When Haidt talks about how the group needs a mutual goal to work together, all I can think of is that maintaining a government that works well for the most people should be that common goal. This goal is why we have state and local governments and a 'small' federal government.
Ya, I actually tested this on my facebook. I posted something stupid and got a ton of comments and likes, then I posed something reasonably intelligent that was about about popular culture / movies, got less likes.... Then I posted some Jonathan Haidt, and I couldn't even get crickets to chirp.
Our society is too safe, evolution has reversed and we are now getting dumber. Also the smartest peoples have the lowest birthrates. The movie Idiocracy is less a comedy than a prophecy. It was also banned from being shown in theatres so there ya go. We are living in a modern dark age, I pray it ends soon. It will require a cataclysmic shift though.
+Jim Magers You can tell that BIll had . . . possibly literally never heard the arguments of the right. The same way Haidt didn't know them (only heresay) until he was in his 40's studying to write a book about them.
I was sceptical but this is actually pretty interesting. The whole dichotomy of conservatives/liberal party politics is by nature divisive and as destructive as it is constructive. One of the biggest issues in most Western countries is the pointless party politics, seemingly destined to fail, or end up in another civil war like we are almost seeing today.
11:30 on compromising : Something that is compromising makes you vulnerable to being embarrassed or incriminated in some way. Another meaning: willing to compromise which is quite equal to finding common ground. So due to the double meaning of compromising it is not surprising that some may choose to reject or avoid the word and replace it with a less tainted one and it has nothing to do with rejecting cooperation of which ever kind whatsoever. This is especially the case for those in public office who address a large and mixed audience.
Jonathan. You are such a breath of fresh air. I cringed when you said, "Gingrich is a screaming hypocrite, but we all are." It's like you qualified the judgement with the adjective "screaming" while in the same sentence minimized the extent of it by normalizing it. Some people are consistent and egregious hypocrites while other's are aware of the tendency and attempt to moderate these human tendencies. .
I Write Songs You and the left are no less a hypocrite than Gingrich. Until you can admit that, instead of trying to stick it to the Republicans, our country will not change.
Did you read Jonathan's book? If you did I don't think you'd be that presumptuous. What evidence do you have to suggest I am a part of the left? Do you think I am a Clinton supporter? Perhaps you assume I back the SJW's, or believe in socialism. Hmm? Is it because I think it's unfair to normalize everyone as having the same level of hypocrisy. Most of us wrestle with moral integrity. The best we can do is own our moral failings, and not just as a sound bite to restore our reputations.
Look at it this way. There are two perspectives: one emphasizing people's rights . . . and one emphasizing people's responsibilities. Both republicans and democrats clearly have some of each. But ask yourself: which do we not have enough of now (?) That'll tell you whether you're a republican or democrat . . .
The only thing I disagree is that when he talked about tea party movement, he thinks that sign that says "don't reward failures" is about poor people. It wasn't. It was about bailing out the Wall Street bankers.
carolcheny Tea partiers often complain about government spending - which welfare is a part of. Although not as big a part as many people like to think. Leftists tend to complain about the bail out and large complex corporations and financial institutions. You never hear tea-partiers complaining about the bail out. That's democrat territory.
Keith Are you an idiot? the TEA PARTY (taxed enough already) party, started because they felt that Obama was taxing too much and that government spending was off the rail. Moron. They didn't give a shit about the bailouts - people were paid back by the banks and promptly. They're crying about Obamacare.
Dr. Hiadt challenges us all to more civic engagement, that time, effort and engaging a wider view of perspectives. Maybe, former representative Boehner was telling us an important and hard truth, e.g. if you're seen from 'your team' as an [ easy] compromiser your excluded and marginalized; but if one is seen and/or perceived as leading toward collective cooperation, maybe...just maybe...a decision and value that the'other' side can live with can emerge.
Perhaps Dr. Hiadt and his friends in MSM, could ask Democrat Senator Harry Reid, who has blocked hundreds of House bills from even coming up for a vote in the Senate, to speak glowingly about "compromise".
I think it's weird how in this interview he conflates the Matrix (from the movie) and the matrix from Neuromancer (the novel which describes it as a "consensual hallucination"). I know that he knows the difference because I read his book. He was probably hurrying along here so he simplified it, but he makes it seem like he thinks that the two are from the same source.
42:00 Old video I know, but here they discussed Ron Paul's answer and the crowd's reaction to "let the guy that didn't buy insurance pay the consequences." So first, Paul specifically discussed the meaning of freedom, and that it means accepting responsibility as well. Second, this points to a flaw in healthcare being tied to insurance. If insurance = healthcare, and none of us want people to lack healthcare, then we all insist on insurance. That is a strange scenario, since insurance is A PRODUCT YOU CHOOSE, not something that is forced on you. So if people really don't want anyone to go without healthcare in the same way that we don't want people to go without education in the US, then the medical profession, under this view, should become like the public schools, a government run institution. I personally don't want that. But too often I see people "arguing philosophy midstream," they take an existing flaw, like healthcare = insurance, and then argue from that standpoint. It would be akin to debating how we should manage a forced marriage, it was broken from the start. A proper philosophical discussion would start from ground zero and point out that the forced marriage was unethical to begin, and that healthcare should not be tied to profit or insurance (if you insist it is a human right like education is).
So you think pitying other people with innefficient handouts to people who've proven they don't want to try is a healthy alternative? Just kidding! ;) But seriously, he is not a neo-fascist. When I hear someone say "fascist," after decades of living in Berkeley, I know I'm listening to someone who doesn't really give a damn about the truth.
37:50 There is a very obvious reason why it would make sense for them to not take the deal. Obviously becuase the whole point of spending cuts IS to refuce taxes, so a deal like that is only relevant to getting rid of the national debt. It would not serve the goal of reducing taxes since its in the statement that the opposite happens.
Basically what you're advocating is a technocracy, which, if logical appeals and logical rhetoric were the most effective ways to persuade and change minds, would work. Unfortunately, ethical and especially emotional rhetorics are far more effective. The reason why technocracies don't work is because technocrats favor logic and reasoning above all else, which works great for anyone who is already established as a leader but is terrible for anyone running for election. A politician must cater to their constituents in order to stay in power. Technocrats typically don't do this or end up not doing it enough, which usually ends up with them getting replaced in future elections in favor of someone who appeals to people much more emotionally. It's just a downside of being human, unfortunately.
On 35:50 reasoning does not lead to truth finding Self reasoning does not enable you to discern opinions from truth. Facing others and their opinions and views will filter out those positions which are not able to hold water. That is a painful enterprise: to recognise that you might have been wrong in certain areas. The easy way to avoid this struggle is to stay on your own and cultivate your biases by looking for self confirmation.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the Left or Right views, until they become so polarized that they are at odds with each other and try to shut the other down. It's a bit like which of your hands is more important than the other, ideally you want both.
43:00 the dying coma guy There is the following statement I remember: there is individualism for the poor and socialism for the rich. The strange thing is that if the conservatives know so well about what is truth, then to stay in touch with what is true and sacred in an evolving world, surely they would have to embrace the slackers to hear their point of view? At this point I would say that the world needs all kinds of people, leave the judgement to god and treat others like you would want to be treated by others. Besides, what happened to bad luck? After all part of the evolution selection filter is fitness, but the other part is sheer randomness. As humans we constantly try to come up with systems to beat nature at this point. Another besides, what about what is known as the butterfly effect? Do you really know the outcome of all actions, and do you really know what is the right way of passing a lifetime? That's why I said before: just leave it to god. It is not in our hands: it is presumptous to pretend to know. Than about karma. To me he might just be wrong in the interpretation of karma. All religions search for a way out of the human condition, predicament. For karma, the joyeus message is that if you move around and spend your energy in various ways, that may certainly offer you a way out of what is the basic miserable and tormented human state which most people know all too well. To mention the opposite, is quite useless, it is all about what is held in the future; it is so to speak about hope, which is always free. So karma works in a forward manner or it just does not. Then most likely you cannot tell karma what it should or should not do. In christianity it says that gods ways are not your ways: which is the same as you cannot tell god what to do. You cannot claim god for your purposes.
omg this guy is awesome..... we are doomed. They say that knowing what the problem is is 99% of the answer----but now that we know are values are so divided we can only end up in tribal warfare.
I don't think there is any winning.. It's only getting worse based on the info he presents. At some point we become France and protest everything---worse case we become Syria and start killing each other.
Mr Moyers: I met Progressives with interactions with Apaches Me: I'm not an Apache. Therefore that interaction doesn't apply to me. It applies to Apaches though. When I magically become an Apache I'll let you know though.
The seeming impasse might be self-limiting because when people think that their group is superior it excludes people. I think that is the problem we have today is that many groups are feeling excluded by elites and looking for inclusive solutions. This video is now a year old. Obama might have been able to answer the criticism by now.
I don't get this fixation on "working together". The reason students at Virginia Tech don't hate Texas Tech when they come in to play football is because Texas Tech isn't going to control their laws and taxes for the next 4 years if they lose. That's why democracy is. Now of people were in their right mind, anyone who tried to pass a law or tax would be dealt with as an enemy combatant. This is the natural, normal way to feel and react to such aggression.
There is a continual assertion of non partisanship here.... but.... It seems there are subtle cuts at conservatives - just look carefully at the ratio of examples illustrating how crafty the conservatives are versus how the Democrats have a great premise but they need to learn this or that. It’s not blatant, and efforts at balance are conspicuous, but the undercurrent still defies this claim of neutrality. Is everyone blind? Yes. Me. You and even possibly the participants in this fascinating discussion. Otherwise, many many great insights here. Just as a start, we can all benefit from critical self examination.
I have to say I strongly disagree with the way Ron Paul was portrayed. As a supporter of Paul, I have to say that the way the left took it was completely incorrect. He says that Govt does not help with charitable services, and that the private sector is better at handling it.
Thank you, Jonathan Haidt. I agree with most of what you have to say. I'm against hand-outs for anyone. However, I'm also against a Capitalistic society that does not provide a level playing field. Inheritances must be abolished, wages should be attached to profits, corporations should be prohibited and money should not create money. I'd love to live in a society where everyone earns their money by their own productivity. So, I suggest that we can get rid of safety nets when we no longer have corruption, inheritances, monopolies, corporations and people who amass wealth without contributing to productivity. Call me if you have the solution, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, safety nets are necessary.
pretorious700 So, you believe in favoritism and inequality? I wouldn't call that idiocy, I would call it greedy and ignorant. Read a history book. Look up what Thomas Paine and Adam Smith had to say about inheritances.
Jonathan would say that you've sacralized the notion of "No Hand Outs". Consider that there are instances where "hand-outs" are appropriate. Consider that we have ALL at some point been the recipient of one's free generosity. Our lives, even, are our first free handout.
I Write Songs Did you read the entire comment? Safety nets is a nice way of saying hand-outs, so no I didn't sacrifice hand-outs for those who need them. " I suggest that we can get rid of safety nets when we no longer have corruption, inheritances, monopolies, corporations and people who amass wealth without contributing to productivity. Call me if you have the solution, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, safety nets are necessary."
Haidt is good on this. However, I think the conservative politician is right on compromise. Looking for win-win situations on common ground is better than compromse- it's not necessarily Manichaenism.
What I have trouble with in this guy's point is that if someone thinks deeply and academically about every aspect of the world, and that person ends up forming a set of conclusions based on actual facts and understanding of dynamic issues, and they've proven they have a high IQ on tests, but their set of conclusions happen to match one of the "sides", then is this guy saying that person's conclusions are invalid and delusional because the person's conclusions match one of the "sides" or even recognizes one of the "sides" matches their conclusions and therefore personally identifies with one of the "sides"? How about we recognize that one of the "sides" are generally better educated, worship empathy over obedience, and use long thoughtful arguments when debating. If one "side" continually explains their thoughts far better than the other "side" then we should recognize that maybe, just maybe, the "side" with more thoughtful arguments might just be a group of people who've arrived at better solutions and ways of life. More evolved dare I say.
+dattajack Looking at American universities where this is now applied at high level of purity - it seems like you're just deluding yourselves, and progressivism has little to do with progress. For all talk of empathy it devolves to mob-rule and actually it is very racist, sexist and all around highly intolerant ideology. Also you've dared for too much. Human and a fruit fly are both exactly "as evolved" as each other. Progressivism and conservatism (or whatever you want to pit against you, maybe anybody not progressive?) - they can be judged from standpoint of evolution only after one fails to propagate. If you go the way of maoism into terror, cruelty and murder - you might have progressivism dying before conservatism huffing it's last breath.
+dattajack You make a powerful case, but ironically in favor of the points Haidt actually made. Your comment distorts what he actually said and is recorded in the video. in actually both sides have members with high IQ's, have well reasoned positions, but that each side has moved to the point of believing it is their side and only their side that is right. That is they are scared. This pattern is well demonstrated in your comment. So w"Why do you bothe with the splinter in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in your own?"
+Kawitamamayi My point that he's trying to take validity away from a set of conclusions as soon as a certain number of people reach that conclusions? What's the golden number of people that invalidates a conclusion? The validity of a conclusion depends on reasons, and the more good reasons that fit with reality you have then the more valid that conclusion becomes. The validity of a conclusion doesn't depend on popularity to be validated. I think popularity is required to validate a conclusion as far as society is concerned, hence the judicial systems and school curriculums. But three independent teams of scientists could all arrive at the same conclusion, based on good reasons, and their conclusion is then validated. from there that validated conclusion will be subjected to two circuses: scientific review committees and public opinion. scientific review committees at least attempt holding standards that fit well with reality, but public opinion has no standards, especially in your "everyone gets a trophy" view of conclusions. Do you seriously believe opinions are of the same validity as conclusions? You can quickly tell when someone has an opinion rather than a conclusion as soon as you ask them for reasons and they fall short.
+Peteruspl As for your first paragraph, you've blatantly cherry picked a convenient example of a group of relatively less privileged young people who have become flustered and have cracked under pressure, instead of looking at the entire umbrella of progress American society has made in the last century, all the while pushing against a constant wall of stubborn conservative opinions. As for your second paragraph, what reasons do you have for concluding a fruit fly is more evolved than a human who can perform calculus equations that increase the prosperity of a society? I want reasons. Among other presumptions that require reasons, you have tried to claim a fruit fly and human have progressed through evolution equally. Please explain your reasons, not your opinions.
+dattajack I think you're a perfect example of someone living in, as Haidt would say, "moral matrix." I dare say you put too much faith into your own ability to reason and fall victim to confirmation bias. Haidt explains that an individual tends to have an opinion BEFORE finding reasons to believe that opinion to be reality. This can be demonstrated by your use of the words "better educated," "more thoughtful," and "more evolved." Though it FEELS like you've reached these conclusions objectively, Haidt argues that those conclusions MAY NOT be conclusions at all, but rather confirmed preconceptions.
If a man doesn't feel right looking at a statue of some naked dude, he's not open-minded... How closed-minded is that assertion! Why should I be open-minded about a closed-minded assertion? My conclusion: Jonathan Haidt is preaching tolerance disguised as open-mindedness, and to him being open-minded means agreeing with him.
I think Haidt is misinterpreting the Ron Paul question in a major way, and it mostly stems from the fact that he didn't get to answer the question. I'm sure to the latter question of "are you saying society should just let him die?" RP would have answered, "No, but society shouldn't be forced to take care of him either." In other words, allow voluntary associations such as churches and other charitable group make that choice. Using expropriated dollars to take care of someone who opted not to take care of himself is not more humane than refusing to do so. However, interpreting the conservative republican crowd as wanting karma to kill the man may be accurate...
Patrick Szar If charities did an adequate job of that, we wouldn't be having the discussion. They don't, so you've just moved the goal posts and hoped that the ball lands somewhere in between. It doesn't, people still die of preventable causes. Many of these cases are not people who didn't "take care of himself" they are for unforeseen problems and sheer luck. Using those dollars in place of wasting them elsewhere is in fact more humane.
Economics teaches about incentives. When money is taken without ones consent to provide for the welfare of others, there is disincentive to contribute charitably over and above. Comparing dollars given from an affluent welfare state to that of historically less affluent areas will not do. The wealthier a society the more charitable it is likely to be (ceteris paribus). Adding in mandatory welfare payments skews the statistics. Not to mention the long term pricing effects of all of this, how it gets more expensive over time, not less. As for "using those dollars [for welfare] in place of wasting them elsewhere"... it doesn't work that way. When has the government been constrained by a budget? There is no "using in place of" for them. They do it all regardless.
Yes I'm aware of the incentive trope. Your argument here is not supported by evidence, it's just how people expect and would like things to work. It doesn't matter that charity increases marginally with wealth, charities remain generally ineffective at what they do and won't cover the gap. It's wishful thinking and will assuage peoples' conscience while leaving a small dent in the underlying problem. It sounds like you've given up on all forms of government being capable of anything. That too is just wrong. There's plenty of waste and our government must reduce or remove programs that are ineffective or have overblown budgets and use the same revenue toward areas of greater impact. There's no reason to assume this is impossible just because you're jaded about our current political quagmire. I agree, it won't be the current government achieving this, but assuming it can't get anything done is one of the reasons it doesn't.
So the big question is whether religion makes people liberal or conservative or if they are like that and use religion to justify their position. I would say the latter. Because the Conservative Christians claim to take the bible in its entirety, yet if any part of the bible is liberal, it ought not be taken literally.
I think this philosophy relies far too much on religion. Though he doesn't come out and say that, God making everything this way, and God balancing the scales in the end seems deeply rooted in some of the things he is saying.
Encourage small business as a way out of welfare? A better transition option for sure and a better connection to the need. Something better than just ticking boxes and jumping through hoops and being a number in the system. Maybe a stipend for volunteering?
Haidt is oddly disparaging of critical thinking = "Reason". If it isn't "good at finding the truth" (whatever that means), then nothing is. Reason, lest it be forgotten, is also skepticism, the "chastity of the intellect" (Santayana). Haidt’s love of the apodictic leads him to make silly over-generalizations. “Wherever you sacralize reason you will find ignorance, blindness to the truth and resistance to evidence.” If this isn’t a self-confirming bias, I don’t know what is. “Individual reasoning is not reliable. The only cure is other people.” So the evil is individual reasoning, not Reason. But this distinction, meant to save a fallacious dictum, is superficial and self-serving.Of course Reason per se is an institution, culturally embedded and transmitted. That does not mean that it somehow exists only by consensus or in institutions. Individual self-examination is a perfect example of critical reflection that is simultaneously first-person and culturally / socially mediated. It is a dichotomy that only non-dialectical thinkers cannot mediate. Haidt seems to be one of them. “Challenging one another’s confirmation biases, and truth emerges.” Again, the dialectical thinker (who is Haidt’s universe must be the rarest and superhuman kind of person) incorporates by anticipation objections to his conclusions. He does not require someone else to contradict him! Also, as anyone who has studied Plato’s dialogues must know, truth is not guaranteed to emerge because someone doubts the veracity of our conclusions. Aporia are just as likely to emerge!
Haidt is wrong when says everyone is living in the matrix. While we are all susceptible to bias, that does not change the fact that some things are real and some positions are right.
His point is, I believe, that often times both sides are partly correct in some questions while they are at the same time wrong in some. Both sides might have an incomplete picture of the truth. For example: progressives might say that cooperation is what has lead to humanity's success while conservatives say that competition has lead to humanity's success. Who is right in this case? Both, but their thesis is not complete. (I can explain why if you want)
Simon Sällström I agree completely. I would just say that I find the left to be more right, more often, than the right by a large margin. The left's positions are often caricatured while the right's often _is_ a caricature.
No Way the irony of " demonizing" (in the way Haidt is using the term in relation to "confirmation bias") is quite ironic and Haidt would certainly agree with you on who is "right". The tragedy he seems to be underscoring is that those that might better organize and lead a modern, interdependent society have a sales messaging pitch that is incongruous to the human condition.
ya but i think its a continuum of truth when it comes to politics plus no party or position is right all the time. not to mention when a party is right like with global warming it doesnt mean dialogue is irrelavent because there r more factors at play and conservatives r right about the reality principal of economics etc. so just because someone is right doesnt mean truth itself is so binary that no nuance or caveats to the facts exist
Keith W I don't think that the conservatives have been right about economics. They've won the argument over the last 30 years or so, but while they've been winning the argument, they've been running the economy into the ground. I have a hard time coming up with anything that they've been right about. I think we're at a point where discussion with them is a waste of time.
What about who work hard and still struggle to survive because the cost of living makes it impossible to survive working most jobs. You don't address this but instead polarize hard workers from the lazy.
I think covid highlights this. People at first needed helpto survive. I am glad to see wages go up as it was long overdue. What is frustrating tho is that these bailouts have been used by some just to not work. There should be a way to help those who help themselves.
Every single liberal, conservative, and independent should watch this video. It should be showed in every school, everywhere.
i don't think they did brah
I love this guy. He's one of the main reasons why I'm b*lls deep in second year of psychology BA.
ew
Better get your PhD
You're as big a kook as he is?
When Haidt talks about how the group needs a mutual goal to work together, all I can think of is that maintaining a government that works well for the most people should be that common goal. This goal is why we have state and local governments and a 'small' federal government.
4 years and just 16,438 views and just 170 likes
"what are eye boogers?" uploaded 1 day ago, 195,000 views.
+Anthony Travis
Yup, pretty much how it is
Yup, that's humans for you.
Ya, I actually tested this on my facebook. I posted something stupid and got a ton of comments and likes, then I posed something reasonably intelligent that was about about popular culture / movies, got less likes.... Then I posted some Jonathan Haidt, and I couldn't even get crickets to chirp.
Our society is too safe, evolution has reversed and we are now getting dumber. Also the smartest peoples have the lowest birthrates. The movie Idiocracy is less a comedy than a prophecy. It was also banned from being shown in theatres so there ya go. We are living in a modern dark age, I pray it ends soon. It will require a cataclysmic shift though.
Just great, quiet, important conversation. We can hear it if we sit still long enough. Thanks Ethan
Excellent mature intelligent discussion of serious subjects!
at 43:20 Mr. Moyers asks "What did Aesop mean? immediately after Mr Haidt walks him through it, in context no less. LOL
+Jim Magers You can tell that BIll had . . . possibly literally never heard the arguments of the right. The same way Haidt didn't know them (only heresay) until he was in his 40's studying to write a book about them.
Man only over a decade later and I could never imagine such a level headed discussion on any mainstream media
On 16:19
I like it when her refers to The Matrix and is not afraid to do so. I do not even care why exactly: it is a great film.
Brilliant, one of the few speakers that can see a topic without taking a side.
I was sceptical but this is actually pretty interesting. The whole dichotomy of conservatives/liberal party politics is by nature divisive and as destructive as it is constructive. One of the biggest issues in most Western countries is the pointless party politics, seemingly destined to fail, or end up in another civil war like we are almost seeing today.
Absolutely fascinating talk.
Some times I see that you the great Fringeelements has come and posted on a video and you bring me here. Thumbs up to you sir, thumbs up.
11:30 on compromising :
Something that is compromising makes you vulnerable to being embarrassed or incriminated in some way.
Another meaning: willing to compromise which is quite equal to finding common ground.
So due to the double meaning of compromising it is not surprising that some may choose to reject or avoid the word and replace it with a less tainted one and it has nothing to do with rejecting cooperation of which ever kind whatsoever.
This is especially the case for those in public office who address a large and mixed audience.
Jonathan. You are such a breath of fresh air. I cringed when you said, "Gingrich is a screaming hypocrite, but we all are." It's like you qualified the judgement with the adjective "screaming" while in the same sentence minimized the extent of it by normalizing it. Some people are consistent and egregious hypocrites while other's are aware of the tendency and attempt to moderate these human tendencies. .
I Write Songs You and the left are no less a hypocrite than Gingrich. Until you can admit that, instead of trying to stick it to the Republicans, our country will not change.
Did you read Jonathan's book? If you did I don't think you'd be that presumptuous. What evidence do you have to suggest I am a part of the left? Do you think I am a Clinton supporter? Perhaps you assume I back the SJW's, or believe in socialism. Hmm? Is it because I think it's unfair to normalize everyone as having the same level of hypocrisy. Most of us wrestle with moral integrity. The best we can do is own our moral failings, and not just as a sound bite to restore our reputations.
What is the name of the interviewer from the video?
What is the name of the interviewer from the video?
Look at it this way. There are two perspectives: one emphasizing people's rights . . . and one emphasizing people's responsibilities. Both republicans and democrats clearly have some of each. But ask yourself: which do we not have enough of now (?) That'll tell you whether you're a republican or democrat . . .
I think that's a difference of conservative vs liberal, not Republican vs Democrat.
As he mentioned at 1:50.
The only thing I disagree is that when he talked about tea party movement, he thinks that sign that says "don't reward failures" is about poor people. It wasn't. It was about bailing out the Wall Street bankers.
+carolcheny It's both, when you talk to tea party people...
+Seven Foot Pelican not pointing out both is a bias
carolcheny Tea partiers often complain about government spending - which welfare is a part of. Although not as big a part as many people like to think. Leftists tend to complain about the bail out and large complex corporations and financial institutions. You never hear tea-partiers complaining about the bail out. That's democrat territory.
tea partiers always complain about bail out thats what started the movement dip shit
Keith Are you an idiot? the TEA PARTY (taxed enough already) party, started because they felt that Obama was taxing too much and that government spending was off the rail. Moron. They didn't give a shit about the bailouts - people were paid back by the banks and promptly. They're crying about Obamacare.
Dr. Hiadt challenges us all to more civic engagement, that time, effort and engaging a wider view of perspectives. Maybe, former representative Boehner was telling us an important and hard truth, e.g. if you're seen from 'your team' as an [ easy] compromiser your excluded and marginalized; but if one is seen and/or perceived as leading toward collective cooperation, maybe...just maybe...a decision and value that the'other' side can live with can emerge.
Perhaps Dr. Hiadt and his friends in MSM, could ask Democrat Senator Harry Reid, who has blocked hundreds of House bills from even coming up for a vote in the Senate, to speak glowingly about "compromise".
5 years later. Pretty accurate.
I think it's weird how in this interview he conflates the Matrix (from the movie) and the matrix from Neuromancer (the novel which describes it as a "consensual hallucination").
I know that he knows the difference because I read his book. He was probably hurrying along here so he simplified it, but he makes it seem like he thinks that the two are from the same source.
42:00 Old video I know, but here they discussed Ron Paul's answer and the crowd's reaction to "let the guy that didn't buy insurance pay the consequences." So first, Paul specifically discussed the meaning of freedom, and that it means accepting responsibility as well. Second, this points to a flaw in healthcare being tied to insurance. If insurance = healthcare, and none of us want people to lack healthcare, then we all insist on insurance. That is a strange scenario, since insurance is A PRODUCT YOU CHOOSE, not something that is forced on you. So if people really don't want anyone to go without healthcare in the same way that we don't want people to go without education in the US, then the medical profession, under this view, should become like the public schools, a government run institution.
I personally don't want that. But too often I see people "arguing philosophy midstream," they take an existing flaw, like healthcare = insurance, and then argue from that standpoint. It would be akin to debating how we should manage a forced marriage, it was broken from the start. A proper philosophical discussion would start from ground zero and point out that the forced marriage was unethical to begin, and that healthcare should not be tied to profit or insurance (if you insist it is a human right like education is).
So you think pitying other people with innefficient handouts to people who've proven they don't want to try is a healthy alternative? Just kidding! ;) But seriously, he is not a neo-fascist. When I hear someone say "fascist," after decades of living in Berkeley, I know I'm listening to someone who doesn't really give a damn about the truth.
37:50 There is a very obvious reason why it would make sense for them to not take the deal. Obviously becuase the whole point of spending cuts IS to refuce taxes, so a deal like that is only relevant to getting rid of the national debt. It would not serve the goal of reducing taxes since its in the statement that the opposite happens.
Haidt is such an important intellectual today, he should be Jordan Peterson scale renown.
I wonder how America would be like if a scientist like Jonathan Haidt would become a president?
Basically what you're advocating is a technocracy, which, if logical appeals and logical rhetoric were the most effective ways to persuade and change minds, would work. Unfortunately, ethical and especially emotional rhetorics are far more effective. The reason why technocracies don't work is because technocrats favor logic and reasoning above all else, which works great for anyone who is already established as a leader but is terrible for anyone running for election. A politician must cater to their constituents in order to stay in power. Technocrats typically don't do this or end up not doing it enough, which usually ends up with them getting replaced in future elections in favor of someone who appeals to people much more emotionally. It's just a downside of being human, unfortunately.
Not good, it's a different skill set, what you want though is a President who is partial to science, as well as being suited to being President.
On 35:50 reasoning does not lead to truth finding
Self reasoning does not enable you to discern opinions from truth.
Facing others and their opinions and views will filter out those positions which are not able to hold water. That is a painful enterprise: to recognise that you might have been wrong in certain areas. The easy way to avoid this struggle is to stay on your own and cultivate your biases by looking for self confirmation.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the Left or Right views, until they become so polarized that they are at odds with each other and try to shut the other down.
It's a bit like which of your hands is more important than the other, ideally you want both.
43:00 the dying coma guy
There is the following statement I remember: there is individualism for the poor and socialism for the rich.
The strange thing is that if the conservatives know so well about what is truth, then to stay in touch with what is true and sacred in an evolving world, surely they would have to embrace the slackers to hear their point of view?
At this point I would say that the world needs all kinds of people, leave the judgement to god and treat others like you would want to be treated by others.
Besides, what happened to bad luck? After all part of the evolution selection filter is fitness, but the other part is sheer randomness. As humans we constantly try to come up with systems to beat nature at this point.
Another besides, what about what is known as the butterfly effect? Do you really know the outcome of all actions, and do you really know what is the right way of passing a lifetime? That's why I said before: just leave it to god. It is not in our hands: it is presumptous to pretend to know.
Than about karma. To me he might just be wrong in the interpretation of karma. All religions search for a way out of the human condition, predicament. For karma, the joyeus message is that if you move around and spend your energy in various ways, that may certainly offer you a way out of what is the basic miserable and tormented human state which most people know all too well. To mention the opposite, is quite useless, it is all about what is held in the future; it is so to speak about hope, which is always free. So karma works in a forward manner or it just does not. Then most likely you cannot tell karma what it should or should not do. In christianity it says that gods ways are not your ways: which is the same as you cannot tell god what to do. You cannot claim god for your purposes.
"Besides, what happened to bad luck?"
I think that's a profound question. How few philosophical systems address luck!... and it's consequences.
24:00 on capitalism
Any system can settle on suboptimal states or states which are undesirable.
Then intervention is needen.
Why do social psychologists overlook the Vietnam War as driving a deep edge in American society?
Morality is part of our nature, and other people taking advantage of other people's morality is part of theirs. ;) It is true.
omg this guy is awesome..... we are doomed. They say that knowing what the problem is is 99% of the answer----but now that we know are values are so divided we can only end up in tribal warfare.
I don't think there is any winning.. It's only getting worse based on the info he presents. At some point we become France and protest everything---worse case we become Syria and start killing each other.
It's up to 99% now? Damn, how's that for inflation?! When I was a kid, it was only 50%.
Mr Moyers: I met Progressives with interactions with Apaches
Me: I'm not an Apache. Therefore that interaction doesn't apply to me. It applies to Apaches though. When I magically become an Apache I'll let you know though.
They think we were divided in 2012...? they should revisit this in 2018.
The seeming impasse might be self-limiting because when people think that their group is superior it excludes people. I think that is the problem we have today is that many groups are feeling excluded by elites and looking for inclusive solutions. This video is now a year old. Obama might have been able to answer the criticism by now.
35:07
24:49
The people elect our representatives?
Democracy/capitalism needs morales and values, not crooks and globalism in order to work.
I don't get this fixation on "working together". The reason students at Virginia Tech don't hate Texas Tech when they come in to play football is because Texas Tech isn't going to control their laws and taxes for the next 4 years if they lose.
That's why democracy is. Now of people were in their right mind, anyone who tried to pass a law or tax would be dealt with as an enemy combatant. This is the natural, normal way to feel and react to such aggression.
I'd also like to suggest that 'Consideration' holds superior value than 'Rationality', in science, politics, and our social lives.
He should examine East Asian tribalism for some crystal clear examples.
Jonathan could educate Sam Harris on modern day conservative liberal conflict. He understands the details and the facts
Simon Heaney Sam had Jonathan on his Podcast "Waking Up". It's episode #31 "Evolving Minds".
@@TriteNight1218 Thanks. I have to look that up
There is a continual assertion of non partisanship here.... but....
It seems there are subtle cuts at conservatives - just look carefully at the ratio of examples illustrating how crafty the conservatives are versus how the Democrats have a great premise but they need to learn this or that.
It’s not blatant, and efforts at balance are conspicuous, but the undercurrent still defies this claim of neutrality.
Is everyone blind? Yes. Me. You and even possibly the participants in this fascinating discussion.
Otherwise, many many great insights here. Just as a start, we can all benefit from critical self examination.
I have to say I strongly disagree with the way Ron Paul was portrayed. As a supporter of Paul, I have to say that the way the left took it was completely incorrect. He says that Govt does not help with charitable services, and that the private sector is better at handling it.
Thank you, Jonathan Haidt. I agree with most of what you have to say. I'm against hand-outs for anyone. However, I'm also against a Capitalistic society that does not provide a level playing field. Inheritances must be abolished, wages should be attached to profits, corporations should be prohibited and money should not create money. I'd love to live in a society where everyone earns their money by their own productivity. So, I suggest that we can get rid of safety nets when we no longer have corruption, inheritances, monopolies, corporations and people who amass wealth without contributing to productivity. Call me if you have the solution, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, safety nets are necessary.
"Inheritances should be abolished".....what idiocy.
pretorious700
So, you believe in favoritism and inequality? I wouldn't call that idiocy, I would call it greedy and ignorant. Read a history book. Look up what Thomas Paine and Adam Smith had to say about inheritances.
Jonathan would say that you've sacralized the notion of "No Hand Outs". Consider that there are instances where "hand-outs" are appropriate. Consider that we have ALL at some point been the recipient of one's free generosity. Our lives, even, are our first free handout.
I Write Songs
Did you read the entire comment? Safety nets is a nice way of saying hand-outs, so no I didn't sacrifice hand-outs for those who need them.
" I suggest that we can get rid of safety nets when we no longer have corruption, inheritances, monopolies, corporations and people who amass wealth without contributing to productivity. Call me if you have the solution, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, safety nets are necessary."
Kellie Nicholson Thanks. I'll agree with that.
Haidt is good on this. However, I think the conservative politician is right on compromise. Looking for win-win situations on common ground is better than compromse- it's not necessarily Manichaenism.
Brad VanDyke the problem is, if there is no common ground to be had, government becomes locked in a stalemate and no progress is made.
What I have trouble with in this guy's point is that if someone thinks deeply and academically about every aspect of the world, and that person ends up forming a set of conclusions based on actual facts and understanding of dynamic issues, and they've proven they have a high IQ on tests, but their set of conclusions happen to match one of the "sides", then is this guy saying that person's conclusions are invalid and delusional because the person's conclusions match one of the "sides" or even recognizes one of the "sides" matches their conclusions and therefore personally identifies with one of the "sides"? How about we recognize that one of the "sides" are generally better educated, worship empathy over obedience, and use long thoughtful arguments when debating. If one "side" continually explains their thoughts far better than the other "side" then we should recognize that maybe, just maybe, the "side" with more thoughtful arguments might just be a group of people who've arrived at better solutions and ways of life. More evolved dare I say.
+dattajack
Looking at American universities where this is now applied at high level of purity - it seems like you're just deluding yourselves, and progressivism has little to do with progress. For all talk of empathy it devolves to mob-rule and actually it is very racist, sexist and all around highly intolerant ideology.
Also you've dared for too much. Human and a fruit fly are both exactly "as evolved" as each other. Progressivism and conservatism (or whatever you want to pit against you, maybe anybody not progressive?) - they can be judged from standpoint of evolution only after one fails to propagate. If you go the way of maoism into terror, cruelty and murder - you might have progressivism dying before conservatism huffing it's last breath.
+dattajack
You make a powerful case, but ironically in favor of the points Haidt actually made. Your comment distorts what he actually said and is recorded in the video. in actually both sides have members with high IQ's, have well reasoned positions, but that each side has moved to the point of believing it is their side and only their side that is right. That is they are scared. This pattern is well demonstrated in your comment. So w"Why do you bothe with the splinter in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in your own?"
+Kawitamamayi My point that he's trying to take validity away from a set of conclusions as soon as a certain number of people reach that conclusions? What's the golden number of people that invalidates a conclusion? The validity of a conclusion depends on reasons, and the more good reasons that fit with reality you have then the more valid that conclusion becomes. The validity of a conclusion doesn't depend on popularity to be validated. I think popularity is required to validate a conclusion as far as society is concerned, hence the judicial systems and school curriculums. But three independent teams of scientists could all arrive at the same conclusion, based on good reasons, and their conclusion is then validated. from there that validated conclusion will be subjected to two circuses: scientific review committees and public opinion. scientific review committees at least attempt holding standards that fit well with reality, but public opinion has no standards, especially in your "everyone gets a trophy" view of conclusions. Do you seriously believe opinions are of the same validity as conclusions? You can quickly tell when someone has an opinion rather than a conclusion as soon as you ask them for reasons and they fall short.
+Peteruspl As for your first paragraph, you've blatantly cherry picked a convenient example of a group of relatively less privileged young people who have become flustered and have cracked under pressure, instead of looking at the entire umbrella of progress American society has made in the last century, all the while pushing against a constant wall of stubborn conservative opinions.
As for your second paragraph, what reasons do you have for concluding a fruit fly is more evolved than a human who can perform calculus equations that increase the prosperity of a society? I want reasons. Among other presumptions that require reasons, you have tried to claim a fruit fly and human have progressed through evolution equally. Please explain your reasons, not your opinions.
+dattajack I think you're a perfect example of someone living in, as Haidt would say, "moral matrix." I dare say you put too much faith into your own ability to reason and fall victim to confirmation bias. Haidt explains that an individual tends to have an opinion BEFORE finding reasons to believe that opinion to be reality. This can be demonstrated by your use of the words "better educated," "more thoughtful," and "more evolved." Though it FEELS like you've reached these conclusions objectively, Haidt argues that those conclusions MAY NOT be conclusions at all, but rather confirmed preconceptions.
If a man doesn't feel right looking at a statue of some naked dude, he's not open-minded... How closed-minded is that assertion! Why should I be open-minded about a closed-minded assertion? My conclusion: Jonathan Haidt is preaching tolerance disguised as open-mindedness, and to him being open-minded means agreeing with him.
I think Haidt is misinterpreting the Ron Paul question in a major way, and it mostly stems from the fact that he didn't get to answer the question. I'm sure to the latter question of "are you saying society should just let him die?" RP would have answered, "No, but society shouldn't be forced to take care of him either."
In other words, allow voluntary associations such as churches and other charitable group make that choice. Using expropriated dollars to take care of someone who opted not to take care of himself is not more humane than refusing to do so.
However, interpreting the conservative republican crowd as wanting karma to kill the man may be accurate...
Patrick Szar If charities did an adequate job of that, we wouldn't be having the discussion. They don't, so you've just moved the goal posts and hoped that the ball lands somewhere in between. It doesn't, people still die of preventable causes. Many of these cases are not people who didn't "take care of himself" they are for unforeseen problems and sheer luck. Using those dollars in place of wasting them elsewhere is in fact more humane.
Economics teaches about incentives. When money is taken without ones consent to provide for the welfare of others, there is disincentive to contribute charitably over and above. Comparing dollars given from an affluent welfare state to that of historically less affluent areas will not do. The wealthier a society the more charitable it is likely to be (ceteris paribus). Adding in mandatory welfare payments skews the statistics. Not to mention the long term pricing effects of all of this, how it gets more expensive over time, not less.
As for "using those dollars [for welfare] in place of wasting them elsewhere"... it doesn't work that way. When has the government been constrained by a budget? There is no "using in place of" for them. They do it all regardless.
Yes I'm aware of the incentive trope. Your argument here is not supported by evidence, it's just how people expect and would like things to work. It doesn't matter that charity increases marginally with wealth, charities remain generally ineffective at what they do and won't cover the gap. It's wishful thinking and will assuage peoples' conscience while leaving a small dent in the underlying problem. It sounds like you've given up on all forms of government being capable of anything. That too is just wrong. There's plenty of waste and our government must reduce or remove programs that are ineffective or have overblown budgets and use the same revenue toward areas of greater impact. There's no reason to assume this is impossible just because you're jaded about our current political quagmire. I agree, it won't be the current government achieving this, but assuming it can't get anything done is one of the reasons it doesn't.
So the big question is whether religion makes people liberal or conservative or if they are like that and use religion to justify their position. I would say the latter. Because the Conservative Christians claim to take the bible in its entirety, yet if any part of the bible is liberal, it ought not be taken literally.
I think this philosophy relies far too much on religion. Though he doesn't come out and say that, God making everything this way, and God balancing the scales in the end seems deeply rooted in some of the things he is saying.
Don't you think people do that?
Encourage small business as a way out of welfare? A better transition option for sure and a better connection to the need. Something better than just ticking boxes and jumping through hoops and being a number in the system. Maybe a stipend for volunteering?
"...Lebron James commissioned us to go and spend most of the time with..."
Wokeness is a religion!
conservative intellectuals ftw
This is 7 years ago and now it’s MUCH worse!!
Haidt is oddly disparaging of critical thinking = "Reason". If it isn't "good at finding the truth" (whatever that means), then nothing is. Reason, lest it be forgotten, is also skepticism, the "chastity of the intellect" (Santayana).
Haidt’s love of the apodictic leads him to make silly over-generalizations. “Wherever you sacralize reason you will find ignorance, blindness to the truth and resistance to evidence.” If this isn’t a self-confirming bias, I don’t know what is.
“Individual reasoning is not reliable. The only cure is other people.”
So the evil is individual reasoning, not Reason. But this distinction, meant to save a fallacious dictum, is superficial and self-serving.Of course Reason per se is an institution, culturally embedded and transmitted. That does not mean that it somehow exists only by consensus or in institutions. Individual self-examination is a perfect example of critical reflection that is simultaneously first-person and culturally / socially mediated. It is a dichotomy that only non-dialectical thinkers cannot mediate. Haidt seems to be one of them.
“Challenging one another’s confirmation biases, and truth emerges.”
Again, the dialectical thinker (who is Haidt’s universe must be the rarest and superhuman kind of person) incorporates by anticipation objections to his conclusions. He does not require someone else to contradict him! Also, as anyone who has studied Plato’s dialogues must know, truth is not guaranteed to emerge because someone doubts the veracity of our conclusions. Aporia are just as likely to emerge!
Haidt is wrong when says everyone is living in the matrix. While we are all susceptible to bias, that does not change the fact that some things are real and some positions are right.
His point is, I believe, that often times both sides are partly correct in some questions while they are at the same time wrong in some. Both sides might have an incomplete picture of the truth. For example: progressives might say that cooperation is what has lead to humanity's success while conservatives say that competition has lead to humanity's success. Who is right in this case? Both, but their thesis is not complete. (I can explain why if you want)
Simon Sällström I agree completely. I would just say that I find the left to be more right, more often, than the right by a large margin.
The left's positions are often caricatured while the right's often _is_ a caricature.
No Way the irony of " demonizing" (in the way Haidt is using the term in relation to "confirmation bias") is quite ironic and Haidt would certainly agree with you on who is "right". The tragedy he seems to be underscoring is that those that might better organize and lead a modern, interdependent society have a sales messaging pitch that is incongruous to the human condition.
ya but i think its a continuum of truth when it comes to politics plus no party or position is right all the time. not to mention when a party is right like with global warming it doesnt mean dialogue is irrelavent because there r more factors at play and conservatives r right about the reality principal of economics etc. so just because someone is right doesnt mean truth itself is so binary that no nuance or caveats to the facts exist
Keith W I don't think that the conservatives have been right about economics. They've won the argument over the last 30 years or so, but while they've been winning the argument, they've been running the economy into the ground. I have a hard time coming up with anything that they've been right about. I think we're at a point where discussion with them is a waste of time.
What about who work hard and still struggle to survive because the cost of living makes it impossible to survive working most jobs. You don't address this but instead polarize hard workers from the lazy.
I think covid highlights this. People at first needed helpto survive. I am glad to see wages go up as it was long overdue. What is frustrating tho is that these bailouts have been used by some just to not work. There should be a way to help those who help themselves.