“Giving childhood back to kids.” Something I’ve been complaining and worrying about for years but all the parents even my spouse don’t seem to think this is a big problem.
Too busy on the road again Taking kids to piano lessons Karate, ballet, riding.... Not taking time to walk under trees, with a piece of grass in their mouth or sit on the beach or river bank Watching the flow Yup I agree with you
“When does a kid ever get to sit in the yard with a stick anymore? Just sit there with a fucking stick. Do kids today even know what a stick is?” George Carlin
Haidt is a very insightful thinker, but here he tries so hard to walk the line and keep feathers unruffled that at times he is denuded of substance. Glenn's pushbacks at those times were cathartic
@@jdarling5315 I think he strategically focuses on what matters and what he can contribute towards, namely fixing the root structural problem, instead of just getting into the never-ending ideological debates.
Yeah it seems pretty clear and it least in the social sphere if you’re to the right of a “leftist” than you are right wing. End of discussion… Actually, no, the discussion would be how far right are you because you aren’t just moderate right.
Then why are the leftist policies not in place or being brought up for votes? There is no *public* debate, you are correct, but there is certainly a lot more pushback behind closed doors. Publicly, moderate Dem pander to the progressives, just like Rep pander to MAGA supporters and before that the tea party.
No, I think there certainly are (interparty warfare, not debates). I remember that infamous DNC call where that Dem congresswoman went off on AOC & Omar. There's definitely a schism in the Dems, as well as their media if you look at what's happened to people like Matt Yglesias or Ruy Texira. Biden (or his admin?), however, is not putting his thumb on the scale for the moderates. However, I would disagree with Haidt that the Republicans have shot all of their moderates. Last I checked, Romney & Chaney were still active, and I'm pretty sure they still have a small contingent behind them. As well, rising stars like DeSantis & Youngkin will absolutely seek to move on from Trump as soon as feasible, given how much airtime he sucks from them. Even now we can see them trying to figure out how to be as neutral as possible towards him without turning off his supporters.
I have so much admiration (and adoration!) for both of you men. Prof Loury, I listen to your podcast all the time. Thank you so much for your valuable and impeccably articulated insights, and your wisdom. (And, unrelated, your book "The Anatomy of Racial Inequality is literally my next read.) Prof. Haidt, I have learned so much from both "The Coddling of the American Mind" and "The Righteous Mind." I follow you wherever I can find you, and am indebted to your efforts to understand our unique social divisions (and what can, sadly, feel like lunacy) and offer possible solutions. I think this recording was cut off; I was looking forward to hearing you two go back to Prof. Loury's initial question to Prof. Haidt at the very beginning of the conversation (about an unanswered question posed by GL to JH at a talk given years ago.) Maybe another completed recording of this interview will be coming on RU-vid. Either way - thank you both. Our nation is indebted to each of you. Know that many out here are grateful for what you do. PS - I work at Harvard in Cambridge (not as a professor, I'm a medical doctor) and experience regularly the prominence of radical doctrine and the silence of the majority. Very disturbing to witness.
Just seeing how many places we historically messed up out of understandable ignorance I can remember: 1. Seeing computers as "something the kids seem to be very clever with" and leaving the understanding of them up to them 2. Not understanding how addiction works and not predicting how gradually more addictive these little everything boxes would become. 3. The internet was percieved as "obviously safe" in the early says because physically they were at home, and being physically outside was what parents were concerned about. The internet was seen as not real. 4. People percieved the internet in metaphors of real world communication like electronic mail, and didn't understand this wasn't just a lot of one on one communication but included group dynamics and psychology. 5. Parents raised in a purely physical world didn't understand the internet was a psychological world and couldn't understand how much kids would feel like they needed some kind of online authority, The lack of being able to hold anyone to account for their behavior online set up a Lord of the Flies parentless environment.
great points, I feel like a casualty of this zeitgeist as I spent almost the entirety of my childhood in front of a screen, it's incredibly difficult for me to socialize, the words and expressions simply don't flow, I feel unable to connect with my neighbours or anyone around me. At least I'm aware of this and I'm trying my best through therapy and reducing my use of technology.
And then the kids formed gangs to stage struggle sessions to shame the Four Olds ... and dismantle the ignorance and corruption they can suddenly all around them. In the words of Saint Greta - SHAME ON YOU! (SCOWL).
Hundreds of years from now there will be discussions, dissertations,& essays about the beginning of the Digital Age,& it’s effects on Western civilization. Hopefully it won’t be the beginning of the *end* of our civilization, but we’ll see.
I've become OBSESSED with Jonathan Haidt, this is definitely one of his top two interviews. The talk on demographics of this phenomena were FASCINATING!
Some very good items in this. I would say at some point John Haidt should listen more closely to...Johnathan Haidt. He believes that the Republicans are more homogeneous and less tolerant of internal debate. Yet his personal experience has found just the opposite, conservatives debating without destructive interaction and "liberals" enforcing orthodoxy. He observes that historically it's the left that turns to violent Jacobin oppression, which he notes never works. (This may be why the left fears the right will go violent, it's their own reaction and they find a different way hard to conceive. ) The Democrats are the party that votes in lock step for thousand page bills no one has read, abortion bills more radical than anything in Europe, spending levels an order of magnitude beyond anything before. Joe Manchin stands out because he is typically the lone dissenter in an otherwise seamless orthodoxy. Head nod to Kyrsten Sinema also on occasion. He has a lot of good things to say, politically he is a bit bias blind. Just some thoughts. 🤔
I think you're braiding a few different arguments here - in terms of representatives, Republicans are more homogenous. Democrats have AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden all in the same party. Do they vote the same? Sure, but both parties do because its a two party game. There is a larger spectrum of moderate to extremist on the left and more homogony on the right. His point about debating with conservatives is more about how people are generally good and reasonable yet we're finding people being unreasonable in groups within our institutions.
@@darkrzane OK, let me get this right if I can, you give me two self identified socialists and a man who seems to be trying to do their bidding and call it diversity of thought. Fine. Let's try Collins, Murkowski and Romney and try to bridge the chasm to Cruz, Paul, Hawley and Cotton. There may be a reason that the left doesn't have a comparable term to "RINO" in their lexicon. Again, just some thoughts. Take care.
@@dennisdose5697 He is bias. If you hear some of his other podcasts he has said things like… 1. When talking about “misinformation,” using Russia as his sole example for 5 minutes. 2. Going to a museum with certified race hustlers and talking about how he feels their pain and how real it is. 3. Solutions tending to be more authoritarian in nature. A bunch of other stuff. I mean, the truth is that by and large both parties tend to lock step. However, in current day the republicans most definitely have more dissenting personalities. More than likely because they’re having more populous (or what ever you would like to call them) candidates and representatives being voted in. I don’t even claim party affiliation and honestly don’t follow that part of politics that closely (as in, knowing who all are in congress and the house) but I know of basically the only democrat that constantly dissents. I know of the around 10 republicans that might as well have a D or a U (for either democrat or uniparty) on their forehead. The maybe 10-12ish republicans (of which you named a few) that are constantly loud in their dissenting on a wide variety of topics (doesn’t mean in the end they don’t vote yes, but they will voice displeasure or try to get what they don’t like changed up, or in hearings tend to be ruthless especially to people like Faucci that deserve it). Then the rest meander as just run of the mill Republican/kind of opposition to the other side. You’d have to take a deep dive into history to see if it’s always been that way or not. There tended to be a lot more disagreement overall in the old days, though.
Wonderful to see Janathan Haidt in conversation with Glenn. I've really appreciated some of Jonathan Haidt's insights into our religious evolution, and how nature to think based on our emotions. Its helped level my own judgement and open myself to conversation where I'm less intent on proving myself right to them, as I am in considering if I'm actually right to myself. Wonderful episode!
Hard disagree with the point about the right turning away its moderates… I mean.. he followed up that by talking about how he is center left (moderate) and now is being considered by them as right adjacent. Feel like he negated his own point with that. Overall good convo. Thanks Glenn.
John has some very good insights on some subjects and on others you just discard (this is the case with pretty much everybody, and that’s perfectly fine). At the end of the day he is still by and large a “leftist.” You will hear some of his talking points and it shows where his influences come from. I was listening to some other podcast he was on and I think they were talking about “misinformation” or something along those lines and literally the only example he gave was Russia (and it was a 5 minute part of the conversation). I’ve heard him talking about visiting a museum in 2020 with some of the verified race hustlers and talking about feeling their pain and how real it was. Some of his solutions tend to be quite authoritarian in nature. Plenty of other examples. Like I said before, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have great insight that people shouldn’t take and use.
I thought the same thing! It also happens within the congress as well. Let me know the last time someone swayed from the group and didn’t get shunned. They attack Joe Manchin constantly
Also, how can he make the claim that Democrats are structurally smarter because of viewpoint diversity and then not be willing to look at the policies that have resulted? Even just looking at outcomes doesn't support his thesis.
I first heard of Micro-aggression in graduate school course on multicultural counseling in 2008. Required text was by Derald Wing Sue along with White Privilege and Peggy McIntosh’s essay on White Privilege. As an adult with over 20 years working in Human Resources with BS in Multidisciplinary (Industrial Psychology, Statistics, Economics, and Management) and Masters in Labor Relations I pushed back on against these materials as being the core readings for the course as being obtuse and ill conceived lacking substantive research. I also had issues in ethics class with material that what I considered a biased representation of an appeals court decision on religious accommodation under Civil Rights. Left the Counseling Psych program as to concerns about freedom of criticism of materials used in curriculum .
Johnathan's book The Coddling of the American mind is probably the best book I've ready in a very long time, It's a must read! I'm grateful for his work and this was an amazing conversation. Thanks Glenn!
Even after 10 years of consciously noticing the lunacy of modern Leftism, Haidt still holds that the Republican Party is the insane group while the Democrats maintain a moderate stance. It is so disappointingly predictable coming from him. The GOP becoming the Big Tent party is directly due to the inability of the left to maintain some sense of constraint in their quasi-religious political passions. Haidt reminds me of all the "Classical Liberal" types who know their views are considered nominally conservative by today's standards but have been so warped by years of their chosen media and political sources that they have become pathologically allergic to being considered on the Right.
From where I stand-which is pretty close to dead-center, politically-there are plenty of non-pathological reasons for a person to reject any association with the Right. I deplore the progressive fringe of the Left. But I don't see them as an actual danger to our Republic. By contrast: the GOP is currently undertaking a full-court press (1) to undermine confidence in free and fair elections and (2) to convince citizens that the only ethical response to losing said elections is that of violent insurrection. The Texas GOP just officially embraced the anarchic imbecility of Trump's "stop the steal" lie. I don't see how one reconciles embrace of the GOP as it currently stands with anything approaching patriotism or civic responsibility. I'll hold my nose and vote for Democrats until the GOP ceases to be a cult devoted to a pathological liar and narcissist.
Are you kidding me? You think the Right is the group trying to ignore free and fair elections? The mainstream of the Left argued for the entire Trump presidency that he wasn't elected fairly due to interference from Russia. This led to a multi-year investigation which found NOTHING. Don't you remember? 4 years of "RESIST" although he won a democratic election? They then claimed that voting reform in Georgia was intended to lock out Democratic voters although the first election after passing the law lead to RECORD VOTER TURNOUT. If the January 6th protest was a "violent insurrection" where a thousand dummies went into an empty building, then what do we call the George Floyd Protests? Were those Jacobian revolutions? Quit digging your head into the sand and actually probe at your own biases.
He says it all around 35 minutes. I bet the reason Jon is so "hesitant" to discuss these "hot button issues" is because he will get canned by the ultra-maga administration at NYU. 🤪
I really agree here... we see this a lot now. Popular thinkers and entertainers have this "walk right up to the line but then turn around". At SOME point soon... in order to move the ball forward, these left of center folks need to own and face down that WOKE was born and is fed BY THE LEFT. The right has made historical mistakes. No doubt. But the liberals have to recognize that WOKE is uniquely a liberal disease and until they're ready to get serious about it and take a deep dive into what failure in the liberal mindset berthed this madness, nothing can change for the better.
Haidt’s quote from Madison really highlights a central problem today. Thanks for taking the time to provide this type of content to get people thinking Glenn Lowry. Also, i agree wholeheartedly with Haidt’s praise for your passion.
If there's anything I remember from my social psychology course, it's the phenomenon that is groupthink. And it just might be that social media reinforces that phenomenon on a massive scale more easily than ever before. And here we are, with dissent having become morally reprehensible from discourse. Even nuance needs to be carefully brought up. I'd never put two and two together, but Haidt just really made that clear to me. That there are group psychology forces operating in the dissemination of ideologies as we see them today. What an amazing point to bring into the dialogue, because it might just point to solutions as to how we fix this mess.
@@archetypalmuse Bah...I can't see Somewhatskeptical's response....I don't believe "groupthink" is a phenomena though. (It's really pretty easy to understand...though I might lack the ability to communicate it simply...if at all really. But I'll try...and I'm aware you didn't ask, and you're probably not a dullard that hasn't reasoned this out for yourself, but I'm trying to figure out a concise way to communicate this, and you're my guinea, thanks!) When you break down how people are socially constructed, and the impact strong personalities can and do have on people's development it's pretty easy to figure out how the world was created into the mess it is today. Those strong (relatively speaking) personalities are the keys. Consider how you developed, and the people you mimicked growing up. Or mirrored is the correct word perhaps. Where vanity is concerned we don't really have an identity other than the one we create for ourselves. Some people grow up around thugs and decide to mimic their behavior because they see strength in the personalities surrounding them. Some might mimic shit kickers if that's what they're mostly exposed to. Etc etc. Those are very vain and basic examples, but it illustrates my point. That was during the day when we were physically exposed to a relatively small amount of people. And we mimicked the most exceptional of those we were around. Now you have thousands and thousands of "influencers" with their copy/paste spoonfed opinions. They're attractive, eloquent, and vociferous. It's very easy for young and impressionable minds to be manipulated and essentially weaponized when you are being fed by charismatic and visually attractive, and quite passionate, people. And they are being created in droves by these under-informed people. I watched an interview with Tucker Carlson and Jon Voight and he said he deals with liberals all the time in the movie industry and when he expresses a view that is contrary to the Hollywood acceptable narrative sometimes people will voice their contradiction to him. He will say, "Let's talk about it" and invite them to his trailer...he will start listing out all of the details and facts or stats of whatever it is the topic is concerning and in about a minute the person will get up and say, "Look Jon, I really don't know much about this stuff" and scuttle on out of his trailer. That's the status quo for these fanatics. It's the same with just about everything that's a huge talking point for the leftist media...evil is everywhere. If that's all you're looking for, you're going to find it. But what you're seeing is negativity and cynicism being reflected back at you. Yet it validates their view because that's what they want to see. For the most part anyway. I used that anecdote with Jon boy to illustrate how these people are weaponized with an absolute minimum of information and used in the public sphere to push a specific "agenda"...Who is pushing it? Why? I couldn't say...but it's there, and it's real. Anyway, social constructing for these kids is an absolute mind fucking beyond anything anyone from my generation (Gen X) ever experienced. Though with the advent of social media during my generation I fell into some traps myself. I learned about how media manipulates you by...yep, you guessed it (by conservative media, yeah, they are dirtbags too), being manipulated myself. I had already experienced enough in life to decipher truth from fiction with a minimal amount of research...these kids today aren't so well versed in the ugliness of American politics though. The sad part is that many of them will be very very slow to reverse course. Admitting you're wrong and that you've been deceived and manipulated and used as a political tool, not to mention the relationships you've destroyed during the course of your lunacy, is extremely difficult. They will awaken eventually though. But sadly, there's a new crop of cannon fodder getting pushed through the system, day by day. I didn't really talk much about social construction....oh well, just some thoughts.
What a phenomenal way to put it, Prof Loury: I hope not to have abandoned my reasoning faculty in the midst of my emotional expression. Would that everyone could emphasize the same humility and commitment.
This is one reason why I prefer people such as Haidt and Coleman Hughes, they really see the meta, when most political pundits are believers and fall into rants. Some of us are growing beyond being believers in party or sides. Becoming more "Integral"
Thank you both for an absolutely brilliant conversation. I thought conversation was more More dead than God. I love the way Glenn challenges Jonathan. What are razor sharp mind this guy has. He rants with surgical precision. And no matter how sophisticated his opinion is it’s all common sense. It’s admirable to see the way Jonathan teaches. I especially admire his patience.
Minute 34 or so - In listening to the discussion about Canada and the anglosphere, I have found myself having the same observations (an analytical hunch based on my own social science and discourse analysis graduate-level training, without having researched the phenemonen myself)... I have also been noticing some ideological or discursive differences between anglophone and francophone campus, social media or media environments. Some of us who are francophone living in anglophone majority provinces or regions are stuck in the tension or pull in both directions, or lean in one direction more than the other (in terms of culture war discourse). I also observe the impact in Indigenous discourses here depending on the colonial language used by different nations and perhaps even in anti-colonial discourses taking place in French or English. The anglophonic pop or media discourses often generalise francophone discourse as racist. However, recent media or social media have been reporting on these discursive instances but tended not to examine internal debate, anti-racist, or other discourses taking place in French... and this seems to have become more pronounced in the last decade and accelerated in the last 6 years and even more since... 2018. I find this very unfortunate, especially at the crossroads of linguistic and cultural heritages, seeing a potential for deep understanding but an apparent preference for anger and fingerpointing without a complete picture of the other (or Other's) thinking processes.... This is very eye-opening. Thank you.... I will keep listening. (And I remember the yoga misgivings, which I believe was an issue at University of Ottawa just down the road... changed to intentional stretching rather than yoga).
Awesome. I love both of these guys, both are so knowledgeable and so experienced. Seeing them challenge one another to deeper thought and explanation was remarkable. I hope they do it again.
Thank you for the thought provoking conversation. I no longer align with left or right. Politics is too limited to solve humanity's problems and without the safety net of democracy, we have tyranny and tyranny is tyranny whether left or right. Democracy is crumbling and power is in the hands of the powerful. That is never a good thing to the ordinary people of the planet or the planet itself.
THIS is what I expect University Professors to be. The thing that strikes me so much about this conversation, as well as many others I've seen Jonathan Haidt have, is a genuine, 'good faith' exploration of concepts, policy, ideological positions etc. To put it simply, the conversation is not about either of THEM 'winning', it's about challenging, constructively criticising, etc etc such that the 'winning' takes the form of, if nothing else, a greater understanding of whatever was being discussed. So many Universities have lost the right to call themselves that IF they're judged on their commitment to similar approaches. I can't help but wonder whether one of the best things they could do is just get rid of the utterly toxic, ideological idiocy that is (richly and perversely ironically) called Diversity-Inclusion-Equity and the astoundingly bloated, expensive boondoggle of charlatan administrators that come with it. All gone within 2 years from now.
My answer to the initial question, having just started the podcast, is that while the prevailing perspective might be good, it is impossible for it to be the best that it could possibly be without a counter perspective to the popular narrative. Rarely has anything in my experience produced the best possible result without being subjected to some sort of opposing force or criticism.
75% of school-aged children in the Netherlands, one of the richest countries in the world, still ride a bike to school. The Dutch motto is: "You're not made of sugar, a bit of rain won't melt you." 😎
Haidt is absolutely correct about the unsupervised play of children being necessary for their growth in society. My wife and I were just discussing how in our youth we congregated with our friends after school and during the summer to play and learn to be adults. We had to work things out on our own and rarely brought in adults to solve our problems amongst each other.
Human nature is rough. Most Children dont have the Coping skills necessary, especially boys, to avoid bullying, physical intimidation, bias in picking teams, making fun of disabilities, spreading the narrow minded beliefs learned at home or on their own, experimenting with drugs/sex, emotional differences, gang initiations, etc. The prefrontal cortex is not fully developed till mid 20s and further delayed if drugs are used. Some stunted kids become adult sociopaths leading companies or countries, getting elected by insulting others and acting like they never grew up. And how about all those who vote for the fake strongman bully to blow up social norms and valued institutions? We have to strive for continuous improvement in child rearing and education for the US to lead the world in anything going forward, we are so low in some areas that are not the fault of kids studying too much inside. Some look to the moral foundation of religion but they have abuses scarring many children. Single parents already leave kids to their own vices too often. It is a challenge and i agree kids need more interactions with nature and obstacles and with supervision, not just less supervision.
In 1990 I was on a bus with my son and one other kid. They sat in the back of the bus and compared scores on different video games. I'm on level 4. Oh, I beat that game. Before social media, video games were already distorting interaction among kids.
I’m going to bet that Glenn is right on ALL his points. The test shows the speed at which you learn regardless of how you got to it. If you can’t learn fast enough to keep up at Harvard you will be at the bottom of the class. If test training helps then supply test training to disadvantaged youth.!
@Down with Corporate Amerika test training is to maximize speed because that’s what these tests measure. Not training to the test but familiarizing the students w the type of test. If you get into an advanced school but do not have the ability to work at an advanced pace that school is not for you
I imagine that people in responsible positions (not me, not regular folks), where they have a responsibility for the welfare of a corporation, feel they cannot possibly tolerate a public relations debacle. Social media, with the cooperation of journalism (all on twitter), enables cadres to create a debacle overnight. The authorities (profs, administrators, even boards) do not know how to deal with it. All run -- for reasons: they will have no applications next year. But they do not know they have an alternative.
Could we agree that while the problem is the system, not that 99% of the revealed cowards are horrible, that this still does reveal failings in people, albeit ones that may never have come to light in a sane society? Adults still must be held accountable for their actions, even when the environment, itself, is the main problem. Their cowardice has enabled the expansion and worsening of the system. Had more of them been like Robert Zimmer, the bad system would not have snowballed, and maybe would have been undone.
Thank you Glenn. Republicans in congress are NOT a monolith! It just looks that way to Heidt because he is looking from the left. Republicans are on the defense, the wagons look circled, but there are many Republican stripes in congress.
I've followed Haidt for some time so I'm aware of a good deal of this stuff. Along the lines of "fear" or fear of the the perceived tribe, booting you, as being the phenomenon boosted by social media dynamics and then resulting in real-world consequences - I agree; however, I wonder if in selecting for college admins, some selection process isn't occurring wherein this gets further warped? As in, if safety-ism and PC culture and even more rarified luxury beliefs like, fully adopting a prescriptive worldview, based on intersectionality are all in vogue - then won't administration select for these traits, within the ideologically lopsided structure? If this is seen as what is best when it is in fact destructive, then won't universities select for admins, more and more into this hole, until they totally devolve?
That's exactly what I think is happening - we aren't seeing colleges burned down as we did years ago when Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak but that's because, to avoid such things happening again, the administration is cutting off the potential for controversy at the expensive of having these important and difficult conversations. They're selecting for administration and leaders people who won't rock the boat - but lean with it, even as it capsizes. An interesting news piece I saw recently - an HR representative posted on social media about how she was able to hire a certain person for about 15k annually below what the company would have gone for to get them. The social media post flared up and went viral leading to her company firing her - for doing her job. A job that she wasn't doing wrong, and that won't change with her leaving. Its part of HR's job to extend their hiring budget by getting the skills they need *within* their budget. Its not their job to loose the purse strings, inflate labor costs, and kill their margins. She was fired not for doing anything wrong, but because social media trended unfavorably towards her. And just as Jonathan Haidt said, what this leads to is silence. I don't want to post about what happens at my job online because I don't want to lose it! So we don't speak up.
Very insightful people and their arguments have almost zero impact on society. The Kardashians dwarf these guys' influence on society. Taylor Swift can write a tweet that gets 1,000,000x more social impact than anything these guys have to say.
Glenn, please have on Adam Coleman to discuss his latest: "As a black man who refuses to be a victim, I have a very different definition of who the white supremacists are".
@Down with Corporate Amerika No thanks. Her essay is a joke. Silly CRT nonsense. She wants to rely solely on statistics to prove discrimination, but she leaves out the most important statistic of all: the black-on-black murder rate.
What Haidt misunderstands is not that critics are silenced but that critics of things like competitive tests don’t provide any meaningful alternative and are therefore ignored.
What Haidt understands is the importance of the *process* of finding the "right" answers and actions in social/political structures. He is trying not to walk into any discussion with prejudice, such as a discussion of competitive tests. His job is to promote heterodoxy, not promote his right answers.
@@paigemccormick6519 heterodoxy doesn’t mean you have to accept all opinions as valid or the same. Exploring different causations for social ills is a good thing but not all solutions to those ills have to be accepted if the solution offered is more harmful than the present structure. And the harm caused is too obvious to see that promoting such things as heterodox thinking dilutes the good work that others are doing
@@vijaykrish911 Yeah, so? I never said heterodoxy means ... (what you said it doesn't mean). Point is that Vijay can't decide unilaterally which solution, or which harm... This has to be worked out in society, and we're about to lose ours--the only one that ever sustained hope toward resolution.
And very few people will hear it. How do we get a Kardashian to tweet this to their 50 million peasant voters who know nothing outside their strangling information bubbles
Haidt is confused about something that it's easy to get confused about. Trump has plenty of flaws, but political extremism is not one of them. Demagoguery on his part and his supporters, guided by a transactional outlook rather than a moral compass, etc. But he is absolutely not a political extremist. He might speak without thinking and throw out an idea that's royally stupid, but his policies overall were center right. When he did do something that might seem extreme, like in some of his interactions with other countries, he was often doing things that many Presidential candidates had promised, but only Trump was crazy enough to do. I never voted for him, and don't want him as President again, but for all the toxicity he brings, it is a misunderstanding to confuse it with extremism.
Lol, Trump wanted to reintroduce torture, firebomb foreign cities, fill more people in Guantanamo bay, covered for the Saudi Arabian gutting of a U.S. journalist, and pushed tirelessly for the destruction of U.S. democratic form of government because he lost an election. Tell me you know nothing about his political agenda w/o telling me.
There's only one reason to vote for him again if you don't like him personally and I like that you said it. He does what he promised. Thats what representatives are supposed to do.
This is the perfect Trump take. What he says is impulsive and harsh, often irresponsible. His rhetoric is far from presidential. That said, his policies are NOT far right. That's something the left throws out there in hopes it drums up hatred towards him.
@@erikaoliver2591 Consider who it's often coming from. Extremists tend to see everyone else as extremist. The new terminology the far left has for center left is "right adjacent".
@Down with Corporate Amerika from the guy who uses the term "Amerkkkan" and "white wing". No one is taking you seriously, you bitter little troll. Far right isn't libertarian, if you think that, you're not real smart. I'm squarely in the middle class. Financially, my family was having a much easier time under Trump, than under Biden. You clearly have zero idea what you're talking about.
what a great conversation. I think Haidt and McWhorter would be a great convo also. Though for some reason I kept wondering why Haidts mug had the handle broken off lol
I have been an independent since 1980. I know the sensible policies that conservatives say they believe in, but those sensible policies are not actually pursued by the Republican Party. They proclaim such, but govern to promote a completely corrupt agenda. FRED tells me the truth, and I put my trust in FRED.
I was the first to point out that the anti-racism movement, as well as other movements, was a religion. John McWhorter was the first famous and respected person to point it out.😄
17:49 I move to have the word "stakeholder" removed from the lexicon due to its association with "stakeholder theory" and "stakeholder capitalism" put forth by Klaus Schwab and the creeps at the World Economic Forum. Good video though, very interesting. Liked it.
I started with “The Righteous Mind”, then followed that up with “The Coddling of the American Mind”, and wrapped up with “The Happiness Hypothesis”. Prof. Haidt is a global treasure. His books helped me view political discourse in a new light. Thank you for this interview.
When Haidt talks about teachers becoming worried about student opinion, I would consider the postmodernist 'teachers should learn from students', socialist praxis 'put beliefs into action to force social change', and diversity principals that distrust human decision making (by white hetersoxual males in particular). These ideas help create the culture wars where students challenge teachers.
Wonderful discussion, thank you very much to both of you. (Mr. Haidt, the fact that your eyes are looking at the left of your screen makes it seem like you're looking at yourself talking instead of with Mr. Loury)
J B Yates poem.Things fall apart;the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,The blood-dimmed tide is loosed,and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned;The best lack all conviction,whilst the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
