Order & Freedom: A Conversation with Michele Gelfand (Episode  

What a weird phrase to hear twice of, specifically of Singapore. Maybe from the same person? Or is she recalling statistics from a similar source.

@@BreatheManually - It's likely that it was twice from the same person -- or maybe she read the same article I found. In any event, I had the same thought and found other examples of her using it herself elsewhere.

For Israel

Not true, they asked for my reasoning and then never got back to me.

​@@Nick_3 you gotta make an account at samharris.org and then email info@samharris.org asking for a complimentary year subscription. They have given it to me two years in a row 🙂😅 I hope I can afford supporting Sam next year

Where did you hear that? Lol

Completely true. Thanks Sam, I appreciate that you make knowledge available to anyone.

So does jocko

So can we have freedom or not? You sound like a sleezy salesman. It's FREE!...if...

@@mindlander there is a difference between freedom and total anarchy we are seeing today with the so called blm terror group wreaking havoc.

America is turning into socialist-communist country. Just look at our education system, we’re heading to communist’s direction. Many Americans especially teachers/professors/younger generations are totally brainwashed.

@@zenzone704 you are sincerely brainwashed, and I don't think you even know what those words mean.

@@mindlander In anarchy, there is little freedom despite everybody being free. This should be rather obvious to everybody, self discipline and a degree of order is required for us all to have as much freedom as possible. But complete freedom? It's just chaos and disorder where people won't be able to be free.

Unfamiliarity with or exaggeration of differences along the political spectrum (Economically: Far-right, right, center-right, center, center-left, left, far-left. Sociopolitically: Fascist, conservative, moderate, liberal, anarchist and so on) indicates a propensity for fanaticism. Way too many people fail to clear this bar and consider anyone *not* on their "side" to be _against_ them. And tragically that's why humanity has always struggled with political dysfunction and extremism

@@kataroquasinzki7383 I would agree with what you said, but in this case it seems to be a more willfully ignorant mischaracterization that assumes inferior motives and/or reasoning. Its not so much the division, but the lack of genuine appreciation for other perspectives. You notice a distinct lack of any strong conservative minds on this podcast. Sam's assumed intellect would be dwarfed by someone like Thomas Sowell.

@@holdenrobbins852 I would love to see a whole list of people that challenge Sam but I feel like that will never happen. Not even someone on “the opposite” side. I can’t fathom how he would handle someone like Michael Malice for an example.

@@amorfati4927 I agree. I find it a bit of a mystery. He seems to have retreated into some form of safe space. People who meditate a lot can sometimes be adverse or unaccustomed to pain something akin to an opium addiction. Sometimes I ponder whether the pandemic experience traumatised him or if he has always been this way and I hadn’t noticed. Best of luck to Harris, but I don’t allow him much of my time.

@@holdenrobbins852 ya, I'm convinced Trump broke Sam's brain. I found him becoming more &more inconsistent when it came to him- like excusing tactics &behavior he'd usually condem, or failing to always apply the same moral standards, across-the-board. That being said, I'd LOVE if Thomas Sowell came on! (Or even Malic, like another suggested - for diff reasons) even if only to see how Sam would cope or if he'd even be open to Sowell challenging him &/or if he'd concede on anything, given Sowell has a lifetime(s) of work/knowledge/facts to back up his positions. Unfortunately, this won't ever happen; mostly bc he almost-never does interviews (took Rubin 3yrs). Not that I blame him - man's like 91 &just wrote his 12th (13th?) book! He deserves to enjoy his photography:) lol

Herd immunity, the very thing the media called an evil thing to say and try to gain. (Because the media is evil). We vaccinate the young to reduce the number of people that can become sick and spread it to others more vulnerable (some people can't be vaccinated). It also reduces the costs for society, a vaccine is cheap compared to the costs upon us all to treat the sick and lock down society.

@@TheMithridates Vaccines bring some very undesirable side effects. Young people shouldn’t risk their health for 90 year olds who have 1-2 years left to live.

Because Sam only sees life from the viewpoint of an uber liberal trust fund baby.

@@emilyjones5830 So, you're against all vaxcines then? Or just the ones you deem only dangerous to 90+ yearolds? I dont want these people deciding for us, but your thinking seem even worse to me. Mind that this disease has been deadly for far younger generations than that, I've personally sent several 40-50 yearolds that would die if the intencive care facilities were to become overwhelmed. Mentioned undesierable side-effects are almost always mild, exceedingly rare and beat having the disease and it's risks in any case.

Totally agree. Sam seems shocked that people would weigh the risk of a vaccine that's just been developed over the risk of a virus where 99.6+% survive. As someone who eats properly and exercises regularly, I'll risk a fever and headache for a few days. Given that I have not changed my behaviour for the entire time, gone to the gym, gone out food shopping, the chance that I have not been exposed to this is siim. Sam is a smart guy but he clearly has a blind spot.

Sam is proving again and again he's not the holy grail of rationality that he thinks he is.

I think his TDS proved that a long time ago

@@sionnach1311 he definitely has a lesson or two to learn from Bret Weinstein when it comes to rationality. Sam's calm voice and mindfulness focus gives him the appearance of rationality guru.

If you don’t have free will it’s not your fault you don’t want the jab 😂

she's in over her head.

A quick Google search suggests she says this a lot.

Sam, the shining star of the skeptics community and the IDW should feel responsible for creating a generation of people dedicated to woke politics? ...Sweet Summer child. We atheists/skeptics/people of critical thought, have been here with you all along. 🤝

@@Perditions Yet, most such people as us with critical thoughts (including Sam) do not see or acknowledge the connection between us and "woke". I'd like to hear his thoughts on the matter, or Dawkins perhaps. Being people who sometimes push back, but usually play along with those forces.

@@Perditions i understand that but you're assuming everyone has the capacity for that mindset. Statistically speaking we have a few million dull minded people in this country. I am an atheist and skeptic as well sweet winter corpse; please consider the thoughts and abilities of people other than yourself.

I thought the end of faith was a good book in many aspects but i still believe in god as love. Be a good person and care about other people. Its all become so complicated, unnecessarly. Give me Terrence mckenna for ideas and some entertainment. Just look into your own mind and heart.

@M M i know religions are a problem. Dont have to have religion to believe in love or a higher power. Nature has an intelligent design, and i dont think we are here to suffer its just a result of mass ignorance and forgetting our true nature that of spiritual beings. Overall mankind has become too focused on the material, our ego and selfish desires. The earth, humans and animals are in a funk because of this. We think we need this or that but we really just need to care about one another and help one another. There is a Truth. A right way to live and our actions, even thoughts live on. I reccomend listening to some of rudolf steiners lectures or books on spirituality if ones interested in that sort of thing. Humanity does have to start waking up.

@Sadôg Life

Who chewa gum anymore we smoke cigarettes now.. and i throw them in a trash can and dont litter, for what its worth.

seriously like.. conservatives are more threat averse? With their support of guns, dunebuggies, carspeed racing. Is that really an objective assessment. I'd say conservatives are more sensitive to threats from outsiders. From other -groups-. Not threats and danger in general. Do you really believe conservatives would have been accepting of masks and lockdowns.. if their leader had told them to be? Maybe slightly but to me this seems a gross misunderstanding of the conservative mindset. I see this trend of Sam talking to people who seem to be so far off from the essential beat and essence of things. Like the elective route of Trump itself it seems like there's a multi-generational gap of intellectuals who aren't ever hitting on anything key. It's worrisome.

@@justin_5631 re conservatives: I've heard it said before that conservatives are more threat averse. He's not the only one. I was fascinated in these trends too, but the more I read, see, and learn, the more that these tendencies are rather weak and/or miss out on some very strong social and environmental forces which influence ideology. Conservatives are supposedly more threat-averse, orderly, polite, and conventional. Liberals are supposedly more open to experience, compassionate, and less orderly. Those tendencies are somewhat weak, in my experience, although they *are* there, more or less, depending on the person. Most from x group are not all of the above but do trend toward one or two out of say, 4. I agree with what you say about threat aversion, because it seems to be specific types of threat. In fact, Peterson for example, says it's a common misconception that conservatives are more threat averse, saying that liberals tend to be slightly more neurotic on average which correlates with threat aversion. Either way, I think what's also missing is the interaction between people and their peer groups, their identity, and other social factors. All of those make a difference.

"seriously like.. conservatives are more threat averse? With their support of guns, dunebuggies, carspeed racing. Is that really an objective assessment. I'd say conservatives are more sensitive to threats from outsiders. From other -groups-. Not threats and danger in general" Maybe there's some interaction between group loyalty and "threat aversion" when it comes to threats in the form of other groups? Consider that, per Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations, conservatives value loyalty more, and this comes out in aversion to other groups? On second thought, conservatives *are* much more cautious about changes in their own society. At times it feels as though conservatives are hesitant toward any thing new that challenges old structures and convention. In fact, their name sake is nearly this by definition. What is this, if not threat aversion? This is funny and interesting to me, because I am extremely threat averse (I suffer from anxiety) yet I lean anywhere from center left to left.

@@TheBoofer331 I'm also extremely threat averse in real terms. I just don't believe it about conservatives. They're more threat averse socially as you say. From other groups and outsiders. They aren't more threat averse from danger in general.. Not that I can imagine.

@@justin_5631 these people are out of touch with reality, you’re seeing this with both ends of the political spectrum.

I guess meditating is about relaxation and not anout dropping one's standards of behavior.

What about polyglots? Do you think that a significant difference exists between them and monoglots in this context?

@@kataroquasinzki7383: universal grammar suggests all languages are connected to a common substructure even though they all sound very different. I believe that substructure is multidimensional and it remains undiscovered. With language we’re experiencing a sort of linguistic Plato’s cave scenario where words are shadows and intellectual laziness is keeping us from experiencing the multidimensional realm language is navigating.

Curious what the relationship is between being a Math professor, for example, and being expected to regulate your emotions more than, let's say, a parent, a waiter, a pizza delivery man?

@@eswyatt i would think waiters would be more specialized at impulse control than a person doing math all day.

@@eswyatt I can see that

sounds like slavoj zizek, and I think more highly of him than just about anybody on the planet

Drebin!

" free choices might actually originate in our brains several milliseconds, or even much longer, before we’re first aware of even thinking of them." I have never been religious or believed in spirits....but this actually has me wondering our "Self Awareness" really is on some dimentional level a thing that exist, perhaps without mass. What are your thoughts that your spirit makes the choice and THEN the brain becomes the MECHANISM in which that choice is then communicated? Self awareness is the one thing I fundamentally do not understand. we all came from the same universe. same planet. Evolved the same way. So why am I self aware of THIS body at THIS time and not any other thing? The nice thought is that it is impossible for death to be permanent. If it happened, it's possible. If it is possible, given infinite time it will happen. Maybe death is how we move about the Universe on an existential level? A way to exist without ever getting bored in infinite time? DIe as Human on earth, self awar after as baby birdman on planet bird. Or maybe just a bird? Another consideration: The first unconscious choice is our instinct/animal/need to act quickly "choice" which is arguably not free will and certainly influences free will. But the decion DOES become a conscience one. As soon as it does free will takes over. THe key here is do both choices ALWAYS Match 100% of the time? I would say no .......each time your impulse at first said go left or gut feeling said to stand up and INSTEAD you went right or stayed seated THAT was execution of free willl. Happens to me all the time. Ergo some decisions are free will, MANY decisions are automatic/not free will even if aware cause your free will does't think that decision is worth spending resources and you subconsciencley set yourself up on autopilot. Much like I would as a lab rat who fundamentally cares nothing about the researchers experiment. Tell me if the neuro science disproved that and how?

Final thought/Disclaimer: I am working under the premise that multiple universes *almost* identical to ours exist. Even if only in concept. Rewinding the 'tape' of history is NOT the same thing as ACTUALLY restarting history. A tape is not a new event. It's kind of like saying team A was ALWAYS gonna beat TEAM B even if they played a million times and TEAM B was better., When in fact minor randomness that can't be predicted, or by force, made the exact way twice. I argue that if you ACTUALLY rewound history the wind blow differently the second time. The effects of TRUE randomness are being significantly underestimated. Which means our Tape of history is not pre ordained or destined. It's just that we only get to play one game this Season. A second game does not have to exist for you to say TEAM A will forever and always beat team B. The fact it COULD exist means at some point in time free will exist (or can exist), We just only have seen one instance of it. Name me ANY other thing where one instance proves anything? You would not make ANY conclusions based of one event. Seeing as we still have A TON to figure out regarding Space Time and dimenstions, we have not come anywhere close to gathering all the necessary elements to even MAKE a strong argument either way with anything more than as a intellectual exercise or 'enjoyment of working out the mind."

did you send for a free by email? i did and got access in 5 minutes

Its for the "serious intellectual" effect

Lol

@@korvaamiko66 That's a false dichotomy. No one said the intro music need be "gloomy" vs "trivial nothing music". There are numerous other music options that can still lend an air of sophistication, but not be so gloomy.

If they have to re-do a section or restart the podcast Sam will give his guests that opportunity. Also Sam will edit some parts out, breaks or stuff like that. Not all his podcasts get uploaded. Check out this one, at the beginning, Sam says the only reason he released it is because of cries and accusations of censorship I do imagine most of his podcasts are fine and get released, eventually. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RbvFR48bS3E.html&ab_channel=WakingUpwithSamHarris

@@bangbangyoureaboolean1324 Videos can be edited as well.

@Mike Kane You can't even prove that my droplets were the cause of your sickness. Shut down a business has nothing to do with virus control. Sheer nonsense.

For shame. South is one of my favorite cardinal directions.

I've always liked walking south. Somehow it feels like I'm walking down hill.

Sam is praising politeness, as the south is known for. And he's also admitting he lacks first hand experience of the area.

Hmmmm... Why are you here? Are you into masochism? A special form of auditory one?

I agree, it’s difficult to keep engaged. It’s choppy and annoying.

@Mike Kane haha. Thanks mike. When you get back to your class, recommend this book to your high-school students.

I was just thinking about this the other day. IMO the order vs. chaos dichotomy isn't quite right because chaos has a negative connotation and it detracts from the positive forms of what is called chaos (e.g. freedom, potential, etc..). This is why I've always felt Jordan Peterson's dichotomy - which I'm sure he picked up from other thinkers/philosophies - felt wrong or imbalanced to me. Not to mention the association with chaos and femininity. To me, freedom works much better, because it, like order, has a mostly positive connotation. Despite that, we can see the trouble when either is in excess.

Wtf

Please, spare us all and use punctuation! So many options - the comma, the dash, colon and semi-colon

You don’t need a computer Jose, get a tablet or full screen iPod and go somewhere with free Wi-fi like the library.

I think your view on "cultural norms" are too narrow and simplistic. A society doesn't just have one set of cultural norms - within the overall culture, subcultures exists too. And in those subcultures, there can be very varied and opposing sets of cultural norms. For example: Among criminal subculture, there is definitely an unofficial norm of not being a snitch, and you risk dire consequences if your behaviour goes against that norm, even if being a snitch is exactly what is expected of you, if you are to be regarded as a socially accepted, stand-up citizen in your society, abiding by the overall majority culture of your society.

It's a cart before the horse thing. How do you think people get wealthier? It's definitely not breaking the rules. Pretty much every virtue correlates quite closely with success.

Norms are everywhere, especially so in the hood.

@@flnielsen I'd rather say that cultural norms become less important the wealthier you are. The better off a person is the more they can ignore norm and culture and its perils.

This comment does not make sense.

Also, god doesn't make sense

@@SolitaryReaper666 How do you know?

@@mindlander order doesn’t need to cost our freedom in other words. But freedom comes at a cost of a level order. So often, intellectuals think they are smart enough to dictate order according to a heir perception of what is moral. And tramp on others freedoms that disagree.

Which god gave it and what evidence do you have of this god?

@mick albright There is lots on it. Just search, "Dawkins American Humanist Association," or Dawkins humanist of the year." That will bring up everything about it on Google, as well as a handful of responses on this site. I warn you, though, as an atheist and former self-identified "liberal" (I now join the ranks of "independents") I find it very discouraging and depressing. The religious right has always been loopy, sure, but I was naïve enough to expect more from the left, and especially from prominent atheists/freethinkers like that Matt Dillahunty. Silly me.

Jordan didn’t invent the concepts of chaos and order, and this has little to do with it.

OK, Wittgenstein. WTF? It depends on the topic. People are allowed to talk about different matters of varying natures and degrees of complexity😭

Orderliness is just one of the many side benefits to enjoy once one has arrived at the conclusion that free will doesn't exist ;)

@@JaredCzaia Oh but that conclusion is incorrect. But to understand this properly, one has to understand the structure of Time.

@@JaredCzaia We do have free will, we calculate the best course of action depending on our psychology, situation, culture, geography etc. It makes no sense to say we have no free will, because free will is what we experience and live, so what would free will be otherwise?

@@TheSteinbitt Sam's position on free will is not one I share :)