'The Righteous Mind': Why Liberals and Conservatives Can't Get Along
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2013
- A Pew study last year confirmed that U.S. political partisanship has risen sharply. In the face of that trend, is it possible for Democrats and Republicans to get along? Wharton professor Philip Tetlock recently spoke with Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, to explore this question. Haidt breaks down why it is so hard for liberals and conservatives to understand one another and what can be done to change that.
What Haidt says about confirmation bias and the need for personal relationships with people we have disagreements with rings especially true when you consider the case of Daryl Davis, a black man who spent time with KKK members and convinced some of them to abandon the KKK, even causing a grand wizard to abandon the organization and rethink his believes. He did this over long periods of time, attending Klan rallies, spending time with the people and their families, getting to know them and having conversations. This is the way to win hearts and minds.
Have you seen the recent news about people leaving groups like the KKK because the GOP has gotten equally as extreme?
Excellent case study.
I forgot about that one.
Thanks.
@@marqgoldberg7454 There is no KKK, only by demon-rats. GOP is created by black people. you have it backwards and are a lefty.
Indeed.
Derp!!!
Just like the totally real threat of all the white supremes!! I wish both of these stupid statements were true, they’re not.
I've never seen someone understand both sides like this before without bias, the man is smart as hell.
It took years of research and an open mind. I wish more people would listen to Haidt. Phil Tetlock has done interesting work as well.
Anyone that truly understands both sides has to stand on the right side. Staying on the middle its only a sign you cant truly understand the left, everyones on the right understands them, that is why we hate them, the more I understand the more I do.
it doesn't take much actually. just a normally working educational system and a non dysfunctional (as in filled with propaganda aiming to polarize people) society.
My comment exactly. Essentially, this guy is really really really really really smart.
esmifrado what is it you came to hate in particular?
"In our universities it would be nice if we could have more open and honest debate, and be a little less sensitive about people claiming hurt feelings." Indeed!
Thadiun Okona the illiberal attitudes common on campuses are sabotaging learning I agree.
If we could do that without glorifying being unemotional and insensitive, that would be great. Democrats are way too sensitive nowadays, but Republicans don't have a balance, either. They've gone to the other extreme.
@@stephenpowstinger733 Ą me
Boy did this age well lol.....
@@karikling8812 I'm curious about the republicans you mention are they
a specific demographic or more random
Stop hating and start Haidting!
What we need to do is teach the Socratic method, debate, rhetoric....teach about what constitutes fact versus what is opinion, what constitutes good and sufficient evidence for a belief, what are logic and reason and how do they relate to truth, what are the primary fallacies in reasoning and how does one recognize them, how is belief shaped by both the commission AND omission of what is said...etc. We need to teach HOW to think, not what to think
Except right wingers literally refuse to acknowledge basic observable facts like climate change. They're not good faith actors and cannot be reach through the socratic method. To them, debate is merely an opportunity to show strength and play to the crowd, not a search for truth.
Great comment 🎉
Unfortunately, I've been trying to talk to Liberals using the Socratic method for decades. Their response is quite common. "Gotcha Questions" and "You have your facts" or "You have your truth". They simply cannot make a critical judgment based on a set of reasonable facts that they are open to describe, challenge, or even contribute to.
@@Texas75023....are you absolutely sure that YOU are engaging honestly? It is impossible to evaluate a conversation from just your claims about 'how liberals reply'...
@@RalphJBater Objectively, you cannot. In fact, I expect the "common denominator" gambit. And yes, I try to examine that in the way I treat liberal minded people.
Unfortunately, I find their coimmittment toward liberal "non-judgmentalism" prevents them from ever making a critical judgement or decision. Even in this, I am not attacking individuals, but the world view of Liberalism that simply cannot examine an issue with Socratic rigor, *AND* have the information or logic impact their thinking.
But there are no doubt some honest, thoughtful liberals who have seen the light and the problem with the philosophy. Candace Owens and Dave Rubin come to mind. Absolute liberals who were slapped into reality when their "side" attacked them viciously.
It's a shame it seems to take that level of betrayal and emotional violence to get one to open their eyes.
I really enjoy Jonathan's openness and clear presentation of his ideas. Thanks for uploading.
He makes a very good point about how reasoning is post hoc. Very true
great conversation. insightful.
I have become a big fan. Lots of Wisdom here. I would note that the way he proposes to teach ethics to business students at NYU - starting as soon as possible when they arrive, and including ethics as a part of almost all classes and not as an insular topic - is very much the way ethics was taught at the Naval Academy in Annapolis when I attending in the late 70s. So has it taken a genius like Jonathon to reason our way back to the Wisdom of the Ages taught in the military?
Is that why the military is now trying to cull all the reasonable, honorable men?
(12:08) The role of government. This is the biggest problem. As long as governments have been in existence, nobody has yet got a clear idea of it's purpose. Let me take a stab at it. The purpose of government (any level; local, regional, county, state, country, nation, continent, global, galactic, etc) is to coalesce the individual values of its citizens into a clear and workable set of collective values that both the government and the governed can live with. Problems brew when a line is crossed that violates collective values and individual values. In other words, when either the government or the governed try to extend power/force beyond their own values into the domain of other's values, conflict appears. Both the government and the governed should remain in co-operation to maintain their harmony, with adjustments as necessary. As long as this is kept in mind, everything else should work itself out. This approach is conflict-prevention centered, with conflict-resolution as a back-up. If both fail, it's time to bail-out and go to Mars.
I'm a traditional conservative, Jonathan Haidt has a full grasp on the subject, wow!
He still juxtaposed whether government is the problem... and you think he has a firm grasp having to question that answer? Yikes....
@ralphalf5897 Your right. What kind of author or scholar worth their salt, would aspire to anything less than definitively and conclusively solving all problems, squaring all circles and and totally and without any disagreement from any reader, eliminate all further discourse on the on the subject at hand. Such a paragon of human cognitive evolution would have no choice but devote one's self to inherent elitism and perfect resoning found only in that most coveted symposium: the CZcams comment section.
@@DoctorNERO616 huuh...umm...ha, ha ha hey Bevis, ummm their like' smart and stuff
Conservatives debate conservatives more then liberals.
3:00 "Study morality for 25 yrs?" ... "Moral intuition?"
1. Trust others to look after their own interests in a legal fashion;
2. Stop giving a crap about their morals and worry about your.
3. Let people lead their lives and stop the naval gazing;
4. Apply the simple rule that: someone's right to swing his fist ends at your nose;
5. Allow communities to form and keep decision making as close to that center of gravity as possible;
6. Accept that no one gets out of this alive except through some divine providence;
7. Help little old ladies across the street, buy candy bars from every grade school kid who knocks on your door, none from the parents at work, try to find a local 12-year-old to mow your lawn;
8. Stop pushing every young adult to some liberal arts education, push them to a trade, let them figure out higher ed when they're about 22;
9. Accept that none of this will matter to you in 50 years, and that history will repeat itself every 80 to 100 years and a "fourth turning";
10. Eat decent food, get a good night's sleep, read a good book, get the occasional piece of ass.
Jonathan Hadt thanks for your eork. Don't get discouraged, please.
Being too good at reasoning and having too much reality contact is at least as much a curse as a blessing, it's extremely isolating to see through the bullshit of every faction and be left with no faction of your own. To know the truth is to live a nightmare.
Well said
You have a faction, it's just hard to find. It's only a nightmare if you do nothing.
This guy clearly has a faction, the faction of right wing grifters and clueless enlightened centrists creating a moral panic around "intellectual diversity" in universities, there's a ton like him. Jordan Peterson for example.
I noticed that liberals have trouble with thinking for themselves and base to much on their hatreds , perversions , greed and jealousies. emotionalism is strong with liberals. liberal hospitals are very dangerous places filled with ugly dumb liberal doctors who despise humans rights and who attempt to harm their patients out of some form of sadistic pleasure.
Most politicians today are lawyers. Lawyers are good for one thing and that is arguing. Lawyers are not problem solvers. To get problem solvers into Congress, we have to change who runs for office in the first place.
Interesting insight. We should be electing mediators, not lawyers.
Except this will never happen. If (somehow) we are able to change as a society who runs for office (for example, mediators instead of lawyers), eventually a politician will come along who is not interested in mediation but rather gaining whats best for whatever party they belong to. It's basically like a prisoners dilemma; some asshole is going to take advantage of the system to try and gain the most profit for their political party.
Sorry if this sounds weird, english isn't my first language.
1. That many lawyers are drawn to politics dates all the way back to the second U.S. president, John Adams. One of America's very best presidents ever -- the 16th -- was also a lawyer (Abraham Lincoln). Although not required, it should be neither surprising nor vexing that the legislative branch of our government (Congress) would be well-populated with men and women formally trained and licensed to practice law;
2. Effective argumentation is -- and always has been -- a critical skill set among ALL politicians serving in democracies, regardless of their previous professional and/or academic training;
3. "We will not solve our problems by electing the right people. We will only solve our problems by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing." (Friedman);
4. Conclusion: Lawyers-becoming-politicians are not the problem. WE are the problem.
(P.S. No, I'm not a lawyer myself)
22:52 libertarian philosopher David Schmitz said “a free market society is a giant game in which you win by making other people better off”
The purpose of the free market is to make somebody else lose so you can win.
The heart of the matter at roughly 21:30, "if you are partisan," and so many with power tend to be.
Amazing how current these topics still sound today. Haidt is impressive.
Things have gotten WAY worse 9 years later.....
God Bless America 🇺🇸.
Bad media. Yes we all have different views but a corporate agency that benefits from conflict has made things much worse!
very interesting talk :)
great interviewer!
Great insights. Now in 2022, things aren't better. We need to ground ourselves in objective truth or it is just power monkey will-to-power politics from now on.
Sorry but according to Haidt grounding yourself in objective truth excludes conservatives too much.
Brilliant talk by Jonathan Haidt
What does it means to be "Reasonable"
To be " Reasonable" means that i am neither so much in my emotions or in denial of my emotions, that when someone brings me information that is counter to what i have here to fore believed to be true, that i am able to hear the Truth.
Well this has been thrown out the window
I will be reading.👍
To my mind the first essential that must be changed is the power to determine how political districts are redrawn must be taken totally away from already elected officials because they will *_always_* favor redrawing such political districts so as to favor the incumbents. Let open sourced software do it,.. possibly in combination with crowdsourcing,... but never let any of the incumbents anywhere near this. Right now no one can be elected to the federal congress without first being elected by their respective political party's most extreme elements. This must stop! Political moderates can't get their respective party's nominations anymore,.. and the world, as we daily experience it now, is the necessary, inevitable result.
I loved this conversation but the LIP SMACKING LMAO
Respecteverone is very important
Around the time Gingrich said that we had congressmen who were in office for years and no longer lived in the state! He over corrected by telling new members not to move to DC, but still, they should have a residence in their district.
Perhaps it is time to change it up. 9 months in DC and 3 in home state.
I was born in 1952. In the world of my childhood only men went to US service academies. Almost all doctors and lawyers were men. In retrospect this was absurd. I served in the Navy for 22 years and saw the transition as women joined the fleet. Growing pains, yes, but it has worked out fine. And I’ve spent way too much time with doctors in the past few years, and the majority have been highly skilled women. It’s a new, more equitable and better world.
Sure it has worked out fine. Now they have drag Queens serving in the Navy 😅😅😅
So interesting.
Well ive listened to a lot more from him...found out from his ted talk ...that he relates these things to the yin yang of eastern religions ...in the seeking for truth , but leaves out entirely the Christian ethic aka ...”the Truth will set you free’”. so he has come some of the way towards understanding the right...but he has still a long way to travel...
He mentions NOTHING about ting yang but he does mention Karma. If this is too exotic a word then you have a long way to travel.
@@michael1345 you have no reading comprehension and haven't seen Haidt's TED talk.
Haidt has a very soothing voice haha he should be in marriage counseling
Someone asked him if he did coundelling once in a Q&A once and he said something along the lines he wouldn't be able to handle people bitching and moaning about their problems all day, hehe.
The wolf eats the deer and the deer eats the grass and flees the wolf thus effecting the evolution of both species the less able to survive of both species being culled in a larger numbers.
He sort of is doing collective marriage counseling right now.
Cotterpin Doozer 😂😂damn, I actually would get why tho
Sean Bandas oh yeah, exactly
22:18 “we’re bathed in arguments from people who are not integrativly complex”
Please someone tell me I'm not the only one distracted by the serious ASMR that's going on here
Help me out here...what is ASMR?
@@sue2982 It stands for Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response. Basically they're used to relax people. Most CZcamsrs post those types of videos
I wound up googling that. And then I heard it in the audio. Interesting.
Haidt does have that type of voice. Problem for me is that I am too interested in his content to go for the ASMR.
Omg me too, i was about to sleep
4:40 the trick to changing people’s minds is
From my (totally unscientific perspective of personal experience and opinion-based) point of view, one of the biggest obstacles to progress currently are the dogmatic ideologic beliefs within otherwise rational groups of thinkers. In that light, Haidt is nothing less than a hero for concentrating his efforts of precisely those issues. Great job, Haidt.
That was a winded way to say you are anti theistic
Except that you must not have paid attention although in other videos he clarifies better how religion plays an important role in morality and bringing people together.
Well right off the bat that's not true...conservatives will not be kicked out of the group for trying to understand liberals....I have lost alot of friends and family for coming out as a conservative who voted for Trump.. .its nice that you're trying to remain so neutral. Even if the hatred is not necessarily equal
Your personal experiences are not universal.
@@ohwowitsthatguy9154 but your rebuttal is completely empty. you cannot in good faith deny that the mainstream left is less open to outside opinions than the mainstream right.
What's wrong with gridlock when it's stopping bad laws from getting passed?
Because it stops good laws from getting passed (as well as bad laws from getting fixed).
IMO, the great majority of laws are bad, in that they are one or more of; unnecessary, are vote getting frauds exploiting the ignorance of voters, self aggrandize and self empower the government at the expense of citizens, are quid pro quo favours for large donors, bribe voters with their own money, are based on enabling the stealth growth of Cultural Marxism.
The law of Karma? I wouldn't describe it as such. it is true we all make mistakes but one should always put themselves in a position to win. Would I come down on someone with the wrath of Mother Nature because someone has made a mistake? I would examine why someone would have choose that decision but when it ends up being shoved down society's throat is that we must pay for that persons bad decision making process and the even sadder part is that the person who has made that mistake, demands that someone else fixes the problem they created whereas they refuse to take ownership and even worse sees no error in their ways.
Reason for persuasion
1. I'm not sure what you mean about the congressional calendar being to blame for the lack of congressional intra-personal relationships. The 5 richest zip codes in this country are in D.C. (I'm sure lobbyist are involved in making sure they are comfortable).
Where does the Senate live?
U.S. senators have a home in their home state and also in or near Washington, D.C. Many senators live in the neighborhood of Capitol Hill, because it surrounds the Capitol building. Many others live in the neighborhood of Georgetown, with its beautiful historic homes. A few claim to sleep in their offices.
2. You say the Friedman theory of business being beholden only to it's shareholders is a good theory except we don't have an ideal system. I agree with you, but the broken system we do have perpetuates itself to gargantuan proportions and is consistent only in it's level of inefficiency, corruption, highlighted by a total disregard for the "the people." Government and corporations have become indistinguishable because of greed and crony-ism. Government regulations are no longer used to protect the public, but rather only to protect corporate profits and political elitism. Large corporate entities shut out smaller more innovative competition, who may be offering more value to the consumer, by ensuring red-tape regulation masquerading as corporate responsibility is enacted by the politician whose re-election campaign they fund. The little guy can't absorb the cost of compliance to such regulation, and is therefore shut out of the marketplace. Is the answer more or less government you ask; Well we've been growing government to epic proportions over the last 5 or 6 decades and things continue to get worse....so I believe the answer is obvious.
3. I hope you are right about the elephant/rider analogy because that means, in time people will understand that it's not about which political ideology is more moral, but that morality is subjective and a social order based more around libertarian and voluntaryist principles is best.
4. You are on point about the complete failure of liberals to even consider cause and effect when it comes to victims, and conservatives complete failure to recognize that people don't always get what they deserve, so if they are suffering it must be their own fault. This is truly at the heart of not only the political divide, but it is also destroying freedom, liberty and our culture.
"If you do something bad, you should be punished, if you do something good you should be rewarded." Yes.....conservative do think this way, but I think liberals do as well, albeit they disagree on what defines good and bad; and there in lies the problem. Who decides what is right and wrong, moral or immoral? The left and right have become little more that 2 factions warring over defining morality and a desire to severely punish whoever fails to conform to that standard. Today people use the words moral/immoral in the exact same way they would use the words good/evil. When in reality, these are completely different things. Plenty of people would view smoking a joint as a completely harmless activity and plenty more believe someone smoking a joint deserves to have their door kicked in and to be locked up in a cage. Conversely, while one person views abortion as a right, not a moral issue, the opposing viewpoint views it as murder. Maybe we should stop trying to define morality and punishing people who don't conform to that definition. In other words, live and let live. If you want to live your life according to what you believe and value, then you have to be willing to let everyone else do the same thing. Let's work toward taking government out of the equation. Laws and regulation should NEVER be based on ideology, and should ALWAYS require a clear victim (which is NOT the STATE or the individual being charged). I think if we start stripping away government regulation we will see that our system has become immersed and mired in just this type of moral relativism.
5. And finally, I agree that educating children to the realities of history and how to logically process data would be a great way to mitigate if not totally eliminate the left/right divide, but I don't think this will happen to any significant degree because of who owns the education system. The continued growth of government power along with the continuing financial success of the corrupt corporate interests they support, have become wholly dependent on the divide and conquer paradigm. I would go as far as to say the public education system in America today has largely been designed to perpetuate the hate filled political divide, not mitigate it. How does it end? Welcome to libertarianism (voluntaryism).
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?
hello, i don't know Spanish but if you point out the exact times he uses those phrases i may be able to give you a even more plain english version that could be translated?
@@blackdeath4eternity Hey, thanks very much. Actually the times he used the terms are from another video. I know "hivishness" he used from his studies on bees (hive). Here is the video czcams.com/video/2APK3tlPL_0/video.html
@@JorgeOstos Could "hive-likeness" be translated? as that would mean the same thing. In order to translate awe it seems to be a standard usage & hence i believe you will have to merely find as close a word as you can, or possible use a few words. Here is the definition i hope it will help you to some degree:
aweDictionary result for awe
/ô/Submit
noun
1.
a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder.
"they gazed in awe at the small mountain of diamonds"
@@blackdeath4eternity That's great mate. I think a got it with "awe", and I think I have something in mind for "hivishness".
Again, I really thanks for you kindness!
@@JorgeOstos your most welcome, good luck.
You first dude.!
Reason that follows intuition, not exclude it ? But intuition can be wrong? Reason has to follow passion ? I think passion can obscure reason.
I'm not from US and I'm a math teacher, but I staunchly support Haidt's view that there's too much math being taught at schools. I guess it happens almost everywhere, not only US. There are many things more useful to learn than quadratic equations or the hexagon's area. I love these subjects, but forcing them upon everbody isn't really desirable in nowadays society.
the quadratic equation (singular) can solve any possible problem related to derivatives ie every investment possible. nobody learns an equation for calculating the area of a hexagon in geometry class. everybody who says advanced maths serve no role has about the same or less net worth than a public math teacher. but those who can, do.
Very important discussion which is relevant for all countries but unfortunately watched by just about 101k in 6 years. Greater no. of people watch samosa recipe in India in 1 year.
Demonizing the other side helps none of us
This book predicted the future.
He totally saw the way Universities were heading.
Thus, why he said the far left didn't like his book.
Hey Kool-Aid! The interviewer really needed a good cold drink...
No, habit
That was awesome. I need this book before everyone in my circle kills each other.
Corporations support CSR unless it reduces the compensation of the "C" suite.
When my kids were under 10 years, we would use the “1..2..3…” formula to let them know we were done talking and get moving. Otherwise a swat on the rear would come next. We never had to actually swat. Always worked.
Some good points for sure. But if we were truly incapable of getting past our biases there could be no scientific progress.
Holy crap, the gifts just keep giving. Hell, this guy grew up in New York City? A little younger than me, attended all the best schools? He could be my (Jewish) first cousin from the "proper side" of the tracks. All roads for these videos lead from the privileged academic elite from "my kind".
Nah, there is no such thing as "Corporate Social Responsibility," except to the shareholders. If they WANT to be charitable, then of course that's fine and great. But it ain't a "responsibility."
"Corporate Social Responsibility" and "Giving back" are two phrases that always irk me. Giving back to whom, for what? Almost literally everything I have (and had when I had a business) was something I earned or paid for directly or indirectly. Those things that weren't earned such as someone liking me enough to give me a chance were always paid back tenfold by the effort I made on the behalf of the person or company that gave me the chance.
It's led me to the conclusion that these are just buzzwords to make people feel better about themselves. Like "re-homing" or "adopting" a shelter animal. A bunch of meaningless pablum.
@@shoeflytooThe basic idea is that the success of any business is dependent on the workers doing the actual work as well as the whole infra structure in the society around the business. So the idea is that those who succeed should "pay back" to the institutions, infra structure and workers who enabled them to succeed and by doing this, they will help maintain this structure so that others also get the opportunity to succeed in the future. This actually used to be a normal mindset.
It basically boils down to whether you see success as a competitive or cooperative.
Cleaning up their mess, disposing of waste properly, disaster relief, whatever it is......if its not profitable, it won’t get done. All donations are simply tax write offs. The Robber Barons of the Industrial Revolution ensured protection of this opportunity in our law. Its why we still see Rockefeller and Carnegy on buildings today. After Rockefeller ordered the National Guard to gun down striking workers and their families, he hired guys like Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays (the fathers of PR aka propaganda). This is where the “March of Dimes” comes from. An arranged photo-op of Rockefeller handing dimes to impoverished children. It worked. It still works today.
There will never be any corporate social responsibility unless people take actions of civil disobedience interfering with their productivity. As you can see from recent pipeline protests, they have now made it far easier to arrest people, some even being charged as terrorists, which basically removes all human rights we would associate with the judicial system in America. So yeah, it is clear who our government works for, and it ain’t us.
It's not even different values. It's tribal loyalty. If you present the same concept to people of seemingly opposing factions, they often can't tell which "side" it is unless you tell them. People WANT to be sheep of one fold or another. Apple understood this and has crafted a customer base that cannot extricate itself in the end.
3:50 our reasoning happens only after we know where we want to go
Anything that starts with a broad lie about the behavior of organisms in the "animal kingdom", and which also removes humans from the "animal kingdom", is bound to make your eyes roll. However, when you add an audio technician with a preference for lip and spit smacking, you really get something worth turning off immediately.
Both are GOOD people who are DIFFERENT. Have different values.
by different definitions of "GOOD." i'm sure George Floyd's mother would swear up and down that she had a "GOOD" son.
Do you believe absolute freedom can exist in a moral capacity?
Normalized Insanity
I’m a transistorized, transgenederized, transmogrified trans-human
A corporatized, commercialized, industrial-strength consumer
A goal setting, gym sweating, debt fretting freak
A social climbing net-worker that’s always on heat
I got my education, majoring in indoctrination
Where they taught me to comply, to never question why
And so I’m chasing an illusion, of success that’s a delusion
That is sending me insane, exploding my brain
And as we teeter on the brink, soon to be extinct
I always wear a smile, coz I'm living in denial
Are you claiming trans people are a plot by the capitalist class to divide the proletariat because that's something there's quite a bit of evidence against. Trans individuals, or people like them do in fact seem to predate capitalism.
I would consider myself a 'new atheist' but I thought the book was great. I didn't think the book did anything to say that being an atheist was wrong or incorrect.It was more about people and their perceptions.
The sound of smacking is too loud and the audio sounds greasy and sticky.
+Ivan Toshev Yeah those mouth noises were a bit much.
LOL, Jonathon Haidt often has thes occurrence... mic placement?? i dunno, scratches head. they hother guy does too tho....
I like it.
@@swesleyc7 ASMR FTW
actually had to stop watching due to the noise...
Free thinkers emphasize freedom. This is not a tribal orientation, but rather an uninhibited spontaneous wisdom. Unlike Humes inherent bias underscores rationalizing, or providing a rational for the passions. Reason holds the emotions in abeyance; it is the dispassionate tool of analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
Millions of us left the Democratic Party when Ron Paul came on the scene. Having the freedom to hear a perspective beyond the mainstream media - which only became possible with youtube - has led to a complete recalibration of the political landscape. Very safe to say that the Left's perspective has dominated the culture for way too long.
The american left has been functionally none existent for decades because of cold war era repression and red scare propaganda, and the mass assassination of civil rights leadership in the 1960s and 1970s. What on earth are you talking about?
So he's going to base his conclusions on whether he pleases both sides enough. Wonderful basis for perceiving the truth.
James Everett no, he’s just not blinded by tribalism.
a better basis for perceiving the truth than strawmanning every attempt at enlightenment. i bet Haidt would be more likely to find displeasing both sides a better measure for success.
I've heard others blame Newt Gingrich's change to congressional work rules (spend less time in Washington DC - and subsequent loss of social interaction among legislators) as a big reason for the increase in partisanship and inability to collaborate to get work done. While that change was made to engender more interaction with constituents back home, after the Citizens United decision the constituents don't matter as much anyway (versus the big money donors) so it might make sense for legislators to spend more time in DC.
In the spirit of not demonizing you or your opinion, conservatives believe that free speech is very important. Citizens United was centered around creating a movie to explain a position just like Michael Moore. SCOTUS agreed. Michael Moore's millions to make his movie and profit off them also changed the political calculus in the movie but he wasn't acccused of the same things Citizens United was. To stop someone from gathering together and speaking -- which is what a corporation is, it is people not a piece of paper -- you would have to limit the free speech rights of people when they gather. That is against the Constitution.
8:09 bookmark
People need to learn to go beyond politics, borders, race, enthicy, sex and greed to find god and be happy
That would mean we embrace common sense values
@@kennethsnyder9236 exactly god is beyond politics, borders, race, gender and all the tribalism illusions we have created to be righteous. I once seen a man whom was fiercely anti immigrantion to the point where hate fully grip this mans heart yet he would make religious post about god so to rebuke him I sent him a post about a man getting arrested for picking up a hitchhiker out in the desert and he said good so I told him that god expects us to be a good neighbor and asked him if there was a pregnant illegal in the desert would he leave her to die? And if so what do you think God's reponse in the final judgment be?
Of course persecuting the so journier is only one evil act that people do there are many and usually commited by the church people i think that's why there's acts 7:48 the most high doesn't dwell in man made buildings church isn't a place to find god but a monument to the pride of man which has lead us to war and hatred of many kinds
21:30 if your partisan you cannot think that way…You’d get fired.
The delusions of grandeur, ("separateness"). Observations cleared this up thousands of years ago. Or, "don't fool yourself with fantastic assumptions".
I don’t think this holds up as well anymore considering what has happened with Trump.
"We are bathed in arguments from people who are not integratively complex" he basically summed up the entire networks of Fox News and MSNBC right there. The sad truth is that there is no money in the integration of thought i.e.. people don't want to tune in and listen to things that will give them cognitive dissonance or a shock to their confirmatory bias. I will always believe people like Sean Hannity and Rachael Maddow are more alike than they are different but again its all about business.
Well said, I tell everyone I know to turn off cable news and Facebook.
To say that Rachel Madfow and Sean Hannity are similar shows how little you know either.
@@dawnemile4974 projecting ignorance. Maddow has even used the classic "it's not really news, it's entertainment" legal defense that FOX news is famous for.
Around 24:00 The first time I disagree with him: math is important. I agree, thought, that math is not knowing how to solve equations - math teaches to think and learning why the square root of 2 is an irrational number can teach a lot about how to think. Besides, statistics is math.
Perhaps calculus challenges the thinking process but other than engineering, what practical application does it have for inter human relationships. However, statistical analysis and the critical thinking that MUST be applied for analysis he fully supports as do I.
@@michael1345 statistics, probability, and economics all require an understanding of mathematical concepts beyond linear algebra. anyone with a cursory education in these subjects without the proper maths background are more susceptible to sophomoric error.
I have to say I agree with a lot Mr. Haidt is saying.
1. Math. Yes absolutely get rid of anything past algebra, mostly because my kids come home and need help and I'm clueless! LOL No in all seriousness statistics are extremely important, it presents facts, evidence. I've noticed over the past few years people do not want to look at the numbers. One reason, they do not help to make them right and prove their point, and the biggest reason in my opinion is that people simply do not understand them. My husband can spout IT information at me all day but it might as well be in another language because I just don't get it.
Teach the kids everyday math. How to balance a checkbook, make a budget, figure out taxes, etc. Basically anything they can use to help them be an adult.
2. Civics. Yes and amen. Teach them both sides! If you are to listen to someone with a different opinion and can try to understand their position, and be respectful in your responses it will go a long way. Today people do not listen, they hear the first bit of what the other person is saying and are already preparing a counter attack in their mind of the response they will have. Learn to listen, acknowledge what they said be respectful in your response, this needs to be taught. James 1:19 says it best, Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.
3. Congress. Mr. Haidt is 100% correct about congress! They are the example and what a poor one! They sit on TV slam the other side and are not working together! A house divided against itself cannot stand. Abraham Lincoln said that but it comes from Jesus himself in the bible. Mark 3:25
4. Quote I love. "Societal decay happens when you don't have swift punishment"- Mr. Haidt
Yes and amen, we're seeing this today.
4. Morals. I disagree with him on what he said about teaching morals. I agree they need to be taught but by who's standards? Mr. Haidt said himself that conservatives like to see justice right away and Liberals are more slack in that matter, "they have a complete ban on blaming the victim." I'm not sure if he meant to use the word victim or not. I do not believe the conservatives would put blame on a victim, but would put it on the person in the wrong doing. What example does this set when there are two different examples? It brings confusion. That's exactly what we're seeing today, a lack of morals and confusion. Where would the correct moral teaching come from? Well the bible, God's word. I know people disagree but the clips below really explains it in a "a-ha, that makes sense" way. I had to make clips, youtube did not have the scene I was looking for, I thank you for your patience with my ignorance in this type of technology. Please watch Morals 2, first and morals 1 second. They are in that order below. The clips are from a Movie called Time Changer. Excellent movie BTW if you're a Christian, which I am if you haven't figured it out already =)
czcams.com/users/clipUgkxhV-iHoZnhRkBmbpIKRHpmFzGrsx4Ttmq
czcams.com/users/clipUgkxQh7obY3L985gEa4CGWzeDsP-ANqdqr9A
Anyway, excellent interview! It was very informative and insightful.
Ok but have you considered that many right wing positions are incompatible with Christian beliefs and teachings and that for two thousand years folks like you have dragged Christ's name through the mud with your bigotry and your genocides, your witch hunts and your defence of the wealthy and the powerful. Have you considered you need to repent of your participation in capitalism which is a system built on usury and deceit and violence? Have you considered that your entire political agenda is not only bringing money lenders into the temple but plating them giving them the robes of the priest and with gold like the golden calf. Have you ever considered that the Sabbath principle dictates a deep respect for the land and the radical redistribution of wealth and land every 50 years.
Did you just say that Newt Gingrich ended personal friendships among the members of Congress by asking new congress to be segregated? That must have seemed like a good idea at the time but it has created enemies instead of colleagues. Wow, awful!!
I really liked the interview overall, and am excited to read his book.I think that Haidt uses some old stereotypes about liberals and conservatives. As a current social worker for the past thirty years, and and a self-described progressive, many in my profession would consider themselves liberal. Haidt describes (18:40) liberals as using reasoning with children over punishment, and not advocating for "swift punishment." I invite Haidt to visit some social services that are run by liberals. We as social workers have developed programs that have logical consequences and services that empower people in place. We consider bad social work as creating services that make people dependent on government aid. Car-seat events that my Public Health department conducts require that parents attend a one-hour training to learn how to install the three types of car seats, and then go out to their cars to install the seat under the supervision of a car seat safety technician. We've supported and referred people with serious mental illness to attend "peer-run" support groups, that is groups that are run not be a professional but a person with lived experience of mental illness. This supports empowerment and provides opportunities for employment to these individuals.
Adrienne Decker ironically I just saw a Ted Talk of Steven Levitt proving how unscientific and idiotic car child-safety seats are.
your example has no relevance to your contention, saying nothing about liberal punishment. and requiring an hour training and supervision to buckle in a child seat sounds like a Harrison Bergeron dystopian nightmare.
Sounds like an authoritarian nightmare. And kids need a butt spanking sometimes, not merely talking to only. The key is to do both, when needed
"Stop wasting so much of our students' time learning math, it's not useful, it's not helpful," followed by "teach them statistics." sounds like someone has tenure in the Humanities...
Or life-sciences or management or data science or...
He clearly meant (and went on to specify anyway) spending less time on the more technical math subjects like calculus, trigonometry, etc. that, while incredibly useful in technical fields, really don't have as much relevance in the day to day life of the vast majority of people. On the other hand, being much more familiar with statistics (which, yes, is a branch of math but also means understanding sampling and biases and survey methods and error rates and terminology and probabilities and and and) would hopefully make it much harder for oversimplified media reports to completely deceive so many people with selective statistical information flooding them every day.
Otherwise, I absolutely agree with him that given the choice (due to limited space in the curriculum, budgets for teachers, or whatever else) between making sure all students are educated on understanding the functions and structure of government and the actual legislative process, or that they're all educated on understanding how to calculate SIN COS TAN and how to find derivatives, civil society would be in a much less sorry state than it is today if we had gone with the first one.
I noticed that as well.
People who refuse to work at improving their mathematical skills are usually the ones who claim how unimportant those skills are to understanding the world.
Until all Americans can properly use integers I say never stop with math! 😄
*Brings up crime statistics*
except nobody in public school remembered the calculus anyway, and people with four year degrees act like sophomores and cite glossary definitions during lay conversations. so i doubt our public education system as we know it is possible of effective reform.
Regarding congress members, I have to disagree. House members need to live among their constituents because that is who they represent and must be accountable to them constantly. Getting things done is the problem, they create too much legislation. The less congress gets done the better off we are.
Truth! We are over legislated because too many "friends" get together to force their "ideas" on us, to make "themselves" rich. A better expert on this topic is Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman (of which these guys seem to disparage). I would love to see either debate Milton, except that he is no longer with us.
Now I know why I am such a centrist. I rationalize a lot with boolean logic and lateral logic (particularly disproving, i.e. the majority (of a group) is always wrong). ;)
Claiming that being a centrist is best is argumentum ad temperantiam.
claiming that it is a fallacy is a fallacy ;)
Uh huh - but people don't think in booleian logic. The human mind doesn't work like that. Computers work like that
@@jeremyhowell8235 It might not be a good idea to say how the human mind works. you can really only speak for yourself.
@@jeremyhowell8235 the primary functions of cognition is grouping like elements into the same sets and separating disparate elements into different sets. "one of these things is not like the other" is *incredibly* boolean.
I think it is amusing that he thinks that John Kerry and George W. Bush were different politically.
3:34 rationalism or rationality?
IF we account for externalities (if we make prices honest), pursuit of profit (pursuit of shareholder interests) will align with societal interests. Progressives should not decry capitalism because corporations pursue profit. Progressives should decry the dishonest market and demand fees charged to industry proportional to pollution emitted, resources extracted or wildlife habitat destroyed.
The policy will be fair if we share proceeds from fees to all people. Charging fees proportional to harmful impact, then sharing fee proceeds, will promote sustainability and end poverty.
If you want to stop the gridlock in congress get rid of party primaries and have all candidates run in a single non-partisan primary. Allow voters to vote YES or NO on each candidate and the two candidates with the most YES votes face off in the general. If we do this you get rid of the tribal partisanship and allow centrist candidates to win.
Also, the House could use a Condorcet method to elect the Speaker of the House.
A better idea would be no elections. Pick 'em at random like juries. Democracy, not plutocracy.
would requiring voting help? It seems that would force political discourse to become more persuasive....more serious engagement with opposing ideas. Right now politicians seem to have more to gain just by alarming the folks on their own side.
No. Forcing people to do anything is a bad idea. How about nobody votes, and you pick your legislators at random. This would result in the greater political engagement you desire. As it is now, most people's only participation is their vote.
While it is theoretically useful to draw a clear distinction between trends, here between Liberals and Conservatives, I think that the opposition between these two trends here is far too radical. In reality, pure types or ideal-types are scarce and we meet more frequently Conservative-Liberals or Liberal-Conservatives. By this I mean for instance that one can be fundamentally Conservative, as I am, that is to say detesting the disorder, the havoc and the slackness, admiring many achievements of the past, respecting traditions when they don't cause harm while recognizing the need to grant as much freedom as possible because human beings need a certain degree of freedom to grow. The current "progressive" problem is that the liberal current [supported by the not so good grip of economic dynamics on society] dominates the public discourse for too long and because of this has lost its usual counterweight. The result is that it has become extravagant and unrealistic. But I am convinced that reasonable Conservatives and Liberals can get along. Both are important for the smooth running of society.
What would you say is unrealistic about progressive interests/demands?
I noticed that liberals have trouble with thinking for themselves and base to much on their hatreds , perversions , greed and jealousies. emotionalism is strong with liberals. liberal hospitals are very dangerous places filled with ugly dumb liberal doctors who despise humans rights and who attempt to harm their patients out of some form of sadistic pleasure.
REBEL NOW!
Hi watching for my philosophy class c:
"I would be surprised if they bothered. There's not much economic incentive for them to do it" Summed up the truth (big T), precisely. Lol I doubt he even realized it.
He groups people into two categories which is pushing the narrative that these two groups are different. People are people and there are people in both parties that at many times agree on the same things. The difference is policy. Which policies help others and which hurt. The far left believes in policies that sound wonderful, but in actuality don't always work. The right can see the policies don't work, but pushing threw policies that do, sometimes leaves a group of people out of the equation. This is the opening that is seized and exploded by the left. There will always be the poor among us, we need policies that work for the majority and charity for those who fall through the cracks. As people's lives improve, more and more people can reach out in their community to help those in need. This is the natural progression of enlightenment.
You can be unpolarized by yourself ore Jordan Peterson To actually speak to Congress and the Senate and the presidency give them an hour session do people pay for it
19:07 who is Haight talking about here? Who is he defining as "the victim"? Also, why is he using Karma without defining it? Trying to better understand his point. Thanks
victim defined as a person who has had a bad thing happen to them. by karma he means the western concept of deserved outcomes. and when he says "victim blaming" he's referring to constructive criticism to help prevent repeat victimization.
@@TheJacklikesvideos interesting. By that definition, we are all victims since every one above the age of two, maybe even younger, has had something bad happened to them.. I also don't think conservative folks don't necessarily blame the "victim" regardless of the definition used but rather don't think that everything has to be solved by the government, whether federal or state. The whole Karma thing seems to be again an oversimplified version of the conservative perspective. Oh well. Thank you Jack Paul
Extreme conservativeness is not the only type of conservative. Liberals are too lax and extreme conservatives who blame the victim have never failed due to circumstances such as illness or accident. Another factor is being taken advantage of by unscrupulous people. If Americans were more educated instead of being so arrogantly sure they were right this might help. I agree with the unnecessary teaching of math and the rest of Taight's suggestions for teachimg subjects that work better for modern life. I myself have seen and done this. Many people do not even know the source of the social constructs we live by. This is a great weakness in Western society today.
Worthy ideas here, but he is truly simplistic to single out "math beyond algebra" as the thing to throw overboard (presumably pre-college from context). It is precisely fear of math which keeps many otherwise-curious, capable students from taking up science and engineering later. Fewer scientists and engineers = unilateral entrepreneurial surrender in a very competitive global economy. Bad idea.
Rigorous MATH is how you learn to think objectively, OK? It teaches you to have SOUND LOGIC built upon axioms. Don't piss off Mathematicians.
If that were true then you wouldn't have partisan mathematicians all over the spectrum. So, the data would tend to disagree with you.
Sound logic is at the root of thinking objectively.
No, maths doesn't teach that at all. Thinking mathematically and thinking logically about the complex world is not the same. Your emotions and personal past experiences don't change the working of a mathematical problem, whereas they will affect your opinions. Everybody suffers from cognitive biases, of which there are many. If you think you don't suffer from these, then I'm afraid you are showing ignorance. But to conclude, I love maths, and mathematicians are the powerhouse of society!
If you can solve something with the help of science, then you can have logic. Society has various problems, which cannot be solved by science and logic is impossible there, because everyone has their own world view.
I'm all for the rigors of math, music and foreign languages . . . there is no better conditioner for the mind. To not be able to do them is to be purblind, mentally speaking.
Businesses have become such huge conglomerates that they can no longer be controlled by government. Businesses have little incentive for social morality but it eventually leads to disaster.