Michael Shermer on the Politics of Belief 

Right wing = strict father Left wing = helpful mother So simple yet so helpful to decode us

Shermer's lectures are so great. Thanks so much.

Michael, this is an eye-opener for me. It provides a long sought understanding of what fuels our differences. I plastered a link to this video on social media. Thank you!

I'm only 6 minutes in but thus seems really interesting. I'm not in the US and have HFA so don't really ascribe to any particular movement, but seeing each side's impressions of themselves vs other groups shows how easy it is to create a filter bubble and disarm themselves of any ability to empathise or rationally discuss things with people in other groups.

You are one of the most important people on this planet.

This one had me cracking up Michael. Thanks for these video lectures man, I'm really enjoying them.

Thank you so much for the Lecture, Mr. Shermer! This came along nicely with my own pursuit in Political Science.

I am an independent voter but I gave up on this mess a long time ago to save my sanity. Regardless of who is in charge I made sure it has no impact on me personally. I will admit that as an atheist I agree with George Carlin's comment that "America is circling the drain" and the dream of free choice in what to believe, who to marry, and what you can put in your body will be replaced with religious indoctrination. In the meantime, the board is set and the game goes on.

This is excellent Prof Shermer, thank you. I never miss your interviews, magazine and shows. Keep up the good work, I'll visit your patreon in a modest manner. D.A., J.D., NYC

First and thanks, Michael. Stay safe out there!

Progressive: "Never punch down." Conservative: "Never punch up." Libertarian: "Never punch me."

I was going to make a whole spiel, but instead I'll just share 2 of my favorite quotes. "I'm not on anyone's side, because nobody is entirely on my side." -Treebeard. "Everybody lies." House M.D.

GREAT Video 👍. 🦁 .👍

Thanks mike👍

Poor Lacy Green, to her credit she later did escape her bubble and reached across the political divide.

#EscapeThePhonyLeftRightParadigm

Conservative here. I do not read the Wall Street Journal. I do not watch network television. I don't "love" Donald Trump. I don't venerate Mike Pence. I don't despise Al Gore and I do not abhor Barack Obama. All of these personal ideas about these people go against my religious beliefs as basically idolatrous. So, there's that. I AM pro-life because I believe in the sanctity of the life of the innocent unborn. However, I also know that I am not the final arbiter or judge of those who believe otherwise. I am not anti-gun control. We have appropriate gun control laws on the books. I am simply pro-2nd Amendment and believe I have a sovereign, individual right to protect myself from anyone or anything that would come to harm me or my loved ones, up to and including a tyrannical government. I don't believe America is a "Christian" nation. I believe it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I do NOT believe America should meld church and state. I believe the state should stay out of the business of regulating religious expression. I am against the idea of universal healthcare because I know that it is economically unsustainable with open borders, and without government intrusion, taxation, rationing and coercion. I believe that a "right" as defined by humans or government equates to a coercive mandate on providers of said right. I do vote against re-distributive tax laws because the old rich/poor dichotomy is a "class warfare" political football, same as Bourgoisie vs. Proletariat, and Oppressor vs. Oppressed. I am skeptical of anthropomorphic global warming because the "science" that supports it is not universally accepted. Science is science by facts not by consensus. I do not believe it is possible for a government to "save the world". In fact, I believe anyone who claims to be able to save the world is fatally naive and conceited. So, Dr. Shermer, that, in a nutshell, is my direct response to your opening statement. I AM a Conservative and I believe that most people of the political Left have never even met an actual Conservative.

I played it on my phone at work and don’t have my glasses near me. Is Laci Green(so) the Laci Green ex SJW(maybe, iunoo what she calls herself but I’d guess you know who I mean)?

Maybe this is more about the clothes we wear than the tasks we perform, politically.

I've never understood why fines aren't proportional to salary. I guess the right would see it unfair to the self disciplined. Seems like a paradox to me though.

Less than 5 minutes in and Michael has certainly shown his ability to think in terms of black or white, right or wrong, all cliches. That's an insult.

I have so many questions. Seems like a good idea, a centrist political vision based on evidence, but… - The whole “Realistic vision of human nature” is based on social science, which Shermer himself cautions is notoriously prone to bias. We should be skeptical of universal claims based on research done mostly on WEIRD people (Western, educated, from industrialized rich democracies), particularly if used to promote political ideologies. Not to go full postmodernist - I think there probably is a truth to be known, and I’m all for an evidence-based approach - but the evidence often raises more questions than it answers. Shermer may be more humble about this in his book. Guess I’ll have to do some reading. - I’m no expert, but the claim that the failed communes demonstrate that human nature just can’t hack “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” seems suspect. Some of these “failed” communes were perceived by both Fascists and Communists as such a threat that they had to be firebombed out of existence. The final word has not been said on far left utopias. Debate of the century, before it’s too late: Shermer v. Chomsky? - “The Realistic Vision acknowledges that people vary widely both physically and intellectually - in no small part due to natural inherited differences - and therefore rise (or fall) to their natural levels.” That’s only true if the playing field is level to begin with. Which it emphatically is not, particularly in the U.S. So some “social engineering” is needed after all? Great talk, thanks! Looking forward to more.

I don't know. I think the liberal/conservative model is probably a good illustration of what Dawkins calls "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind". Ultimately, it's so unhelpful.

34:00 If I've said this once I've said it a thousand times, Prof. Shermer: I AM NOT EATING MY DOG! I called my sister and she wasn't interested. Chicken for dinner but I have some stuff to do before that with the bird. Gonna be a fun night. best, D.A., J.D., NYC

Years ago I watched a few Haidt videos and it was a real eye-opener for me. Something I take away from his ideas is something he seems to deny or at least not acknowledge. If you consider the conservative mindset, the authoritarianism, the loyalty/group think, their need for closure/suspicion of the new and different, what I see is a mindset that is prone to delusion, particularly group delusion. Doesn't the DSM have to exclude religious belief so the believer isn't deemed crazy in one way or another? And recently, FFS, the Trumping of the GOP is one huge lesson in group delusion lead by an authoritarian. It makes sense to claim that reality has a liberal bias.

What are you talking about? Do people still read newspapers? And I don't think I know anyone who listens to talk radio except my grandparents...

A conservative is someone who stands before history and yells STOP! - William Buckley, Jr.

For the record, I don't label myself a liberal or progressive, but most would probably label me that way. However, I do NOT "adore" Al Gore or "revere" Barack Obama. Why? Because I don't worship men. I worship truth. Putting human beings on pedestals is a conservative idea.

One thing i despise is that politicization of skeptic positions and ideas. The concept that a an atheist or agnostic votes cannot vote Republican/ libertarian etc it's a super low blow from the left, identity politics aimed at the right. There are many libertarian agnostic atheists on the right it's about liberty and not religion. Proponents of this movement are shooting themselves in the foot.

Wow, wow, wow, the irony of using Tony Blair to make that point at the end, about the choice of ideas over arms, when he was nothing less than the secondary force behind the Iraq War... That very war rejected all ideas, all reality, all truth, and the result was over 180,000 innocent Iraqi civilian deaths (perhaps massively, vastly more in this, the "we don't do body counts" war), approaching 5000 coalition forces killed, perhaps hundreds of thousands with severe injuries, 2.6 million survivors homeless refugees, a war that threw gasoline on the smoldering fire of al Qaeda terrorist and gave them a massive home base in Iraq, and fostered ISIS and its terrors, empowering Shiites in Iraq aligned with the most dangerous of Shiites In Iran. That war now has one third of the British people thinking he should have been prosecuted for war crimes. For Shermer to point to Blair for a quote on ideas over arms has to be one of the most bizarre and misguided things he has done. It's as high level irony as one could find from any serious person.

Michael, there is No left in the USA.

Sorry, but whatever intellectual benefit was to be garnered from further listening, I shut down after "A picture of Christian and I..." (5"+).

You either ignored or mislabeled progressives, who say that the best way to decide how society should be run is to look at what other societies are doing and the results of their policies. For example: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DvTlmJUOEuw.html

23:00 Shermer is wrong here. He doesn't understand that it's almost impossible to dismantle bureaucracies. When is the last time you heard of large scale government employees being laid off? How many of the 10 million unemployment checks have gone to bureaucrats losing their jobs? Zero. Shermer should read The Road To Serfdom and learn something.

So many shallow arguments. For instance, temperament and implications for conservative vs. liberal leaning. Most people are nowhere near either/or in their leaning, regardless of temperament. Most people hold some liberal views and some conservative views, even contradictory views, stemming from moral dilemmas that do not have non-conflicted solutions - unless you are an ideological moron that cannot see the two sides and never identify moral dilemmas. Schemer discusses and makes incorrect statements/conjectures, as if there are two distinct distributions of temperament depending on leaning. Hog wash. The distribution of temperament in conservative leaning people, and in liberal leaning people are overlapping. In fact, they *significantly* overlap, and IMO *mostly overlap*. Another example are the conclusions drawn by George Lakoff, that Shermer reads from, based on the difference in words and phrases used by each. The issue I find with this superficial analysis is that it involves drawing conclusions from words devoid of context. For instance 'interference', 'meddling', 'corrupt', 'self indulgence', 'decay', 'breakdown'. These words are mostly used in the context of criticising the liberal ideology for the risk it poses, not as virtues of the conservative ideology. The words 'property rights' and 'intrusion', are hardly ever used in the context of gun control and intruders in a home invasion, but rather in the context of opposing forced government takeover of your property as the left is often accused of. The whole metaphor of the family and the father is ridiculous anyway.

I dont know why you think global warming being real is somehow "liberal" when it's simply science.

Michael Boomer doesn't know who Laci Green is? ROFL. Well maybe I shouldn't laugh. I wish I didn't know who she is.