one man’s truth can be another’s lies
Amazon and Alphabet are authoritarian stalwarts. He lost his talos after that one.
It's dogma, not backed by logic
People can be terrorized and killed. Truth cannot. Reality will always inevitably rear its ugly head.
“2016 is a strange year” wait 4 years my friend... just wait
Wait? He seems to be a pretty good candidate for instigators list. He's a complete douche either way, very weird person, and really, really not very smart, and should not be teaching. I could be wrong, but I think he wants to be famous really bad.
yes, in four years later we've found out the Left like this guy here, has shown it's true colors... burning, looting, lies, fake Russian Collusion, fake impeachment, destruction of our past under the guise of social justice, Dem politicians that will do anything for power, race pimps, fake statistics on police brutality, a conniving media and academia. that's what you get four later. a traitorous Marxist leftist class of elitists trying to take out conservative and middle class Americans, because they could not accept a democratically elected Trump... well guys, I say four more years of Trump to keep fighting these lowlife self righteous bastards. Trump 2020 😁
@gary zemek Thanks for the timely example of what his students end up like, perfect, mate.
I'm from the future also. I can confirm 2020 will be nuts.
@@blackopal3138 this might all be right, but still he is on point in many respects, even if I find myself disagreeing sometimes. Watch Camille Paglia ; )
7:00 Telos
13:15 Motivated Reasoning
22:25 Sacredness
34:05 Anti-Fragility
39:20 Blasphemy Laws
46:45 Correlation
56:10 Justice
1:02:00 Schism
1:05:36 Conclusion
thanks for the handy break-down
12:18 He relabeled racial discrepancy as a racial injustice. And the classroom didn’t bat an eye. THAT is indoctrination.
"What's that sound like? A job!" I was sitting here silently listening, interested, and then burst out laughing.10/10 well done Professor Haidt.
He’s like Oprah just dancing 🕺 in his loafers over his legit microfiche era presentation … as if he’s dropping bombs.
There is so much neurosis and chaos here I am afraid.
WTA-.
Extremely well presented and persuasive. Love the insights on the nature of our university discourse in recent history. Professor Haidt has explicitly articulated an internal reality a lot of people are experiencing in the classroom today. Bravo!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.... Hilarious.....are you one of the 'students' he was talking about.... White Fragility LOLOLOL
@@ryansamuels8894 you sure? Seems like this is a positive comment on the lecture. This doesn’t imply fragility, it implies thankfulness for someone speaking about and explaining things in a way that you could not either because you lacked the courage or the ability to articulate/formulate the ideas presented in the same way.
@@ryansamuels8894 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
The very top of the pyramid of the .2% of the most wealthy Elite in the world are in charge an responsible for introducing, and Maintaining and new ideologies that enter the University/classroom at every level.
No need to break it down into all these ridiculous lectures! Lol just another control mechanism to reinforce and perpetuate their “current” system , and goals.
This process happens over a period of generations as a way to completely guide the ideas, an morals of a society, u could call it drip feeding if you will.
God bless you all and my Yahshua(Jesus) be with you all.
This is an absolute GOLD MINE. Everybody should listen to this. Great lecture.
Andrew Zelis , agree , absolutely. His point recognising ID politics as tapping into regressive ",honor culture modes " is one I haven't heard expressed so clearly before .
I think he makes terribly misunderstanding conflations all over the shop and no one here seems to be questioning that. People just love to listen to someone make arbitrary arguments without noticing said arbitraryness if it can feed their political/emotional beliefs... this whole affair in incredibly ironic.
It will turn out to be complete politically irrelevant as the Capitalist coronavirus depression becomes the main political issue and some tired and worn out SJW activists living in their parents 1960 to 1970 movements thinking the have a professional occupation as an SJW breaking glass ceilings.
Atleast a couple times for me!
If you are mining for the densest collection of idiocy....
HAIDT SPEECH.
lol.
Geronimo 78 Your comment is the Haidt of mispronunciation
Dan Roy
How did you hear how I pronounced it?
Dan Roy actually if he's a cockney, it workz
KEEPYOURHAIDTSPEECHOFFOURCAMPUS
KEEPYOURHAIDTSPEECHOFFOURCAMPUS
KEEPYOURHAIDTSPEECHOFFOURCAMPUS
Prof. Haidt, it feels like you picked my unorganised pile of thoughts which I made to this subject, and organised them into an on-point lecture. It was brilliant! This must be one of my favourite lectures of all time, and I am in STEM!
A disillusioned SWM in STEM? Join the party
+Idk Idk And SWM stands for what? : )
@@TejrnarG "Straight White Men" (it's in the lecture around 38:30).
It is not better at Duke. As of 2020, as a Duke graduate student, I can confirm that eggshells have only filled the room more.
"Only if you commit to truth can you actually achieve justice". Thank you Dr. Haidt and the Duke dept of PS.
Whose truth? This is not truth, it is just another philosophy. Plug the truth of God into the equation and see how things straighten up. But I know, you will not go there, because people are so convinced that this is the problem and not the solution, and everyone wants to do their own thing. "They will say good is evil and evil is good." The bible is so right about us.
@@gordoncrawley5826 Yes but god is religion, not truth. Despite what you believe, there is no truth in religion, it is a BELIEF. The reason for the truth schools is to let ideas flourish again. Many religious people are just like SJW's, but religion usually happens to be helpful to society, not destructive (for now). The ideas of religion itself aren't helpful, but the fact it encourages marriage and gives you a community to help you grow yourself is incredibly beneficial to how you do in life. It's a hard concept for me to admit, because I despise religion for many reasons, mostly due to it being anti-logic just like SJW's, but no honest person can deny the benefits it encourages.
@@whatNtarnation90 "The ideas aren't helpful, but what it says is extremely beneficial to society".. blindingly perceptive observation, Good Sir.
@@Adam-kf6lr "blindingly perceptive" ... having a hard time deciding if you're agreeing with me, or saying I'm an idiot lmao.
What's your take? Hard to decipher smart-assness over text
Blah blah blah . All talk
Holy sh1t this lecture is aging well :-o
I'm a high schooler. I watched this video. Guess which University I'm applying to, and which I'm not?
Wheaton College 2022
the school for christ, HELL YEAH. jc got you my nigga, jc got your back
Definitely not Evergreen state
Hillsdale for me.
The one that will help with grammar and punctuation?
This lecture should be mandatory for all students in all Universities as part of the admissions process.
It might be more helpful it were mandator for all administrators!
or ... we just 'pimp slap! 'logic back into the delusional
@@philobetto5106 lool
People who have a psychotic episode - or more accurately, pretend to - should not be allowed into any educational establishment. It should again be considered a huge privilege, and ruining the experience for everyone else is unforgivable.
Jeez - this video needs millions of views
To teach people what a morally bankrupt and and logically vacuous pseudo-argument sounds like...
Yes anybody with kids here's my advicedo what our parents did grab your kid forcefully sit them in front of a television and make them listen to this hahaha that's what you called old school persuasion
the world these days I find is full of pseudo-scientists that are looking for people to listen to them pseudoscientist potheads that get really stoned and come up with culkamaniaabout things and everybody wants to be heard but nobody wants to listen and a lot of people just want to get their name out there and they don't care what the future repercussions of their bull is going to have just as long as they get notoriety Fame and eventually money this is the cold hard facts of today and what we are living in no one can be trusted anymore barely any ideology of anything can be trusted anymore politicians could never betrusted and in general the world has become a place that is just out for itself
now before people jump all over me of what I posted on my last post I did not mean any of this towards this man who is speaking right this man who is speaking right now makes perfect 100% scence
Down with safety culture we need brave fearless people in this world
Not an accident that Haidt is one of the most prominent and popular public intellectuals of our time. Congratulations on a brilliant presentation!
National treasures: Canada -Jordan Peterson, USA -Jonathan Haidt
Yes
I was thinking the same thing! I'd love to see them in conversation. Perhaps they would just agree on everything, but perhaps it would be really interesting and exciting!
Charlatans
@@hal7ter Dr. Peterson has a video with Dr. Haidt. It's really good.
@@BMkeys14 I will pursue that - thank you so much!
I agree with pretty much everything he says except at 55:20: A bias towards hiring women is not "anti-sexist", it's still just sexist.
Completely agree, you don’t stop a bad behavior by targeting another group and then lifting up your previous victims. Just stop targeting people…
Emile Durkheim, "one of the greatest social psychologists ever" has company:
Jonathan Haidt.
The Independent Whig Durkheim was the father of sociology.
I chose a social justice oriented school on purpose because I found traditional schooling too rigid and narrowly focused, 30 years ago. Things have swung so far in the opposite direction that I don't even recognize what people call social justice anymore. A traditional education has become the refuge from narrow perspectives, and now provides the broader perspective.
Man of this continuing moment of obfuscation. Well done Duke for hosting Professor Haidt
*Standing ovation*
Keep fighting the good fight Jon! :)
What Haidt described 3 years ago now (2016 => 2019) in the context of university is just a microcosm of current raging sociopolitical dynamics in Western culture at large. It has only gotten worse...
In the end truth always wins. It's always darkest before the dawn my friend.
And will continue to get worse, unfortunately
@@coolbeans6148 - but not for long...
@@hermitthefrog8951 whys that?
@@coolbeans6148 - you'll see: nothing can stop what is coming. *NOTHING.*
funny thing is, we need to talk about this, there are people that thing women and men are the same
We do need to talk about it, but our lack of civil discourse won’t allow it. I have questions and concerns. I don’t want to hurt or offend anyone, I am willing to try to accept people where they are, but I truly don’t understand all the different gender classifications. I do understand there’s a difference between sex and gender. I can see where gender is a construct to a certain extent, but not fully. There are definite biological differences between the sexes, there is intersex and at times an obgyn in a hospital makes a judgement call, but these are rare cases. I have trouble with the idea of someone of a different biological sex competing with the other biological sex in athletics. It’s not just the physical advantages like bone structure and muscle mass, it’s also the thought of taking a spot from a group that fought very hard for that spot. I’m open minded but it seems like this topic is nuclear with some people.
@jakiyaful holy crap ... did you even listen to the lecture? This is utter display of such intolerance and turning something into something else ( he didn't even suggest it was a big problem in the nation - you projected that unto the comments ) in order to claim victimhood and oppression (the system is rigged against us by these evil doers that you point out) and turn someone who made a comment completely unrelated to your own comment into a target ripe for attack. You should check yourself man.
Men and women have more in common than they in things that are different. Having said that, its true that men and women are not the same in all regards.
jakiyaful I know this is hard for you to understand, but some of us can have more than one issue and conversation at the same time. Windows isn’t the only multitasker around. I’m sure if you can find threads on youtube where people (including myself) discuss that issue as well. However, calling people stupid is not conducive to enlightened discourse.
jakiyaful your claiming your a victim to these evil doers of the corporate elite. Hence you elevate this to the single most important thing to be discussed and seek to insert it where it is irrelevant to the topic at had. It’s all about you you you.
Hopefully the tides in academia are turning with guys like Jon Haidt and Jordan B Peterson.
Gad Saad as well
Not gonna change anytime soon! The diversity studies people are still there. And the liberal professors aren't gonna just suddenly grow a spine.
In September 2018 the province of Ontario has doubled down on free speech on it's Universities so perhaps they are having an effect.
Haidt talks about Truth as being something different than Christ.
For Jordan Peterson Christ is Truth.
They would not agree on what Truth is. I imagine SJW will exist who say Social Justice is Truth.
What is Truth?
Haidt ia a far better social scientist than Peterson. I find Haidt's talks very well reasoned and thought out, always ready to consider contrary arguments and with a sense of detachment from himself, whereas Peterson I find difficult to listen to and lacking distance from himself.
This is outstanding. I am going to invite everyone I know to watch this. Thanks Professor Haidt!
Bertrand Russel:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Fascinating talk Sir! I am on the young side of the baby boomer generation. Everything I see and hear about colleges today makes my skin crawl. Your 1990's change explanation helps me understand why these kids are so extremely fragile while at the same time extremely angry and violent. Weird dichotomy. Thank you for sharing your work freely here on you tube!
"extremely fragile while at the same time extremely angry and violent. Weird dichotomy" Except that it's pretty much the structural foundation of most cluster B personality disorder.
The fact that this speech didn’t originate from the students tells us how ignorant and easily persuaded people in their 20s are. But they think being in college makes them smart. Indoctrination of this age group is easy.
He’s so well intended though. Which is why all the drunk lax kids (esp the one who may have raped a girl) were really reaaaaally interested in being like “philosophy of religion majors” as they slept through his silly slides … whiskey breath, coke twitching. I can just see it. Attended a liberal arts colleges during its less “activist” less angry days. Of course he went to Yale. He is a smart man. And I bet .. I just imagine… he was a Whiffenpoof. Omg this sounds bad and sexist in 2022. Now I remember feeling so irrelevant in more arrogant male professors classes who didn’t even REALIZE they’re light in the loafers banger didn’t include half the class!
This speech is just a huge one sided generalization. You seem to already have came to this lecture with your opinion finalized
I experienced no victim culture in college recently, and you need to differenciate between the school itself trying to pander to a percieved crowd, apart from the students themselves requesting it
I'm glad these conversations are being had.
I'm glad beings are having these conversations.
"The only way to achieve equal outcomes is through injustice." 1:01:46
They excuse it because to them, the previous injustices committed by ancestors is enough to make it okay. Essentially makes it impossible for anyone to ever be good enough or do enough right to be treated equally, analogy is "House Rules"
I wish I could give this a million likes. It is not WHAT political ideology the professoriate is biased toward, it is the fact that THEY ARE overwhelmingly one way than another.
Jonathan Haidt is one of my favorite voices of reason: erudite, clinical, humble, and humorous.
Jonathan Haidt is doing exceptional work and will go down as one of the most important and influential academics of our time.
As an ardent fan and admirer of Dr. Haidt I recommend this lecture to my friends, family and associates.
But I also point out that seeking the truth and acting to change the world in accordance with insights our quest for truth has led us to are courses of action we often must pursue simultaneously through life.
It is appropriate that during ones time in the University, at that age when we have so much to learn, the bulk of our energy is expanded on learning, and in the quest of truth. But not long after university the balance has to shift where we become agents of change within society, even while we (for the rest of our lives) continue to seek the truth and rectify the courses of our own actions.
Well said
Uni's were a place where everything was questioned.
I hope I live to see the 'were' and 'was' in that sentence become an 'is'.
If anyone is interested in a more detailed explanation of the philosophy of John Stuart Mill, I am creating a series of short clips on my channel that breaks his ideas down into a palatable format.
John Stuart Mill Society, haven’t watched any yet but I’m keen in principle. Subscribed!
Thank you - will look for it.
Absolutely fabulous. I'm only distressed that less than 2,000 people have seen this. A great diagnosis of the state of the University; and by extension, of much of our culture. Very well done!
Two weeks later it is up to 11.000 ... give it time.
@@Grubnar I just saw it now, 2 years later, and I'm putting it on my FB page.
Five years later it’s at 639k in a country of 328 million people, only another 2,500+ years till everyone sees it.
This is extremely embarrassing for so many Brown students and alums.
what is?
Did you see the end of the lecture? Brown was billed as the "social justice" college and UChicago as the "truth" college. It's sadly a fair depiction of Brown, which is *not* what most students and alums want. Most people who get in want to go because it's an Ivy League school that can open the biggest doors in life for you. Yet while they spend their time studying like hell, a group of good for nothing "activists" are constantly protesting and turning the school into a laughingstock. It's become a point of embarrassment. The culture is now exactly as South Park and so many other portray it. It's not just Brown, either (Yale, Princeton - the list goes on). "At least we're not Brandeis" isn't particularly reassuring. *Sigh*...
SevenRiderAirForce At the moment , if thing continue this way the university in the USA will lost rank and prestige specially the one in the ivy league. England is also going the same way.
Thank you, I was wrong I was not able to finish the lecture.
@@SevenRiderAirForce Funny how relevant that description of Brown is today, because of the Ignorant, fraud, AOC!!
@@oxcarthabu AOC is a product of Puerto Rican university teachings. Many profs are Cuban communists hostile to the US. Now you know.
Occupant in SAN JUAN PŔ.
In 2020, this video resonates more than ever. Haidt is unfailingly correct in his analysis. with this exception; from my own experience, neo-Marxism on college campuses became a political force during the war in Vietnam, when academians became ideologues, especially in the humanities. It reached a critical tipping point in the 1990s, when the neo-Marxists of the 1960s began occupying administrative posts and departmental chairs. At that time, there was a noteable shift from diversity of ideas to diversity based on race and gender as identity politics came to dominate those disciplines in which empirical proof of a hypothesis is limited or nonexistent.
Through the control of like-minded faculty appointments and the use of tenure, neo-Marxism is now firmly entrenched in our "elite" universities, with a few notable exceptions. The broadening of the curriculum inevitably lead to courses that were ideological rather than academic in nature -- "queer literature" and "feminine literature" for example. Findings in the social sciences were consciously distorted to support a neo-Marxist "social justice" agenda and active hostility to professors and guest speakers who did not hue to the party line became commonplace. In the process, freedom of inquiry was sacrificed, as the pursuit of Truth gave way to the pursuit of perceived "social justice" goals, with all of the ramifications Haidt details. Universities are not, however, going to declare themselves antagonistic to Truth and advocates of "social justice" as Haidt suggests. There is simply too much money to be made defrauding students and their families. What is impressive is that Haidt remains on the faculty of NYU in spite of his views. If he said such things while teaching at Harvard, Yale, or Berkeley, he would be long gone by now.
Extremely valuable contribution to the big issues dividing the Academy today. Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind was my best read of 2023. He’s a gifted communicator who balances rigorous research with accessible discourse 💯
This lecture was a really big turning point in my university career. Great work, and thanks for sharing it!
Just found this now... amazingly appropriate and insightful for the current environment. I'm American but spent 15 years overseas and recently returned - and I don't even recognize my own culture anymore.
This is probably the best lecture I've ever seen on CZcams.
haidt seems to be talking about the incompatibility of truth and social justice as an ideology, rather than justice e.g. in the aristotelian sense. obviously ideology and the pursuit of truth (fact) are at odds - the main takeaway is that social justice has evolved from a dispassionate cause into an ideology, which is i think the actual problem he means to get at.
Social Justice just has nothing to do with justice. That's all.
I think "Justice" in general is a very vague word - especially when it stands in no context with anything else.(same goes with Freedom) Someone can want "justice" for their murdered loved ones and you can kinda understand what they meant with that or want. How the justice can look like for them can wary from what others find acceptable of course.
He's talking about the title of his presentation, and the difference between "social justice education" vs "truth education" ('truth' being a word he uses to describe the transparent fact-finding exercises that we are supposed to learn about in school). These are very different animals, and he's saying that educational institutions should choose one or the other.
I'm reminded of the professor who, after being instructed to improve female graduate numbers in his science department to 55% (population of women in the country), was shocked that I, a female, said they were making their degrees worthless because he would have to fail most male students and pass every single female student and still not have the numbers because only 17% of the class were female (the same as the pass rate anyway). Apparently no one had considered that....
yes, often ideals are not even in the realm of realism, and forcing the issue just makes for awful outcomes for the people who really did want to make it as a scientist. It's great to encourage and coach and mentor, but at the end of the day, if they are trying to drag people who aren't that interested, not that good at something, and are struggling to stay interested and committed, you are not going to get better scientists as a result.
He's doing the hokey "say it with me" to stir feelings of togetherness via synchronicity.
fuck yeah jonathan haidt
Amazingly brave man. All of life should be aimed at finding truth. (And recognizing that truth exists. )
Truth is searched for via the scientific method but is never reached because true omniscience is impossible to achieve.
Haidt stresses this. The errant opinion that a particular ideology or religion has cornered the market on omniscience and requires no further inquiry into searching for the truth (by using the scientific method) is what Haidt is criticizing!
I have read Christian websites that claim that "Truth" can be discovered in ways other than the scientific method, ie. burning in the bosom and other spiritual experiences. These are not metaphysical experiences; none exist. They are human emotions and physiological responses to these emotions.
gud talk all in all, only 55:00 is a bit strange... Ofc having a benefit just by the virtue of your gender is wrong. And discriminating against men in favor women isn't anti-sexist, it's just sexist. Haidt lost the plot on that occasion, otherwise a bunch of interesting and fair points.
Dildo Schwaggins, is it you?
yeah that's quite strange. I guess the professor has sometimes problems with double negatives, or that when you multiply a negative number with another negative number you get a positive number, which to many people seems unintuitive. Maybe he meant to say reverse sexism?
**skanhunt42**, I wouldn't say he lost the plot. In other talks, he often says our moralities are based not on facts but on stories. His remark at ~55:00 is simply telling the story from the POV of the characters he's describing.
His point is that hiring decisions in STEM fields are often aimed at combating sexism. That their entrenched moral view perceives women rather than men as the victims of sexism (as Haidt argues) is unjust (as he also argues).
It's anti-sexism in terms of being an attempt to fight against sexism. However as there is no sexism there, it leads to sexism.
@@michaelh878 It could probably be equated to the notion of fighting fire with fire, IE, fighting sexism with sexism.
55:15 "STEM is systemically anti-sexist" So to discriminate against men in favour of women is somehow "anti-sexist" now and not just plain old sexism.
I do hope this was just a slip of the tongue so to say for him to save his own ass from potential knock-back. Considering how the prof. describes university environments I don't consider it unlikely...
Other than that, great lecture.
TheZorkiel I came to comment and was happy to find like-minded people here! This world still has some beauty in it 😊
**TheZorkiel**, call it a slip of the tongue if you want. His point is that hiring decisions in STEM fields are often aimed at combating sexism. That their entrenched moral view perceives women rather than men as the victims of sexism (as Haidt argues) is unjust (which he also argues).
This is probably the long version of what **Tarquin** was saying.
I think what he meant was that it's "anti-sexist" by the left's definition of sexism specifically against women, which is what he was talking about before he said what you quoted.
discriminating against men isn't combating sexism. it's practicing it
***** I didn't dispute that.
The only system that truly works fairly is one in which everyone has equal access to opportunity, is allowed to choose for themselves, and is rewarded on the basis of merit / achievement.
So the 90s
@@The_JohnnieWalker - when things were still more or less normal.....
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You
who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything!
Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
who said this? it's great
@@leetledrummerboy Many times I quote someone and leave it to the reader to web search for the author. Just copy the quote and paste it into you r favorite search engine. This technique also works well when you come to someone claiming to say something, plagiarizing, and see where they got it. They don't like to be exposed.
So anyways, the answer is Bastiat - The Law. bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
If you prefer to listen, Learnoutloud.com has free audio download.
Enjoy.
@@ny1t ahh good point lol, and thank you!
I love you professor! if I share just one video on what is happening with culture and social justice, this is it
Wow. This guy is so impressive. I wonder how he was allowed on campus with his subversive ideology...
Yes its subversive ideology by asking you and all other liberals to actually THINK and be OBJECTIVE to facts and to stop being such crybabies,
@@k.m.h7412 easy, easy... he certainly said it with sarcasm
Shirley....jest ye
The fact that he's having this discussion on a college campus undermines his own thesis.
@@gregoryalonge371 I doubt very seriously you could accurately articulate his "thesis."
"Correlation is not causation is the often the first thing taught in an economics class and is also the first that is forgotten." - Thomas Sowell.
Best video I've seen in the past few weeks. Glad to see professors coming around. Favorited.
There is another word. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's pretty close.
The word is GRIT.
No one is born with fully developed true grit. It's built up in increments.
SJW losers don't get it. They tilt at windmills and destroy everything in their path... somehow believing that they, and their "cause" is somehow virtuous and therefore superior. Their approach violates the central principle of medicine, "First, do no harm". For some insane reason, they are convinced that the more harm they cause PROVES they are more righteous... making it so you have ZERO grounds to oppose them. Talk about TYRANNY!!
Grit is the thing you acquire, incrementally, as you overcome more and more difficult situations. So you’re right about that. However Professor Haidt is saying talking about the _property_ of acquiring more “grit” when faced with more and more difficult situations. Humans have this property, but not all systems do. For example, a bridge that is repeatedly subjected to stress and damage does not develop grit, it just becomes more and more degraded until it eventually collapses. The opposite property, where you get stronger- i.e., acquire more grit- is the property called anti-fragility that he is referring to.
One of the best talks I have ever heard. He also uses humor effectively. Except possibly for Jordan Preston, he has no peer.
This lecture should be a requirement for every member of Congress!
my problem with this is that people are just learning problems as opposed to solutions to thinking through complex issues. The solution is always education but not when education teaches you to think about limits all day long. What education should teach people is how to think. You can teach people intellect!
22:30
Sacredness as something that makes people cooperate without being closely related
I think one can put it this way:
In nature ants and bees cooperate by being _genetic_ siblings. Humans cooperate by being _memetic_ siblings, by following the same ideology or religion.
Sacred is relative to each individual ,not society.
But many human siblings do not get along. Not a good thesis.
@@dogeared100 you completely misunderstood my point. I'm not even talking about human biological siblings there in the first place.
Hmm. Jonathan Haidt has made a mistake in classifying bees (haplodiploid) with termites (not haplodiploid). He is right about pretty well everything else, though!
Initially I had hard time to continue, perhaps until one third into the lecture. Afterwards I was hooked and loved his presentation. I didn't know John's ideas much, except his interview with Jordan Peterson. I loved this presentation, very cogent.
Same. It was only because I was familiar with who he was that I pushed through and it was worth it.
Quite a long video but very much worth watching. This is the best examination and dissection of the modern college culture in America that I have seen.
"social justice helps you study better"
That aged like milk.
I'm very far on the Left, but it's refreshing to hear this talked about academically. Usually you either hear people of the Left who vehemently support the culture Haidt is arguing against, or you hear a bunch of mouth-breathing racists who think safe-spaces are the worst thing in the universe. It's good to hear a measured and researched assessment of the situation.
You really are on the Left if those are the only two categories you ever hear. Granted, the second group are caricatures, not direct interactions, but there are a lot of media producing them!
Haidt roundly condemns safe spaces and essentially calls anyone who requires them wimps!
@@MH-be6hr Which is true. There are no actual safe spaces in life.
*@Jon Haidt is such an EXCELLENT* 💙 *SPEAKER and his books and youtube talks consistently read in a friendly, understandable, easy-to-comprehend way!*
*And he genuinely seems like a great guy to know and be around, too!!!*
This presentation should be mandatory viewing for all high school seniors. A prerequisite for graduation.
Watched this 4 years ago. How much louder does it ring true today in 2020? Should be required listening in high schools, but it never will be so pull your kids out of those damn indoctrination centers.
Trumper!
Brilliant. This speaker has outstanding awareness, hence he's made room for knowledge with neutrality.
I needed this, thank you. This quarter was hard and I was arguing for truth and science and got beat in to the ground. Merci.
Fascinating Lecture.
I’m 53and remember when there was more balance and critique.
Of course it wasn’t perfect but Johnathan has helped me understand just how and why the world and logic has been turned upside
QUESTION: Does "the world being turned upside down" justify doing what former pres Donald Trump said and did, lying about the election results and then attempting to falsify the Electoral College vote count and certification by inciting the January 6 Trump Insurrection?
The unspoken truth is that every Republican knows very well that the election was not rigged and that the vote count wasn't tainted, but conservatives believe that America is on the brink of being taken over by Marxists pretending to be progressives and that 2020 is their last opportunity to save the country. (Confab I laying this whole mess are conservatism's ugly underbelly of values and beliefs: racism, white supremacy (did you catch Haidt's thinly-disguised defense of white supremacist and sexist thinking and conservative supremacy (my term?)).
Confabulating, not confab I laying!!! I despise this Spell-Checker! 😤😖
Wow! Thank you! I have renewed hope that things are swinging back toward truth. HOW REFRESHING! I am so happy that someone FINALLY sees what's happening to our universities and is moving toward seeking the TRUTH, and NOT social justice. I could not find anything to disagree with! My own father-in-law was a professor at Princeton and used to be a senior research scientist for the Educational Testing Service. He received his PhD in sociology and psychology. But he became "marxist" in his point of view. For this reason my husband and he became estranged because his father could no longer accept the "conservative" point of view. He saw it as "enmity towards social justice". My father-in-law, Dr. Robert F. Boldt, attended Princeton in the 1940s. EVEN THEN this destructive marxist point of view was taking hold. So it is not a NEW thing. So this video hit home with us. It is exactly what we see happening. Both my husband and I are college educated and in our late 50s and we've seen the transition just as Jon Haidt has demonstrated.
You're assuming that the conservative point of view is the sole possessor of truth and is without flaw.
This is the religious-like testimony that Haidt is warning against.
@@MH-be6hr I don't "assume" anything. I witness with my own eyes. I agree, truth doesn't necessarily come from the conservative point of view. No one is without "flaw". But if you have a better argument, please present it.
@@MH-be6hr the conservative view has been tried and proven successful, without exception. That is the reason it is the conservative position. We must adapt and make changes according to need but radicals seldom want to tweak the 11 herbs and spices, they want to stop eating chicken entirely. That’s an untenable position, especially when Haidt clearly argues that college students are being set up for failure, not success, by indulging in the social justice paradigm. You can’t sue your boss every time he disagrees with your work or quit every time you aren’t happy. They pay you to work and produce despite your feelings.
@@kimberlyboldt5213 why don't you explain why this so called "marxist" view is bad first?
Among the best and the most convincing lecture I've watched on this topic, 2020 onwards has been even stranger than 2016, keep up with the Haidt speech!
I saw his TED years ago and liked it, then started reading his book The Righteous Mind but quit. Now, years later, and after watching this, I think I’m ready to finish that book.
What a find! What a lecture! I found myself fascinated by this man's understanding of our college campus culture evolution.
2016 is a strange year
2020 "hold my beer"
A brilliant exposition of some rigorous thinking. I'm writing from the UK where, although I suspect to a lesser extent, we face the same philosophical choice on campus.
Professor Haidt is not without his own ideological and political biases. He was raised liberal, but then as an adult, came to the conclusion that he agreed wholeheartedly with conservative thought. He then mentally disavowed the left and embraced what Fox News used to call the "center right."
I find it hard to believe that Haidt is an atheist. I think he just says he is so people won't discount him as a right-winger and ignore him.
He supports a limited classical (pre-Marx era) liberalism with traditional American style Christian values, attitudes, and perceptions. That makes him a CONSERVATIVE, despite his claim that he is a moderate.
Moderate what?
It's hard to be a moderate conservative because the conservative moral matrix won't allow it!
I know. I used to be a conservative. I am currently a moderate progressive-liberal who is ALSO searching for properly scientifically obtained inquiry into the issues that divide us.
Even universities are integrated with social media. That workbook called 30 Days Without Social Media should be passed out like candy. Everyone needs a long break from online influences.
So helpful to have some insight into how and why parts of our society seem to be going insane.
Wow, his technique of making up a story about the Bush administration and showing that it is wrong, and then using the actual Obama administrations rule on racial terms was brilliant. It shook me. Brilliant.
Interesting talk and agree with a lot of it. Brutal how the student at the end just says "how do we vote if we reject false dichotomies" haha
He understates the progression. Academia was majority conservative as late as the 50s. Been a constant decline since then.
Something i will freely admit in my own life is the fact that while some adversities, like my job as an example, or trying to get along with my sister who shares the family house with me make me stronger, and i am always so surprised -and pleasantly that i have made so much progress in them. But some adversities don't. The truth is, most of my life, my adversities, whether it was washing out in the Marine Corp as a teenager, or never achieving a college degree, or never becoming a Minister... those experiences all left me feeling permanently broken & so much less than what i imagined myself to be. And sure, i have yet to finish the evaluation of my own life, and i realize that i am in no place to be objective. There may be so many benefits from my adversity that i just am blind to. But on the whole, there is a whole lot of experiences i lived through that certainly left me feeling much weaker in spirit after surviving them. Another example would be that my parents are gone. I do not fill their shoes. I miss them every single day. People often tell me i should talk to them anyway -but i don't, because i am ashamed, that i am not good enough to speak to them in their afterlife.
You must talk to them and tell them everything. You can get mad or cry. They want to help you. And talk to God. I talk to them all every day.
@@thetroytroycan i don't know if you realize how insightful your response is. But talking to your dead parents, that and God seem to be the only safe space for a man to cry. I had the benefit that i could cry in front of my parents even as an adult -and my father was a man's man -nothing wimp about him. But as an unfortunate rule men have to be very careful about how they show tears. When people see a man cry they treat him different. Usually there are very few people in your life, but sometimes no one, who will not view you with some level of contempt and treat you differently after they see you release tears. And i think that is so wrong. Especially when i realize that many -not all but a good chunk of my tears as a man are for other people and their pain and difficulties. But i don't want people to see me cry because of stigma. And i think all men feel this on some level, but are often ashamed to even admit that they need to cry. We keep our composure because we are trying to protect the people and things we care about. But i think that after so many repetitions of doing that, we incorporate that into an identity of "men don't cry!" that we ourselves and those around us can't separate anymore.
7:43 Is the purpose of business to make a profit or to create a good or service? Here is my test: Ask business-people which they would rather have: 1) profit without providing a good or service, or 2) providing a good or service without making a profit. Obviously, profit is what they want and providing a good or service is the thing they do to get what they want.
That may be what they want but generally, you can't make a profit without creating a good or service.
@@robertbrandywine The definition of the word "purpose" is "the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." My argument separates the *purpose* of business from the *means* that are used to achieve the purpose. Telos is concerned with the purpose of something, not the means to achieve the purpose.
---
And, although irrelevant to this discussion, *arbitrage* is a way of making a profit without creating a good or service. Day trading stocks is a well-known example of arbitrage (that is usually unsuccessful), but there are very smart and sophisticated algorithmic traders that can actually do it successfully. It is what keeps exchange traded funds priced correctly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage
www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032615/how-etf-arbitrage-works.asp
@@mikeg9b I think you might be confusing motive with purpose though. The purpose of business is to provide goods and services, the motive a man or woman might have for going into business can be many things, making profit is just one of them.
Who else was sent here by Jordan Peterson?
I just walked in by luck.
anonC2H5OH I first saw Haidt on the Rubin report, which is where i first saw Peterson too, incidentally.
gravithan I was sent by GRAVITAHN
I was, but I've been a fan of Haidt for a while - less some of the goofy "repeat me" and "who's on my side" schtick in this presentation.
Sam Harris got me here.
this is dialectic discussion he touches both polarities n we can decide the truth hes a rly good teacher its classical he did the forefather proud
Thank you for this effort to assist moving us all, into a better tomorrow, a more Just Future.
When Dr. Haidt is talking about the shift in political ideology composition in academics his reasoning has some implicit assumptions that I don't fully agree with.
1. The Democratic and Republican parties are stable measures of liberal and conservative ideologies. If you ask political scientists if Trump's policies and rhetoric would be considered mainstream among Republicans in the 70's or 80's I'd wager that they'd respond with a resounding "No".
2. The affects of policies adopted over the past 40 years are now visible and measurable and from this new data we can update our policies going forward. For a concrete example look to the "War on Drugs". After a tough on drugs stance was adopted in the 70's with harsh mandatory minimums and increased policing effort all we have to show is an increase in incarceration, and drug cartel violence throughout South & Central America. Any politician still supporting the heavy criminalization of drug use is either ignorant or cruel.
I fully agree with Dr. Haidt that a diversity of ideas and opinions, political or otherwise, is necessary to provide the best education possible, but only where those ideas are supported by the data. Overall, great talk.
Where did all these Left profs come from and what happened to the Right profs? The change seems maybe a bit fast for replacement of retired or fired profs. Could they be the same people who have changed their political alliegiancies?
I'll have to rewatch and look more carefully. Perhaps he was not suggesting the shift to the left as a cause, but as an effect? Perhaps Profs now dare not express Right views, even in confidential surveys (if such things still are possible.)
haidt has incredible bravery. lol - this man literally had them reciting his slides
Jonathan Haidt is a brilliant thinker,
This lecture aged so well.
Excellent talk! I think I'm in love.
This lecture is fantastic. Can't wait to read his book!
Phenomenal lecture. Remarkably prophetic. Everyone should take time to watch this!
Hi everyone. Could anybody please help me on how can I translate into Spanish the terms "hivishness" and "awe" in the context Dr. Haidt spoke of them?