Just started watching John Anderson's interviews. I really like the way he interviews. He's minimally invasive but when he speaks you're just as interested in what he has to say as in what the guest has to say. He radiates the character of an experienced and wise old man.
Anderson is one politician I've always respected. Has always struck me as being a man of great integrity. I'm pleased to have found his RUclips channel. I'm a city slicker and never had the opportunity to vote for the Country Party he led.
Just found this interview.. massive fan of Haidt.. a very rare kind of clear thinker capable of formulating fair and constructive criticism of boths sides of the political aisle.
Great talk, really liking your interviews John. Jonathan explains his ideas well, and we got a bit of a different take from him here than usual I think.
Haidt rightly says you can't understand your side of the argument until you understand the other side. Unfortunately, we have had the other side crammed down our throats by academia and the media for 40 years. He just heard our side a couple years ago.
Ben S Have you heard of Joe Rogan, Gad Saad, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Camille Paglia, Peter Bergosian, Heather Heying, Bret Weinstein, Eric Weinstein, Christina Hoff Sommers. Feel free to add.
What an odd interview. I thought Haidt was just being a bit awkward but at the end he says he can't talk about young people too much due to his new book coming out and that might explain why. I'm commenting on 1/1/20 so appreciate that that book said some very important things which sadly didn't get addressed here. The other odd thing about this interview was how clear it seems (to me at least) that Haidt is actually now a conservative but can't bring himself to admit it. Partly I feel this is because he dislikes Trump so much ... not that he says anything like that but it's very obvious. I watched this after I watched the David Goodhart interview that John Anderson did. That was altogether better: more coherent and more authentic. Goodhart came across as more self aware and more aware generally. I'm still going to watch the Haidt II interview. It may show him in a better light. And I like all John's interviews. FWIW his Frank Furedi one was excellent too. I bought and read Frank's new book called "How Fear Works" and it is simply superb. Goes a long way to explaining how young people have been well and truly "coddled".
It's odd to me that you'd consider Haidt a conservative now, or that it would be "obvious" to you considering at around the 31:00 mark he uses several very unflattering examples to illustrate the personality traits of conservatives. Personally he simply comes across to me as a garden variety Liberal who is grappling with the issue of being lumped in with a very far left that is anything but Liberal. What he is doing and what some people on the Right are also doing, is they are attempting to draw a large circle around both *some* Liberals and Conservatives who retain the ability to critically think and engage in civil debate so that the people on the outside of that circle can be marginalized. Frankly, I think it's a brilliant strategy. It's as if you were to approach someone and go, "Look, we don't agree on everything but at least we can be civil and actually try to solve problems together, but look at these other guys - they're fucking crazy and can't be trusted". Personally I think this is the only way to actually save the west and that people better get on board with it before we're all royally fucked.
Dr Haidt identifies the core issue, that we have more things pulling us apart than bringing us together, largely by the reduction of moral narrative. However, he can't take the last step towards fixing it.
Haidt is a nice guy and what he says in general makes sense, but I was amazed when he said that he was stunned when three years ago in China "someone told him there had been a period there when everyone was paid an equal wage". This anecdote tells me that until quiet recently he had no or only very limited knowledge about how the economy functioned in communist countries.
I really wish that I had been introduced to Psychology much earlier in my life, I always used to dismiss it as a non subject and that it was all about the hard sciences. If I had known what I know now there is no way I would have done what I did at university, and I think I would have thought long and hard about doing Psychology at university.
I dunno, even academic psychology quickly enters the realm of pop psychology, pure bunk, wanton speculation and wishful thinking. You end up with banal crap like "People become right wing because they had bad childhoods...".
An important discussion. Unfortunately though, I think Jonathan Haidt missed the elephant in the room. I will explain. In my experience conservatives don't complain about the speed of change, they usually keep quiet, remain reticent, calmly observe, react with small changes. Only when a pattern of behaviour arises or MANY people are being harmed do conservatives speak up or make change if at all. This progression is not "too fast" it's MURDEROUS in its intent, and we know this because it has happened before, many times (russia, germany, vietnam, china, cambodia, venezuela), in the same manner (social change), with the same trickery (arbeitet macht frei), and the same suffering (people put into groups rounded up and slaughtered). It's a pattern, not a preference.
I think there's no need for hesitation or beating around the bushes, straight away, the problem is disbelief. For the past few hundred years we have been trying to "manage" the catastrophe that we brought upon ourselves. All these social whatevers are temporary solutions in the desert of lawlessness until we truly face the problem head on and find our roots in the faith and morality.
When you're feeling lost, you don't know where you are, where you're going, or what to do, you don't have any answers... you go back to what worked in the past. It'd be foolish not to.
To me the essential difference between left and right is that the left embrace moral relativism and the right embrace moral absolutism, and the two are mutually exclusive...
Not to worry, Dr. Haidt, it's gonna be all right. Human ingenuity has always found a way, and it will-is-now. The printing press led to the protestant reformation. RUclips is not even 10 years old. We are in (or entering) a phase transition, a far-from-equilibrium state in which creativity will explode. May as well enjoy it! ;)
In some likelihood, RUclips will go down as one of the most radically transformative technologies in the history of the species. We can’t grasp it at this time, for as you said, it is still in its infancy.
Hopefully, YT will just go down. And be replaced by one or more successful online video hosts that support free-expression & speech. And don't take upon themselves to determine what is "acceptable", but rather only limit speech which clearly violate the laws of the land (Terrorist threats, child trafficking, insurrection, etc.).
I had a dream John that u became PM and u brought back common sense in Parliament and to Australia. The greens are at it again in wanting to scrap ‘The Lords Prayer’ in sittings. The evil keeps coming.
I agree with you Mara. It's part of our tradition and it's about being thankful for what we have, humbleness and forgiveness of others. Regardless of what you believe. God bless Mara :)
you sounded so reasonable at first, only to complain that our leaders might not pray the way you want before they settle in to talk about real issues. I hope you don't have an issue with other religious people coming in and refusing to change anything in regards to their faith and culture if tradition is so important to you.
I don't agree, since there are other moralities described from other religions and philosophies other than the christian text which are more appealing.
In the last century with the introduction of cybernetic through processes into all modern aspects of society we have seen a greater level of logical thinking amongst the education however we seem to have failed to teach people that what is logically TRUE is not the same as "The Truth". People will try to dismiss this observation as mysticism but you can prove my point is valid just by studying the works of Godel and Wolfram, all mathematical systems are incomplete and need to have a self referential loop to work, and human mathematical systems are one small subset of a vast array of possible systems. One cannot find absolute truths in mathematics, and while we do benefit from conducting ourselves logically (civility) the actual truth can only be arrived at by wisdom.
You can evaluate a debate in a non-partisan way and still decide you will vote for one party or person over another. The point he is making is that you let a non-partisan evaluation of the issues determine your vote.
*_He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form._* ~ John Stuart Mill I have been libertarian since 1982 when I was 27. I have recently started exploring political philosophy more from the angle of unchosen positive duties rather than in essential individual liberties. I have started exploring what is the essential function of government that only government can serve and no other form of social organization. This question is why I believe it is more useful to think in terms of what unchosen, positive duties must be observed by everyone in order for a _free_ society to function well. Consider... *The Anarchist’s Constitution* 1. *There is no Sovereign Immunity.* Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition. 2. *The Right to be left alone is Absolute, subject only to the enforcement of the first rule.* Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial. 3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules. 4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will. *Remember,… any additional positive duties imposed necessarily imply the state’s right, even duty, to kill anyone who does not comply.* To be very clear,... I conceive of a positive, unchosen duty to be a duty that everyone *MUST* observe and submit to, and, if someone ignores their allegiance to a positive, unchosen duty, socially sanctioned initiatory violence may be, and will be, used to make moral free riders comply. Anarchists insist that they want a society that consists of _rules without rulers_ but then seem to insist that no one can know what those rules are until afterwards,... which, understandably, sounds fairly frightening to most folks who want more reassurance about how socially sanctioned initiatory force will work in the future. It would seem that the only unchosen, positive duty recognized by libertarians/anarchists is the duty of _if you break it, you must fix it._ But in an ideal libertopia, how would even this single duty be enforced, if not by someone using retaliatory violence to protect value, or to regain coercively a value stolen. How would an ideal society do this; what socially recognized _due process of law_ would be constructed to do so. The problem with the *Non Aggression Principle* is that it offers no help in what action to take when others ignore it. Or consider *Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle* at www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle as showing the *NAP* as being insufficient. And might there not be other unchosen, positive duties? If an abandoned infant will likely die without aid (locked in a hot car, for instance), must not action be taken to save it's life; otherwise it's death by neglect. What could be done by society if society objects to women having abortions performed upon themselves? Would abortifacients be outlawed? Would miscarriages be investigated as being possibly deliberately self-induced? What would be the agreed upon liability for giving heroin to small children? Could heroin be sold out of vending machines? Should businesses be alllowed to create additional risks for the public that live around them without either informing or otherwise compensating the public for such addtional risks (progressive.org/dispatches/fukushima-nightmare-gets-worse/ )? Does a man have to pay child support for a child he did not consent to having, but was spermjacked so as to produce the child? What amount of violence is appropriate to use against someone who gratuitously harms animals? Is it to be permitted for someone to destroy the last members of a living species, just because they own them? How should Improperly disposed of plastics, which kill millions of wild animals, be dealt with? What actions can be compelled in order to deal with C02's contribution to Global Climate Change? In Les Misérables, Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving sister. Are property rights something held absolutely above the preservation of life? How does the interpretation of the *NAP* vary during emergencies? Is it okay to shoot suspected looters during a riot or natural disaster? Are there statutes of limitations on criminal acts? How are they determined? What actions follow when different actors disagree upon whether or not a criminal is now essentially free of the consequences of their prior criminal actions? Would it be okay for private actors to own military grade weapons? Including biological and nuclear weapons? Who pays to keep habitual criminals incarcerated? Who is liable to victims for crimes of habitual criminals who have been mistakenly released? To me, the fundamental moral and ethical insight of libertarianism, is the fundamental impotence of socially sanctioned initiatory violence to create new value where it did not exist before. But, as the above paragraph suggests,... is this really universally true? My faith in liberty over violence is genuinely real,... but my doubts are also precious to me. Does authority derive from the truth, as NT Rationals believe ( keirsey.com/temperament/rational-overview/ ) or Does the truth derive from authority, as most everyone else would seem to believe,... in particular SJ Guardians ( keirsey.com/temperament/guardian-overview/ ). All mathematics depend upon sets of axioms which are universally accepted as being self-evidently true statements that require no further proof. Until human moral philosophers can come up with such a set of moral axioms for humanity at large,... governments in practice will, necessarily, continue to serve as our only practical alternative. Please consider my statements/questions and leave your comments. What _rules_ without rulers do you think must apply, even without individual consent, in order for a _free_ society to function well? I emphatically agree that democracy sucks. Let's discuss alternatives, and why others must comply with such alternatives,... or else face violent results. If it's any help,... I consider myself to be 90% convinced of anarcho-capitalism, and have been so since I first become libertarian back in 1982 when I was 27 years old. But I also take the matter, of when there is to be a use of socially sanctioned initatory violence allowed and how it is regulated, very seriously. I have always very much wanted to be convinced of an-cap,... so help me if you will. *A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:* *· From Bondage to Spiritual Faith* *· From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage* *· From Courage to Liberty* *· From Liberty to Abundance* *· From Abundance to Selfishness* *· From Selfishness to Complacency* *· From Complacency to Apathy* *· From Apathy to Dependency* *· From Dependency back into Bondage* ~ Alexander Fraser Tytler 18th century Historian and Jurist *_A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine._* ~ Thomas Jefferson *_The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not._* ~ Thomas Jefferson *_Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide._* I would love to see Johnathan Haidt being interviewed by Stefan Molyneux where you two could discuss righteousmind.com/ and *Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians* at journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366 What liberties do you personally believe to be absolute and fundamental? What unchosen, positive, duties *must* every individual submit to, even involuntarily, for a _free_ society to function well? How are differences of opinions on such matters arbitrated with a minimum use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence? All comments and constructive criticisms welcome!
Do moral axioms and first principles have to depend upon *_supernaturalism_* to be grounded? I don't think so,... but I can well understand why so many people believe it must be so. Is truth something one finds within or without? For more information on my religious perspectives, check out *Who Loves God More...* at tomwoods.com/no-youre-not-a-dummy-for-believing-in-god/#comment-1674043443 I consider myself to be a Deist Daoist whose entire religion can be stated as... *Dear Lord, let it be your will that will direct my life. Not as I would choose, nor as any person would choose, nor as any religious text would choose, but as you, dear Lord, would choose. This being done, I am content.* I consider the attainment of righteousness to be a higher prize than that of salvation. I am very skeptical about the true efficacy of _scapegoating_ while simultaneously recognizing it's psychic utility. Perhaps my greatest heresy is that I like God,... more than I love God, or fear God, or bear anger towards God, I genuinely like God. Perhaps I endanger my one immortal soul by such an attitude,... but I think not. I feel absolutely certain only that God never asked anyone to kill another person in his name. That is humanity's hubris and error,... not God's.
Can you clarify what you mean please? I've been banned from disqus under the false accusation of spamming,... so here I am posting comments at RUclips.
Putting together the suggestions of Anthropology and Neuroscience with Geological histories, it is believed that global stressors drove the development of the big brain individual, followed by the specialized skills development and all forced together by global catastrophe to become the mish-mash survival behaviours now seen. "The Virtue of Adversity is Fortitude". Carefully practiced tolerance..?
The polarization is on the Right (you can tell from their arguments) The left is not that extreme and is not in the same proportion. He will play safe by putting the same on both sides. You want to tell the truth or just play save and grab the money.
John, I love your channel and only regret that I came across it so late in life. Haidt is couching his words very carefully, but it would be far better if he pulled off the gloves and spoke more forthrightly about the fact that it is indeed Western Leftists who have been wreaking mayhem in their nations for decades. I doubt that they have much love for the nations they live in. Worse yet, they are hell-bent on exporting their toxic, nonsensical babble to nations across the globe. Yuri Bezmenov warned of the baneful influence of these Leftists way back in the 1980s. People should really take the time to listen to his interviews. They are available on YT.
So the conservatives swear by "do the crime, do the time". But who decides what are crimes, and what is the proportional punishment? Conservatives too? 🙄
One of my delights in listening to a Democrat who after studying Republican political ideas, is how the Democrat declares himself an Independent. Never does their study make them double down on their belief in voting Democrat. (No Republican has to study the Democrat political ideas as it is all we hear about in the media.)
You're right about one thing Margaret- one never hears about Republican ideas in the media because Republicans don't have ideas. The current Congress is a perfect example. Republicans control Congress and the White House and the only thing they've been able to "accomplish" is giving bigger tax breaks to the wealthy. And Haidt said that he does still vote Democratic.
Ed Smelly. We will forgive you for not knowing the Republican ideas, as your Dems steal all their ideas from Marx. Once your radical Left starts attacking Prof. Haidt, which they will, he will embrace anyone but the Democrats.
''Joseph G. This is a statement, not an argument. Yes, there is a difference.'' This is typical and one of the reasons why we are not making any progress.
Adversities who delight in humility and knowing anything what we do is for our love for our neighbors. The question is? How can you love your neighbors beloved? Don't you know? Me and you will have no reasons to show off to God without our neighbors beloved. Me and you are here for our innocents youngs sons and daughters and neighbors upon all the tribes of judah. Many might not believe in God nor the child. But God believes in all of you beloved. Becoming a child in front of God. Is where true TRUST CAN'T BE UPROOTED NOR SHAKEN BUT ABLE TO UPHOLD. Beloved, remember IS NOT WHAT WE POSSESS BUT IS WHAT WE CAN DO WITHOUT BELOVED. BUT WHAT WE HAVE. MAY THE TRUE INTENT BE ACCORDING TO GOD'S TRUE WILL. AS LONG IS ACCORDING TO GOD'S TRUE WILL AND COMMANDMENTS. FEETS OF YESHUA JESUS CHRIST WILL UPHOLD. IF SO! OUR INNOCENTS YOUNGS SONS AND DAUGHTERS WILL BE PROVIDED THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND ITS RIGHTEOUSNESS. FEETS OF YESHUA THE HOSTS AND OWN. RECIEVED A TRUE LANGUAGE. ONLY CAN BE UNDERSTOOD. BEYOND SPECIAL INDEED BUT PRECIOUS IN GOD'S EYES. IS LIKE LIFE GIVEN AND INDEED LIFE KEPT. NONE WILL BE LOST BUT INCREASED BEYOND MEASURED UPON ALL THE TRIBES OF JUDAH. TRUTH AND PEACE BE REUNITED. LOVE ONE ANOTHER BELOVED There's a foundation that noone can't uproot. Love God love neighbors as thyself. Remember YESHUA Jesus christ has its own true FOUNDATION. LEFT NOR RIGHT WILL KNOW. ALL WHO WILL KNOW? WILL COME TO THE MOUNTAIN THAT NOONE CAN UPROOT NOR SHAKEN BUT HERE TO STAY FOR GOOD. BECAUSE GOD'S HOSTS AND OWN KNOWS. YESHUA JESUS'S CHRIST AND THE CHILD FEET RESTING UPON. INTENT, BASED, FOUNDATION, AND WHERE YOUR HEART WILL BE ALSO BELOVED. Don't forget our innocents youngs sons and daughters beloved. Sincere conversations comes with sincere answers indeed. Likewise with foolished conversations beloved.
Listening with an open mind is so critical but so challenging. Many start out with their views hardened. The Right complains of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome while espousing similar CDS, Clinton Derangement Syndrome or some equivalent and vice-versa. J.S. Mills plea to try and listen to the logical, less emotion-based arguments of the other side is imperative.
better economic , educational and health care for the bottom 80npercenjt would soften the issues mentioned. David Brooks and Jon Haidt are uncomfortable dwelling on the particulars of crushing student debt, 48 million poor Americans, the loss of secure jobs at better wages, elderly outliving their money. They merely note them, but 46 million hungry children feel them in their gut...Plutocracy and Oligarchy are missing from Brooks's and Haidt's vocabulary.
I like Jonathan Haidt, but he's so toothless and limp. We need more aggressive approaches to our problems, I'm afraid that Haidt is more of the same problem that we have seen over the past 60 years. We need to kick out the communists from our public institutions, not appease them.
lol, it does seem like these are a bit of preaching to the choir. But I think this does actually give people hope to be able to work with those other than themselves.
Actually Haidt made it clear that he wasn't on some simple minded political axis so that he can better understand politics as a phenomenon, perhaps the video should be watched before commenting?
Bryan Winter, the scientific way of thought is always a hypothetical. The idea of accurate, or right and wrong is from the realm of moral thought. This is where the present day Left fails, as they do not know the history of how the Marxists have used science.
Just started watching John Anderson's interviews. I really like the way he interviews. He's minimally invasive but when he speaks you're just as interested in what he has to say as in what the guest has to say. He radiates the character of an experienced and wise old man.
Anderson is one politician I've always respected. Has always struck me as being a man of great integrity. I'm pleased to have found his RUclips channel. I'm a city slicker and never had the opportunity to vote for the Country Party he led.
@@sratus i dont think so. try to think not in black and white. just imagine he is just a gentle and kind liberal.
Wonderful. Jonathan Haidt should be more widely heard. Truly great discussion. Made my day!
Just found this interview.. massive fan of Haidt.. a very rare kind of clear thinker capable of formulating fair and constructive criticism of boths sides of the political aisle.
Two reasons to watch this: (1) Jonathan Haidt; (2) awesome intro music.
This is quickly becoming one of my favourite discussion and interview channels.
His voice is so soft that it's adorable.
Liking this before I even watch it, this is gonna be good!
John is so eloquent and wonderful to listen to.
Great talk, really liking your interviews John. Jonathan explains his ideas well, and we got a bit of a different take from him here than usual I think.
Wow! So revealing for our understanding of the world. Very interesting interview.
Haidt rightly says you can't understand your side of the argument until you understand the other side. Unfortunately, we have had the other side crammed down our throats by academia and the media for 40 years. He just heard our side a couple years ago.
John Anderson is one of the greatest and most pertinent interviewers I've ever seen. He's up there with the great Larry King.
You must have watched larry king decades ago because he's been mediocre for a long time
Excellent
Thank you so much for this content. Endlessly grateful for this new way to become educated.
Ben S Have you heard of Joe Rogan, Gad Saad, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Camille Paglia, Peter Bergosian, Heather Heying, Bret Weinstein, Eric Weinstein, Christina Hoff Sommers. Feel free to add.
I have!
I am glad I found this site - I always had a lot of respect for Mr. Anderson even though I was not a National Party voter.
What an interesting conversation! Thanks so much.
I had been looking for this one when I saw Jonathan in the intro of other interviews. Glad it is up now :)
Anyone know the name of the intro piece of music?
It's called shazam
Thank you for this. Great interview.
Jonathan Haidt is like if George Clooney went into Academia.
G'day john great work as always.
It would be great if you could do and interview with Camille Paglia.
Great interview. Well done
Jonathan Haidt has got it right!
5:54mins "Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him."
Would love to see you interview Steve Bannon.
What an odd interview. I thought Haidt was just being a bit awkward but at the end he says he can't talk about young people too much due to his new book coming out and that might explain why. I'm commenting on 1/1/20 so appreciate that that book said some very important things which sadly didn't get addressed here.
The other odd thing about this interview was how clear it seems (to me at least) that Haidt is actually now a conservative but can't bring himself to admit it. Partly I feel this is because he dislikes Trump so much ... not that he says anything like that but it's very obvious.
I watched this after I watched the David Goodhart interview that John Anderson did. That was altogether better: more coherent and more authentic. Goodhart came across as more self aware and more aware generally.
I'm still going to watch the Haidt II interview. It may show him in a better light.
And I like all John's interviews. FWIW his Frank Furedi one was excellent too. I bought and read Frank's new book called "How Fear Works" and it is simply superb. Goes a long way to explaining how young people have been well and truly "coddled".
It's odd to me that you'd consider Haidt a conservative now, or that it would be "obvious" to you considering at around the 31:00 mark he uses several very unflattering examples to illustrate the personality traits of conservatives. Personally he simply comes across to me as a garden variety Liberal who is grappling with the issue of being lumped in with a very far left that is anything but Liberal. What he is doing and what some people on the Right are also doing, is they are attempting to draw a large circle around both *some* Liberals and Conservatives who retain the ability to critically think and engage in civil debate so that the people on the outside of that circle can be marginalized. Frankly, I think it's a brilliant strategy. It's as if you were to approach someone and go, "Look, we don't agree on everything but at least we can be civil and actually try to solve problems together, but look at these other guys - they're fucking crazy and can't be trusted". Personally I think this is the only way to actually save the west and that people better get on board with it before we're all royally fucked.
Crazy how today in Portland Oregon a mini Civil war is close to mounting and political violence is a nightly occurrence
What is the awesome intro music.?
BRAVO!
It is amazing how smart one can be without politics overwhelming their thought processes.
Dr Haidt identifies the core issue, that we have more things pulling us apart than bringing us together, largely by the reduction of moral narrative. However, he can't take the last step towards fixing it.
Haidt is a nice guy and what he says in general makes sense, but I was amazed when he said that he was stunned when three years ago in China "someone told him there had been a period there when everyone was paid an equal wage". This anecdote tells me that until quiet recently he had no or only very limited knowledge about how the economy functioned in communist countries.
he a psychologist not a economist most people don't know anything about economic that why democrats win more often!
Would like to see Haidt be known to ABC /SBS and Fairfax personnel . They operate under the basis that there is only one side for every issue
29:00 was this a reference to that now infamous angry white man Munk debate?
I really wish that I had been introduced to Psychology much earlier in my life, I always used to dismiss it as a non subject and that it was all about the hard sciences. If I had known what I know now there is no way I would have done what I did at university, and I think I would have thought long and hard about doing Psychology at university.
I dunno, even academic psychology quickly enters the realm of pop psychology, pure bunk, wanton speculation and wishful thinking. You end up with banal crap like "People become right wing because they had bad childhoods...".
32:56 - Johnathan Haidt going full Nostradamus on us.
Yessssssssssss
An important discussion. Unfortunately though, I think Jonathan Haidt missed the elephant in the room. I will explain. In my experience conservatives don't complain about the speed of change, they usually keep quiet, remain reticent, calmly observe, react with small changes. Only when a pattern of behaviour arises or MANY people are being harmed do conservatives speak up or make change if at all. This progression is not "too fast" it's MURDEROUS in its intent, and we know this because it has happened before, many times (russia, germany, vietnam, china, cambodia, venezuela), in the same manner (social change), with the same trickery (arbeitet macht frei), and the same suffering (people put into groups rounded up and slaughtered). It's a pattern, not a preference.
I think there's no need for hesitation or beating around the bushes, straight away, the problem is disbelief. For the past few hundred years we have been trying to "manage" the catastrophe that we brought upon ourselves. All these social whatevers are temporary solutions in the desert of lawlessness until we truly face the problem head on and find our roots in the faith and morality.
When you're feeling lost, you don't know where you are, where you're going, or what to do, you don't have any answers... you go back to what worked in the past. It'd be foolish not to.
To me the essential difference between left and right is that the left embrace moral relativism and the right embrace moral absolutism, and the two are mutually exclusive...
The world can be perceived any number of ways. Unfortunately the internet affirms all of our suspicions, pessimism and contempt
Samsgarden : substract unfortunately will get your post A+
💎💎💎
Not to worry, Dr. Haidt, it's gonna be all right. Human ingenuity has always found a way, and it will-is-now. The printing press led to the protestant reformation. RUclips is not even 10 years old. We are in (or entering) a phase transition, a far-from-equilibrium state in which creativity will explode. May as well enjoy it! ;)
In some likelihood, RUclips will go down as one of the most radically transformative technologies in the history of the species. We can’t grasp it at this time, for as you said, it is still in its infancy.
Hopefully, YT will just go down. And be replaced by one or more successful online video hosts that support free-expression & speech. And don't take upon themselves to determine what is "acceptable", but rather only limit speech which clearly violate the laws of the land (Terrorist threats, child trafficking, insurrection, etc.).
If he's still voting democrat, he's helping to create the division.
I had a dream John that u became PM and u brought back common sense in Parliament and to Australia.
The greens are at it again in wanting to scrap ‘The Lords Prayer’ in sittings. The evil keeps coming.
'The Lords Prayer' is for church not the houses of parliament. Amen..
The Lords Prayer it perhaps the stupidest thing about parliament - and that's saying a lot!
I agree with you Mara. It's part of our tradition and it's about being thankful for what we have, humbleness and forgiveness of others. Regardless of what you believe.
God bless Mara :)
you sounded so reasonable at first, only to complain that our leaders might not pray the way you want before they settle in to talk about real issues. I hope you don't have an issue with other religious people coming in and refusing to change anything in regards to their faith and culture if tradition is so important to you.
Did you listen to this conversation? Evil? We would do better by having a more robust separation of church and state in this country.
i BECAME a non-partisan moderate. Yea, right.
Morality is the Law of God - the Ten Commandments is the fundamental basis for all morality.
I don't agree, since there are other moralities described from other religions and philosophies other than the christian text which are more appealing.
In the last century with the introduction of cybernetic through processes into all modern aspects of society we have seen a greater level of logical thinking amongst the education however we seem to have failed to teach people that what is logically TRUE is not the same as "The Truth". People will try to dismiss this observation as mysticism but you can prove my point is valid just by studying the works of Godel and Wolfram, all mathematical systems are incomplete and need to have a self referential loop to work, and human mathematical systems are one small subset of a vast array of possible systems. One cannot find absolute truths in mathematics, and while we do benefit from conducting ourselves logically (civility) the actual truth can only be arrived at by wisdom.
Jonathan Haidt voted for Hillary Clinton. And is unapologetic about it. I do not understand that in the light of everything else he says.
You can evaluate a debate in a non-partisan way and still decide you will vote for one party or person over another. The point he is making is that you let a non-partisan evaluation of the issues determine your vote.
*_He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form._*
~ John Stuart Mill
I have been libertarian since 1982 when I was 27. I have recently started exploring political philosophy more from the angle of unchosen positive duties rather than in essential individual liberties. I have started exploring what is the essential function of government that only government can serve and no other form of social organization. This question is why I believe it is more useful to think in terms of what unchosen, positive duties must be observed by everyone in order for a _free_ society to function well. Consider...
*The Anarchist’s Constitution*
1. *There is no Sovereign Immunity.* Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition.
2. *The Right to be left alone is Absolute, subject only to the enforcement of the first rule.* Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial.
3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules.
4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will.
*Remember,… any additional positive duties imposed necessarily imply the state’s right, even duty, to kill anyone who does not comply.* To be very clear,... I conceive of a positive, unchosen duty to be a duty that everyone *MUST* observe and submit to, and, if someone ignores their allegiance to a positive, unchosen duty, socially sanctioned initiatory violence may be, and will be, used to make moral free riders comply.
Anarchists insist that they want a society that consists of _rules without rulers_ but then seem to insist that no one can know what those rules are until afterwards,... which, understandably, sounds fairly frightening to most folks who want more reassurance about how socially sanctioned initiatory force will work in the future.
It would seem that the only unchosen, positive duty recognized by libertarians/anarchists is the duty of _if you break it, you must fix it._ But in an ideal libertopia, how would even this single duty be enforced, if not by someone using retaliatory violence to protect value, or to regain coercively a value stolen. How would an ideal society do this; what socially recognized _due process of law_ would be constructed to do so. The problem with the *Non Aggression Principle* is that it offers no help in what action to take when others ignore it. Or consider *Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle* at www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle as showing the *NAP* as being insufficient.
And might there not be other unchosen, positive duties? If an abandoned infant will likely die without aid (locked in a hot car, for instance), must not action be taken to save it's life; otherwise it's death by neglect. What could be done by society if society objects to women having abortions performed upon themselves? Would abortifacients be outlawed? Would miscarriages be investigated as being possibly deliberately self-induced? What would be the agreed upon liability for giving heroin to small children? Could heroin be sold out of vending machines? Should businesses be alllowed to create additional risks for the public that live around them without either informing or otherwise compensating the public for such addtional risks (progressive.org/dispatches/fukushima-nightmare-gets-worse/ )? Does a man have to pay child support for a child he did not consent to having, but was spermjacked so as to produce the child? What amount of violence is appropriate to use against someone who gratuitously harms animals? Is it to be permitted for someone to destroy the last members of a living species, just because they own them? How should Improperly disposed of plastics, which kill millions of wild animals, be dealt with? What actions can be compelled in order to deal with C02's contribution to Global Climate Change? In Les Misérables, Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving sister. Are property rights something held absolutely above the preservation of life? How does the interpretation of the *NAP* vary during emergencies? Is it okay to shoot suspected looters during a riot or natural disaster? Are there statutes of limitations on criminal acts? How are they determined? What actions follow when different actors disagree upon whether or not a criminal is now essentially free of the consequences of their prior criminal actions? Would it be okay for private actors to own military grade weapons? Including biological and nuclear weapons? Who pays to keep habitual criminals incarcerated? Who is liable to victims for crimes of habitual criminals who have been mistakenly released?
To me, the fundamental moral and ethical insight of libertarianism, is the fundamental impotence of socially sanctioned initiatory violence to create new value where it did not exist before. But, as the above paragraph suggests,... is this really universally true? My faith in liberty over violence is genuinely real,... but my doubts are also precious to me.
Does authority derive from the truth, as NT Rationals believe ( keirsey.com/temperament/rational-overview/ ) or
Does the truth derive from authority, as most everyone else would seem to believe,... in particular SJ Guardians ( keirsey.com/temperament/guardian-overview/ ).
All mathematics depend upon sets of axioms which are universally accepted as being self-evidently true statements that require no further proof. Until human moral philosophers can come up with such a set of moral axioms for humanity at large,... governments in practice will, necessarily, continue to serve as our only practical alternative.
Please consider my statements/questions and leave your comments. What _rules_ without rulers do you think must apply, even without individual consent, in order for a _free_ society to function well? I emphatically agree that democracy sucks. Let's discuss alternatives, and why others must comply with such alternatives,... or else face violent results.
If it's any help,... I consider myself to be 90% convinced of anarcho-capitalism, and have been so since I first become libertarian back in 1982 when I was 27 years old. But I also take the matter, of when there is to be a use of socially sanctioned initatory violence allowed and how it is regulated, very seriously. I have always very much wanted to be convinced of an-cap,... so help me if you will.
*A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:*
*· From Bondage to Spiritual Faith*
*· From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage*
*· From Courage to Liberty*
*· From Liberty to Abundance*
*· From Abundance to Selfishness*
*· From Selfishness to Complacency*
*· From Complacency to Apathy*
*· From Apathy to Dependency*
*· From Dependency back into Bondage*
~ Alexander Fraser Tytler
18th century Historian and Jurist
*_A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine._*
~ Thomas Jefferson
*_The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not._*
~ Thomas Jefferson
*_Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide._*
I would love to see Johnathan Haidt being interviewed by Stefan Molyneux where you two could discuss righteousmind.com/ and *Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians* at journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
What liberties do you personally believe to be absolute and fundamental?
What unchosen, positive, duties *must* every individual submit to, even involuntarily, for a _free_ society to function well?
How are differences of opinions on such matters arbitrated with a minimum use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence?
All comments and constructive criticisms welcome!
David Hunt. You have just discovered the reason most people depend on a Religion to lay down first principles.
Do moral axioms and first principles have to depend upon *_supernaturalism_* to be grounded? I don't think so,... but I can well understand why so many people believe it must be so. Is truth something one finds within or without? For more information on my religious perspectives, check out *Who Loves God More...* at tomwoods.com/no-youre-not-a-dummy-for-believing-in-god/#comment-1674043443
I consider myself to be a Deist Daoist whose entire religion can be stated as... *Dear Lord, let it be your will that will direct my life. Not as I would choose, nor as any person would choose, nor as any religious text would choose, but as you, dear Lord, would choose. This being done, I am content.* I consider the attainment of righteousness to be a higher prize than that of salvation. I am very skeptical about the true efficacy of _scapegoating_ while simultaneously recognizing it's psychic utility. Perhaps my greatest heresy is that I like God,... more than I love God, or fear God, or bear anger towards God, I genuinely like God. Perhaps I endanger my one immortal soul by such an attitude,... but I think not.
I feel absolutely certain only that God never asked anyone to kill another person in his name. That is humanity's hubris and error,... not God's.
I'd really like this in a form that is not a RUclips comment.
Can you clarify what you mean please? I've been banned from disqus under the false accusation of spamming,... so here I am posting comments at RUclips.
Putting together the suggestions of Anthropology and Neuroscience with Geological histories, it is believed that global stressors drove the development of the big brain individual, followed by the specialized skills development and all forced together by global catastrophe to become the mish-mash survival behaviours now seen.
"The Virtue of Adversity is Fortitude". Carefully practiced tolerance..?
The polarization is on the Right (you can tell from their arguments) The left is not that extreme and is not in the same proportion.
He will play safe by putting the same on both sides. You want to tell the truth or just play save and grab the money.
John, I love your channel and only regret that I came across it so late in life. Haidt is couching his words very carefully, but it would be far better if he pulled off the gloves and spoke more forthrightly about the fact that it is indeed Western Leftists who have been wreaking mayhem in their nations for decades. I doubt that they have much love for the nations they live in. Worse yet, they are hell-bent on exporting their toxic, nonsensical babble to nations across the globe. Yuri Bezmenov warned of the baneful influence of these Leftists way back in the 1980s. People should really take the time to listen to his interviews. They are available on YT.
So the conservatives swear by "do the crime, do the time".
But who decides what are crimes, and what is the proportional punishment? Conservatives too? 🙄
All laws and morality is subjective.
It really brings hope to see smart people from the left finally talking sense. I guess it's now time to bring the right to that round table.
One of my delights in listening to a Democrat who after studying Republican political ideas, is how the Democrat declares himself an Independent. Never does their study make them double down on their belief in voting Democrat. (No Republican has to study the Democrat political ideas as it is all we hear about in the media.)
You're right about one thing Margaret- one never hears about Republican ideas in the media because Republicans don't have ideas. The current Congress is a perfect example. Republicans control Congress and the White House and the only thing they've been able to "accomplish" is giving bigger tax breaks to the wealthy. And Haidt said that he does still vote Democratic.
Ed Smelly. We will forgive you for not knowing the Republican ideas, as your Dems steal all their ideas from Marx. Once your radical Left starts attacking Prof. Haidt, which they will, he will embrace anyone but the Democrats.
Ed Smelly "Republicans don't have ideas." What a great argument....
Joseph G. This is a statement, not an argument. Yes, there is a difference.
''Joseph G. This is a statement, not an argument. Yes, there is a difference.''
This is typical and one of the reasons why we are not making any progress.
Good vs Bad
Jordan Peterson has led me here.
Adversities who delight in humility and knowing anything what we do is for our love for our neighbors. The question is? How can you love your neighbors beloved? Don't you know? Me and you will have no reasons to show off to God without our neighbors beloved. Me and you are here for our innocents youngs sons and daughters and neighbors upon all the tribes of judah. Many might not believe in God nor the child. But God believes in all of you beloved. Becoming a child in front of God. Is where true TRUST CAN'T BE UPROOTED NOR SHAKEN BUT ABLE TO UPHOLD. Beloved, remember IS NOT WHAT WE POSSESS BUT IS WHAT WE CAN DO WITHOUT BELOVED. BUT WHAT WE HAVE. MAY THE TRUE INTENT BE ACCORDING TO GOD'S TRUE WILL. AS LONG IS ACCORDING TO GOD'S TRUE WILL AND COMMANDMENTS. FEETS OF YESHUA JESUS CHRIST WILL UPHOLD. IF SO! OUR INNOCENTS YOUNGS SONS AND DAUGHTERS WILL BE PROVIDED THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND ITS RIGHTEOUSNESS. FEETS OF YESHUA THE HOSTS AND OWN. RECIEVED A TRUE LANGUAGE. ONLY CAN BE UNDERSTOOD. BEYOND SPECIAL INDEED BUT PRECIOUS IN GOD'S EYES. IS LIKE LIFE GIVEN AND INDEED LIFE KEPT. NONE WILL BE LOST BUT INCREASED BEYOND MEASURED UPON ALL THE TRIBES OF JUDAH. TRUTH AND PEACE BE REUNITED. LOVE ONE ANOTHER BELOVED There's a foundation that noone can't uproot. Love God love neighbors as thyself. Remember YESHUA Jesus christ has its own true FOUNDATION. LEFT NOR RIGHT WILL KNOW. ALL WHO WILL KNOW? WILL COME TO THE MOUNTAIN THAT NOONE CAN UPROOT NOR SHAKEN BUT HERE TO STAY FOR GOOD. BECAUSE GOD'S HOSTS AND OWN KNOWS. YESHUA JESUS'S CHRIST AND THE CHILD FEET RESTING UPON. INTENT, BASED, FOUNDATION, AND WHERE YOUR HEART WILL BE ALSO BELOVED. Don't forget our innocents youngs sons and daughters beloved. Sincere conversations comes with sincere answers indeed. Likewise with foolished conversations beloved.
I love Jonathan and this conversation, but the guy plugs himself every ten minutes 😂
I don’t think he knows that’s not very cordial.
Listening with an open mind is so critical but so challenging. Many start out with their views hardened. The Right complains of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome while espousing similar CDS, Clinton Derangement Syndrome or some equivalent and vice-versa. J.S. Mills plea to try and listen to the logical, less emotion-based arguments of the other side is imperative.
36:03 Talk about propaganda based on lies..... deep deprogramming needs to happen... I like his work though....
better economic , educational and health care for the bottom 80npercenjt would soften the issues mentioned.
David Brooks and Jon Haidt are uncomfortable dwelling on the particulars of crushing student debt, 48 million poor Americans, the loss of secure jobs at better wages, elderly outliving their money. They merely note them, but 46 million hungry children feel them in their gut...Plutocracy and Oligarchy are missing from Brooks's and Haidt's vocabulary.
I like Jonathan Haidt, but he's so toothless and limp. We need more aggressive approaches to our problems, I'm afraid that Haidt is more of the same problem that we have seen over the past 60 years. We need to kick out the communists from our public institutions, not appease them.
more 'centrist' virtue-signalling. boring
lol, it does seem like these are a bit of preaching to the choir. But I think this does actually give people hope to be able to work with those other than themselves.
Actually Haidt made it clear that he wasn't on some simple minded political axis so that he can better understand politics as a phenomenon, perhaps the video should be watched before commenting?
Abused as a child.
Yeah. Having a scientifically informed world view about human psychology is really boring. It also has a much higher chance of being accurate.
Bryan Winter, the scientific way of thought is always a hypothetical. The idea of accurate, or right and wrong is from the realm of moral thought. This is where the present day Left fails, as they do not know the history of how the Marxists have used science.
He votes Democrat - all I need to stop the video and down vote
FiveLiver actually as a non lib dem this guy has value