@Chad Abercrombie I regret my comment was confusing. I meant that Professor Loury was "the man" in the intellectual sense, not in the grifting sense. You are correct, Kendi is a world class grifter.
Haidt has right wing derangement syndrome. He somehow believes that the authoritarian left is salvageable while the right are craZy lunatics. The left are grooming children, while the right advocates for family values. Tel me which side is unsalvageable.
The problem with Glenn's "we know!!" attitude is : Knowing isn't about intensity of feelings, or having substantial supporting evidence to present, or constructing a strongly reasoned rationale. We have people substantially fulfilling these requirements confident in their "knowing", yet what they think they know contradicts what others think they know. The process of knowing as a society has to allow the challenges to current understanding or opinion, and mostly be open to having it recalibrated or even contradicted by better evidence and reasoning. That doesn't mean accepting or rejecting challenges based on how emotionally appealing they seem to you, or how socially popular they are amongst your associates. Jon didn't get to cover Mill's arguments well, but off the top of my head here are a few: 1) He who knows only his own case, knows little of that! If you only know the case from your perspective, you can't t know the case as well as you could if understanding other perspectives. 2)Your position can (and eventually will) become weak and distorted unless preserved by confrontation with regular tough challenges. Even if mostly correct, and challenges are entirely misguided, some of the challenges will sharpen and improve your understanding. It's hard to know when that might will occur unless you remain engaged in questioning.
Standardized testing was expressly designed to identify talent regardless of the personal peculiarities of either the applicants or the examiners. Rob Henderson points out entrance testing is being dropped, but legacy admission is not, which tells us everything we need to know.
@Bob Wakefield Standardized test such as the ACT/SAT were created by eugenicist. They weren't meant to be used to identify talent, but rather to exclude talented individuals. People like you live in an alternate reality world due to lack of historical context. Cheers🍸
@@brianmeen2158 No, because one test such as the ACT/SAT are pointless and does not measure how well a person will do in college and is mainly used as a tool to exclude individuals. One test ( such as the ACT/SAT) should not be the determining factor as to whether one gets into college or not, but course work, type of course, grade recieved and GPA should be used as the major factor. Cheers🍸
@@thesoulbrother8636 Standardized testing is clearly inferior to knowing the candidates very well, and not caring about disappointing them, or their family and friends. Standardized testing has the advantage of being cheap and easy to administer by people who have no connection to the candidates. It works well enough.
@@bwake Thank you for your reply my friend. Actually you are totally wrong. The system is a complete failure and as time goes on, people like you will eventually see the truth. I will give you an example. Remember the college admission scandal that rocked the nation about two (or three) years ago? We saw it was mostly the white rich elite children's parents who faked their way into college with bribes because they knew that their kids would not do well on the SAT/ACT to get into selective universities.There were also Asian students from china (who can barely speak English) paying bribes to have students in the United States to take the ACT/SAT to get into selective universities. Remember, the FBI said the only reason they were able to catch these individuals is because the situation had bottled neck and this was happening for DECADES (so imagine the amount of people that slipped through the cracks without being caught).Therefore, we can already see that there is a huge problem already with these standardized test and the whole college admissions process needs to be reformed. Cheers🍸
The tenor of this (and other great discussions on this channel) seems to validate the adage, those in power demand obedience while those not in power ask for tolerance. It seems pretty clear how that power dynamic is distributed today, for better or worse.
Professor Loury is a needed voice and it's so sad that many mainstream outlets will avoid giving him their large platforms because of the echo chamber culture they live in. 🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂
From preface to All Minus One: John Stuart Mill’s Ideas on Free Speech, Illustrated: *First, the other person’s idea, however controversial it seems today, might turn out to be right.* (“The opinion may possibly be true.”) *Second, even if our opinion is largely correct, we hold it more rationally and securely as a result of being challenged.* (“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”) *Third, and in [John Stuart] Mill’s view most likely, opposing views may each contain a portion of the truth, which need to be combined.* (“Conflicting doctrines share the truth between them.”)
If you use surgery or drugs/hormones on a child because they are confused about their sexuality, you are a bad person who should not have any oversight over children. Adults can make bad choices for themselves, but children are to be protected from bad actions by adults who know that children often have anxiety, depression, confusion, peer pressure....
Philadelphian here. Bought a house 97 miles north of Philly. Still keep an apartment in Philly because I have to be in office once a week but the rest of the time I'm at my other place. It's getting too dangerous.
@Chad Abercrombie I think it's clear his relaxed policy on not locking people up for crimes he deems somehow not worthy of jail time has a alot to do with it. Our police chief was the former chief of Portland. Portland isn't exactly the land of law and order. Not sure how they though she would be a good fit in Philly. The main problem is the people though. Crimes don't commit themselves. Every crime has a prime mover. Times are getting tough. People are feeling the stress. Stress leads to bad shit. I'd guess it's some combination of stress on the public and a professionally impotent DA and police chief. What do I know though?
So many left-behind liberals make the same point as Jonathan at 9:30. The right (you know, traditional staid stick-in-the-muds) allow more-so for viewpoint diversity, while the left (you know, champions of diversity) absolutely condemns it. I've witnessed this first hand with conservative colleagues who csn calmy debate both sides of left-right issues, while left-leaning colleagues get upset and angry if you don't go along with their viewpoint. I guess it comes down to evangelical fervor, so it's surprising to find more of this on the left (but maybe it's also a feeling of moral superiority).
I think that what it comes down to is that it's easy to remain "calm and objective" when you are in a position of power and little is fundamentally at stake for you, and much more difficult to do so when the issue is whether you are granted full acknowledgement of your humanity or not, and you have little power to ensure that you are.
@@leonais1 Anthropogenic Global Warming, the original name for Climate Change, (Notice the rebranding?) was sold the same way the cholesterol hypothesis was sold. There are plenty of reasons to want to stop burning fossil fuels. Air pollution comes to mind. Also, hydrocarbons are useful feed stocks for all sorts of other wonderful things. It’s a waste to burn them. We didn’t need AGW.
Haidt: We need an adversarial system because too much certainty from any one side makes us stupid. Loury: We KNOW (articulates politically conservative views on three topics) is true.
Did you finish the video? This is exactly what Haidt points out and Glenn was quick to point out that he's not trying to silence any of his critics. In essence Glenn made some assertions but he's more than willing to listen to someone who disagrees with him and I'd wager he would change his opinions given compelling evidence that he was wrong.
@@BenWeeks I'm not sure who you're replying to. But no one said knowing things is bad. Being too certain of your point of view, i.e. unwillingness to even entertain a different perspective or opinion, is the problem. What the discussion was about was that in universities there is a certainty about woke ideology that does not allow for dissent or even an alternate point of view. That sort of intolerance will inevitably result in bad ideas proliferating, regardless of what your ideology is.
@@GilesMcRiker That's missing the forest. If you think viewpoint suppression is a left-wing thing rather than a human thing, you're deluded. In the United States, cancel culture was pioneered by political conservatives.
PROBLEM: Employment, Education, and other opportunities based on race and/or gender. SOLUTION: Employment, Education, and other opportunities based on race and/or gender.
I see his point about trying to find a better test, a test more indicative of success, but until you find it you don't abandon what you have, Teaching has to match the students, if you have no accurate way of judging the students you either need to accept more failures or you teach at a level where it is no longer an advanced class. If it is no longer an advanced class then not only those students of other groups lose the benefit but so does those of your preferred group who qualify.
Yeah, there is probably a better way. I mean, I always had an advantage, not maybe because I was smarter but because of my disposition. We would have an all-day state test (quality eval, whatever they called it), and the whole school day was just us testing. I absolutely loved it, but most kids didn't and got bored. Who scored better on the tests? Me, lol, because I liked working on my own and not being bothered with noise and crap, haha, so it's more like a test of one's personality to a large extent.
the test argument is not quite right. if one thinks the admission test isn't showing IQ/academic ability then just have a straight up IQ test. it's my understanding you can't work hard to improve those. there are lots that aren't culturally specific and don't need learned information. how about do the admission test and also an IQ test to see how they match. if a kid gets high in both you know you got a winner.
When so much oxygen is consumed by talking about (or tap dancing around) a particular topic, what far more serious topic(s) are we being distracted from? Because if gender identity is THE issue of the day, we haven't just run out of actual problems, we've also resolved all of the first-world problems.
E. A. Ross and Lothrop Stoddard had a lot to say about race but, sadly, no one listens to them anymore. Jonathan Haidt is lost in the morass of political correctness and people like him go round and around in circles.
The number of transgender people in the US is .06% of the population according to Human Life International. The number is Australia in 2016 was about 1260 in a population of 25 million. Thus by any measure not the slightest problem. Why do you guys spend all the hot air talking about it. In addition what do they talk about in University? What they tend to talk about is stuff like medicine, engineering, law, dentistry, accounting and architecture. Cause that sort of thing is the majority of study ,
Haidt wouldn't be listened to by some of the people who NEED to hear what he says if he said what Glen says. He's playing a smart long game. Also he's a liberal who realized the right wasn't wrong about everything, he's not a conservative.
Oh we can talk about it John! I love you, but your the EXACT reason we have these problems. All the smart people are scarred. Thats YOU! Grow a set please. Stand up. Your fear of the downside is cowaradace.
Glenn Loury is the man.
Absolutely 💯!
@Chad Abercrombie I regret my comment was confusing. I meant that Professor Loury was "the man" in the intellectual sense, not in the grifting sense. You are correct, Kendi is a world class grifter.
@@curtisloftis6003 hahaha!!! Great response....I K is a true grifter
I want to say thank you for the term "structural stupidity."
These are two of the most important public intellectuals contributing to making sense of our current predicaments in the world today.
@Anya Wale You won’t understand it irrespective of what language is used.
Haidt has right wing derangement syndrome. He somehow believes that the authoritarian left is salvageable while the right are craZy lunatics. The left are grooming children, while the right advocates for family values. Tel me which side is unsalvageable.
@@trustmetours57 Won't understand what?
You do not understand how these slimebags are filling your head with inconsequential rubbish.
I agree. 🙏🏽
@@allyourbase888 🐒
These are the most crucial conversations that our country needs to be having these days. Thanks Glenn and Jonathan. 🙏
😃
Jonathan Haidt is always a great guest. Also, as a Texan I love seeing Glenn sporting the Whataburger shirt.
It's refreshing to listen to 2 intellectuals discuss without using harsh words.
Love both of these awesome professors.
Brilliant work, loads of actual real life issues discussed...
Excellent as ever Glenn...and thanks to Jonathan.
As ever??!
The problem with Glenn's "we know!!" attitude is :
Knowing isn't about intensity of feelings, or having substantial supporting evidence to present, or constructing a strongly reasoned rationale. We have people substantially fulfilling these requirements confident in their "knowing", yet what they think they know contradicts what others think they know.
The process of knowing as a society has to allow the challenges to current understanding or opinion, and mostly be open to having it recalibrated or even contradicted by better evidence and reasoning. That doesn't mean accepting or rejecting challenges based on how emotionally appealing they seem to you, or how socially popular they are amongst your associates.
Jon didn't get to cover Mill's arguments well, but off the top of my head here are a few:
1) He who knows only his own case, knows little of that!
If you only know the case from your perspective, you can't t know the case as well as you could if understanding other perspectives.
2)Your position can (and eventually will) become weak and distorted unless preserved by confrontation with regular tough challenges. Even if mostly correct, and challenges are entirely misguided, some of the challenges will sharpen and improve your understanding. It's hard to know when that might will occur unless you remain engaged in questioning.
Excellent discourse.
Standardized testing was expressly designed to identify talent regardless of the personal peculiarities of either the applicants or the examiners.
Rob Henderson points out entrance testing is being dropped, but legacy admission is not, which tells us everything we need to know.
Entrance testing is being dropped and legacy admission isn’t? So basically our universities are a joke at this point. It’s kind of tragic
@Bob Wakefield
Standardized test such as the ACT/SAT were created by eugenicist. They weren't meant to be used to identify talent, but rather to exclude talented individuals. People like you live in an alternate reality world due to lack of historical context.
Cheers🍸
@@brianmeen2158 No, because one test such as the ACT/SAT are pointless and does not measure how well a person will do in college and is mainly used as a tool to exclude individuals. One test ( such as the ACT/SAT) should not be the determining factor as to whether one gets into college or not, but course work, type of course, grade recieved and GPA should be used as the major factor.
Cheers🍸
@@thesoulbrother8636 Standardized testing is clearly inferior to knowing the candidates very well, and not caring about disappointing them, or their family and friends. Standardized testing has the advantage of being cheap and easy to administer by people who have no connection to the candidates. It works well enough.
@@bwake Thank you for your reply my friend. Actually you are totally wrong. The system is a complete failure and as time goes on, people like you will eventually see the truth. I will give you an example. Remember the college admission scandal that rocked the nation about two (or three) years ago? We saw it was mostly the white rich elite children's parents who faked their way into college with bribes because they knew that their kids would not do well on the SAT/ACT to get into selective universities.There were also Asian students from china (who can barely speak English) paying bribes to have students in the United States to take the ACT/SAT to get into selective universities. Remember, the FBI said the only reason they were able to catch these individuals is because the situation had bottled neck and this was happening for DECADES (so imagine the amount of people that slipped through the cracks without being caught).Therefore, we can already see that there is a huge problem already with these standardized test and the whole college admissions process needs to be reformed. Cheers🍸
The tenor of this (and other great discussions on this channel) seems to validate the adage, those in power demand obedience while those not in power ask for tolerance. It seems pretty clear how that power dynamic is distributed today, for better or worse.
Back in the beginning, I thought Heterodox Academy was about championing the right to say what is unsayable, not meekly accepting those rules.
Professor Loury is a needed voice and it's so sad that many mainstream outlets will avoid giving him their large platforms because of the echo chamber culture they live in. 🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂
Just turn on any mainstream media source and they pipe the same message over and over
You do not get it.
He has obviously taken oaths and will never be objective.
From preface to All Minus One: John Stuart Mill’s Ideas on Free Speech, Illustrated:
*First, the other person’s idea, however controversial it seems today, might turn out to be right.* (“The opinion may possibly be true.”)
*Second, even if our opinion is largely correct, we hold it more rationally and securely as a result of being challenged.* (“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”)
*Third, and in [John Stuart] Mill’s view most likely, opposing views may each contain a portion of the truth, which need to be combined.* (“Conflicting doctrines share the truth between them.”)
Love your t-shirt Glenn
Two brilliant gentlemen
Where?
Glenn is the man!
@Chad Abercrombie lol
@@jacobdeem8187 Shut up Jacob.
If you use surgery or drugs/hormones on a child because they are confused about their sexuality, you are a bad person who should not have any oversight over children. Adults can make bad choices for themselves, but children are to be protected from bad actions by adults who know that children often have anxiety, depression, confusion, peer pressure....
Philadelphian here. Bought a house 97 miles north of Philly. Still keep an apartment in Philly because I have to be in office once a week but the rest of the time I'm at my other place. It's getting too dangerous.
@Chad Abercrombie I think it's clear his relaxed policy on not locking people up for crimes he deems somehow not worthy of jail time has a alot to do with it.
Our police chief was the former chief of Portland. Portland isn't exactly the land of law and order. Not sure how they though she would be a good fit in Philly.
The main problem is the people though. Crimes don't commit themselves. Every crime has a prime mover.
Times are getting tough. People are feeling the stress. Stress leads to bad shit.
I'd guess it's some combination of stress on the public and a professionally impotent DA and police chief.
What do I know though?
@Chad Abercrombie You from Philly? What do you think?
Glenn I've never seen you so firm and resolute as with Dr. Haidt in these videos. What's going on?
So many left-behind liberals make the same point as Jonathan at 9:30. The right (you know, traditional staid stick-in-the-muds) allow more-so for viewpoint diversity, while the left (you know, champions of diversity) absolutely condemns it. I've witnessed this first hand with conservative colleagues who csn calmy debate both sides of left-right issues, while left-leaning colleagues get upset and angry if you don't go along with their viewpoint. I guess it comes down to evangelical fervor, so it's surprising to find more of this on the left (but maybe it's also a feeling of moral superiority).
This is rubbish 🗑!
You are an absolute 💯 liar.
The position is the other way round.
The right wing griftas scream in pain if you disagree with them.
@Twenty faces 😏
I think that what it comes down to is that it's easy to remain "calm and objective" when you are in a position of power and little is fundamentally at stake for you, and much more difficult to do so when the issue is whether you are granted full acknowledgement of your humanity or not, and you have little power to ensure that you are.
Catastrophic climate change is another subject which tends to get shut down.
The debate happened 20 years ago but US partisan politics broke the debate.
@@leonais1
Anthropogenic Global Warming, the original name for Climate Change, (Notice the rebranding?) was sold the same way the cholesterol hypothesis was sold.
There are plenty of reasons to want to stop burning fossil fuels. Air pollution comes to mind. Also, hydrocarbons are useful feed stocks for all sorts of other wonderful things. It’s a waste to burn them.
We didn’t need AGW.
I love to see the heavyweights go at it. That's how we learn.
Where can I see this?
2 subjects where Glenn sounds like a broken record: attacking affirmative action and championing Charles Murray.
Haidt: We need an adversarial system because too much certainty from any one side makes us stupid.
Loury: We KNOW (articulates politically conservative views on three topics) is true.
The only difference is that Glenn isn't seeking to suppress the alternative point of view. That makes all the difference
Did you finish the video? This is exactly what Haidt points out and Glenn was quick to point out that he's not trying to silence any of his critics. In essence Glenn made some assertions but he's more than willing to listen to someone who disagrees with him and I'd wager he would change his opinions given compelling evidence that he was wrong.
To use your point against itself. Does Haidt KNOW that? If so, and knowing things is bad, it moots itself.
@@BenWeeks I'm not sure who you're replying to. But no one said knowing things is bad. Being too certain of your point of view, i.e. unwillingness to even entertain a different perspective or opinion, is the problem. What the discussion was about was that in universities there is a certainty about woke ideology that does not allow for dissent or even an alternate point of view. That sort of intolerance will inevitably result in bad ideas proliferating, regardless of what your ideology is.
@@GilesMcRiker That's missing the forest. If you think viewpoint suppression is a left-wing thing rather than a human thing, you're deluded. In the United States, cancel culture was pioneered by political conservatives.
PROBLEM: Employment, Education, and other opportunities based on race and/or gender.
SOLUTION: Employment, Education, and other opportunities based on race and/or gender.
I see his point about trying to find a better test, a test more indicative of success, but until you find it you don't abandon what you have, Teaching has to match the students, if you have no accurate way of judging the students you either need to accept more failures or you teach at a level where it is no longer an advanced class. If it is no longer an advanced class then not only those students of other groups lose the benefit but so does those of your preferred group who qualify.
Yeah, there is probably a better way. I mean, I always had an advantage, not maybe because I was smarter but because of my disposition. We would have an all-day state test (quality eval, whatever they called it), and the whole school day was just us testing. I absolutely loved it, but most kids didn't and got bored. Who scored better on the tests? Me, lol, because I liked working on my own and not being bothered with noise and crap, haha, so it's more like a test of one's personality to a large extent.
the test argument is not quite right. if one thinks the admission test isn't showing IQ/academic ability then just have a straight up IQ test. it's my understanding you can't work hard to improve those. there are lots that aren't culturally specific and don't need learned information.
how about do the admission test and also an IQ test to see how they match. if a kid gets high in both you know you got a winner.
good old Jon
Haidt for president. 🤷♂
Social Contagion.
When so much oxygen is consumed by talking about (or tap dancing around) a particular topic, what far more serious topic(s) are we being distracted from? Because if gender identity is THE issue of the day, we haven't just run out of actual problems, we've also resolved all of the first-world problems.
E. A. Ross and Lothrop Stoddard had a lot to say about race but, sadly, no one listens to them anymore. Jonathan Haidt is lost in the morass of political correctness and people like him go round and around in circles.
We should never give children puberty blockers etc go watch Matt Walsh’s what is. A women - disgusting what we are allowing and doing to these kids
Could it be great if Glenn talks about Trump and January 6th?
Why ? Nobody really cares
If you want to hear about Jan 6 just turn on any mainstream news channel 😳😳
@@kham9578 Are you sure?
@@brianmeen2158 Yes but what is Lousy's view?
What is wrong with you.
Why is Lousy avoiding this?
“Banished opinions” sounds so dumb. And, by dumb I mean authoritarian.
The number of transgender people in the US is .06% of the population according to Human Life International. The number is Australia in 2016 was about 1260 in a population of 25 million. Thus by any measure not the slightest problem. Why do you guys spend all the hot air talking about it. In addition what do they talk about in University? What they tend to talk about is stuff like medicine, engineering, law, dentistry, accounting and architecture. Cause that sort of thing is the majority of study ,
Glen says all the things Haidt is afraid to say. Haidt is a timid squish.
Glenn can get away with it more if you know what I mean.
Glenn Loury has a bullet proof vest on account of being black. If you can't speak plainly on a Glenn Loury video, where can you?
I prefer the term, "Pathetic Bitch-Man"
Haidt wouldn't be listened to by some of the people who NEED to hear what he says if he said what Glen says. He's playing a smart long game. Also he's a liberal who realized the right wasn't wrong about everything, he's not a conservative.
Haidt knows the game
Oh we can talk about it John! I love you, but your the EXACT reason we have these problems. All the smart people are scarred. Thats YOU! Grow a set please. Stand up. Your fear of the downside is cowaradace.
You are way better then brown -