Conversations with Peter Boghossian playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PLYNjnJFU-62sS7o8YLGJGe7RiKneIYfU2&si=CDn30HYSd9zdBFgP Conversations with Peter Boghossian podcast: pod.link/1650150225
Nice to find that there are decent people out there who realize that DEI isn't just based on false assumptions, it's an affront to classical liberal values insofar as it scapegoats certain groups as the cause for any between group disparities and sacrifices genuine justice at the individual level in the name of group "equity."
I loved how busy Dorian Abbott is! His capacities are huge and he is riding them all at once, with things in the pipeline as well. Great creativity! And same goes for Peter who is a marvelous interviewer. Definitely got the gift of asking clear questions, and not interrupting, something which is so key to good interviews.
This wa brilliant. It's so gratifying to hear calm and rational discussions of difference, as well as simply to witness conversations that rigorously employ basic logical 'moves' -- like defining terms, making key categorical distinctions (e.g. violence vs non-violent abuse), &c.
As Thomas Sowell often reminds us, there are disparities within families raised under the same roof. These are innate and ineradicable. If they can exist within families, they must surely be magnified across time, space and cultures.
Dorian keeps pointing out the middle part of the full thought on Equity. How do you track equal opportunity? Look at the outcome. How you produce equal outcomes? You go back through their lifetime and see if you can correct for all variables. The problem (and completion of the thought) is that even if you were to go back into the past and correct it, you usually don't bring people UP to success, you kneecap people DOWN to failure instead. It is much easier to destroy and deconstruct than construct to excellence.
I used to worked in STEM education about 5 years ago and we also got very good results from designing curriculum with the flipped classroom method. I'm happy to hear those methods are still proving to have good efficacy.
The notion of 'equal outcomes' presupposes that all participants put in the same amount of effort. This cannot be be assumed. All other things being equal, the student who works hard and systematically for 6 or 8 hours a day is likely to do a lot better than one who works unsystematically for 2 or 3 hours a day.
I can tell that people like your guest, and like Helen Joyce, who are direct, succinct and blunt are good matches for you Peter. You respond well to people so laser focused. Like the follow up questions you ask come easier to you. Maybe it’s maths people. They just have a way of seeing logic and stick to it.
Everyone should be thinking about the truth, vs “your truth”. Only by seeking and recognizing the truth, can individuals and society be happy and succeed for the most possible number of people.
Dorian has a fascinating mind. His witty intelligence is so vast he is one step ahead of Peter at every turn. I wish I could have had this man as a teacher sometime in my life. A true rare treasure in academia.
Can you please explain for us non-Americans exactly what a DEI office is and does? Watching your discussions about what goes on in American universities I have learned more or less what they are, but it would help to have it explained more clearly. What it sounds like to me is almost like an Inquisition office. Which isn't a surpise, given all the other analogies between Wokeism and Christianity.
GREAT INTERVIEW! I had never heard of Dorian Abbot before watching this video, his insights are fresh and compelling. To Peter Boghossian: your interviewing skills are commendable and penetrating . Kudos to both of you!
11:35 It feels so refreshing to be able to joke around about “microaggressions” with friends of mine who are from various ethnic backgrounds. Cause we all know it’s kind of ridiculous. I want more of that.
That was fantastic Peter thank you. I’ve followed you for a long time and you’re in your best form when speaking with intellectually honest religious people. Something about the balance there is good for you.
I like his point when he discusses whether a teacher from a specific group, e.g. a black man, will yield better outcomes for black students than a white man who is a better teacher. It makes me think of how much we talk about the value of "representation" in this country. I sometimes agree with the representation arguments, especially when it refer s to members of different groups with equal ability, but the idea that "I didn't know I could be a doctor until I saw another black woman became a doctor," doesn't work unless the aptitude is also there. My 6 foot 2 white teenage son with naturally hair can see a lot of white men with curly hair get signed with the MLB, but that doesn't mean he will ever be able to do that.
They "identify" as their racial distinctiveness. This helps deflect responsibility for failure AND allows them to put their energy into dismantling an unjust society. "Identifying as" is attractive to people for precisely this reason. In 1998 the UK government adopted a policy aimed at ensuring every 18 year old went on to attend an undergraduate University course. We don't need to think much to see where that got us.
He says it plain as day in the first 5 minutes. Their value hierarchy subordinates truth to self-esteem. There is a treasure trove of psychological inferences we can gain just from that single observation.
Except that isn't even achieved as the form of self esteem gained via the policies and treatments that are prescribed are dependant on outside validation and manipulating variables.
Their strength is s STEM graduate's weakness...communication. They are expert with nuance, and art form, and using campy expressions with high face validity and cred. They use the common fallacies that kids leaving high schools don't detect, or that are actually encouraged by their teachers...and parents. So, they run circles (apparently) around the professors in the engineering and science faculties and baffle onlookers with their organizational and administrative skills and ability to get their messages out.
They mostly use shaming tactics. They will accuse of anyone who disagrees with them of any number of sins against the dogma. So they either get people on the defensive or scare them from even voicing a disagreement because most academics are weaklings.
The Critical Race Theorists ironically are acknowledging that the English adjective _white_ in its actual usage means something like _competent, efficient_ or _capable._ Notice that their complaint about the alleged structural/systemic racism we white men constructed to keep the diversitarians subjugated is that it *_WORKS,_* not that it fails. So if _white_ really means _competent,_ what do its apparent antonyms _nonwhite, diverse, inclusive_ and _woke_ have to mean?
You begin with an assumption, then use your assumption to "prove" itself. This is a sign of a neophyte. I agree that DEI & "intersectionality" are extreme and harmful, but your "reasoning" isn't helping us.
@@keep-ukraine-free Is it truly an assumption? If wokism's metric is "equity" while dressed in the guise of being competant administrators, without any regard to accomplishing material and technical good, or, blithly and passionately discrediting those who don't adhere to woke values but instead see things in neutral or nuanced terms, then it isn't an assumption. It's a fact.
Thanks you Peter. We are like-minded. The work you do is invaluable. The Motte and Bailey strategy is used so skillfully in every area of leftist arguments. It is so sad to see so many young people successfully manipulated, as shown in your recent campus video on the trans movement. We must all work hard to turn this mass psychosis and cognitive dissonance around. I thank you for your efforts.
Fascinating interview, thank you both for sharing it. The conclusion that the argument for equating speech to violence is to justify violence in reaction to speech is something I've never thought or heard before and is terrifying but makes sense. I'd be curious to know what Mr Abbot would think of 'Equal opportunity' vs 'Equivalent opportunity'. I suspect "Equal" is problematic as it has a moral connotation, hence, people are "Equal" but are not "Equivalent".
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood? Courage? Compassion? Loyalty? Humility? What do you say, Merlin? Merlin: Hmm? Ah. Ah. Ah, the greatest. Uh, well, they blend, like the metals we mix to make a good sword. Arthur: No poetry. Just a straight answer. Which is it? Merlin: All right, then. Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth above all. When a man lies, he murders some god of the world. You should know that.
This might be my favorite episode ever. I can't stop thinking of our current entering kindergarten classes not only in public schools-unequal, born and raised in violence..given identical opportunity in school but are now throwing chairs and disrupting kindergarten! If children of such "diverse" upbringing are given equal opportunity and now we push SEL plus DEI...we literally get a jello-slave-race outcome of a few who may rise to the top, test to the top via unfair gifted and talented programs (again because of upbringing discrepancies privilege or prejudice or other) so where does this lead into the future? I agree with a "flourishing society" overall and that would say that "natural eugenics" should be a goal-based biological variable meaning if there is "white supremacy" then why isn't the population identifying with white as much as possible if that population has all the power? If you want more power more wealth more control... hypergamy in fairy tales is a good thing, praised, but in real life the woman is a gold digger... redefine and changing word definitions as Kendi is doing or creeping up on the slow redefinition of "violence" is the game across the board in all things which seems the defining process of our now upside down world where good is bad and wrong is right. When will it stop? The current kindergarten classes if any indication means we will be jello-slaves in 15 years.
I enjoyed your conversation. It’s nice to hear people who can use big words properly. I was surprised that neither of you mention this in the “ equality of outcome “ section. Maybe it is because you fairly skirted straight around the issue of intelligence. Obviously, being intelligent does not guarantee success. It is equally obvious that having full agreement on what success is would be unlikely. This alone makes equality of outcome implausible. How is a teacher supposed to make sure all of their students become executives, no matter their individual ability or motivation. Focusing on the outcome doesn’t do anything about the root. If a certain group of people… ones who are disparate… because that is how groups are made (love this. So obvious but so not realized) is doing poorly, there must be some observable patterns to look for. What makes that group a group? Why group black children doing poorly separately from any other student doing poorly? Look at students doing poorly and find what makes them a group. Are they all low income, single parent? If not, why make the correlation? Are they all unmotivated or unintelligent! Well… there ya go. You can not pin the responsibility of outcome on the educational institution because of the bulk of things they have no control over. Two students who graduate from the same school could both be executives, or one could be a crack enthusiast and the other the president of the United States. There is nothing the educational institution could do to ensure they both become “successful” especially since they can’t define “successful” to everyone’s satisfaction.
Equality of opportunity is a horrible idea. To make it even close to happening, it would need to be illegal for parents to raise their own children. Otherwise each parent will try to give their children the best chance of success. Some parents will inevitably be better than others leading to 'inequality'. It's a stupid goal, and it's a relief to see someone else call it out.
From what he states / where he stands one can hear why the University of Chicago is called out as holding the ground against the 'woke' tide. An example for other institutions to learn from.
Science is a means for constructing an objective truth. This is different from discovering the nature of reality. The human being lives in a subjective reality. Subjective experiences and ideas are where the hypothesis originates. Art speaks to something subjective, but often universally experienced in all of us. Karl Popper and Carl Jung understood this in the 1950s. Don Hoffman claims to have proven the inadequacies of the "objective is true" hypothesis. Hoffman's work has demonstrated that science is building a replica of reality, it's not the real thing. The real thing cannot be comprehended or witnessed by humanity. Quantum entanglement, and the double slit experiment admiralty reveal the inadequacy of our experiences and the limitations of our minds.
@@AndyJarman I disagree. Machines would not work if they did not correspond with reality. The double slit experiment just proves the inadequacy of physics theory for explaining light.
If you think "equal" and "opportunity" are hard to define, what pretzel do you have to navigate to come up with "flourishing" as better than those? I can't even begin to guess what it means.
Words can incite some people to violence. Harsh words can make some people feel they're being abused, and make them lash out. These types of people don't understand personal mastery or lack the emotional intelligence of rational people (most rational people). This is a tough debate man, and unfortunately roughly 70 percent of the population are not completely conscious and lack the self awareness to be totally in control of their emotions. It's sad and it's sometimes true but those people will always feel abused when having tough discussions. Geez, I don't know if I'm making any sense, but there it is...
Are you responding to verbal abuse is not violence? My wife was abusive. She was more sophisticated than I was and I have compassion. As a result, all of her attacks were very effective. She enjoyed hurting me. If that isn’t violence, then we need a new word for it. She did throw hands a couple of times. Those attacks were not very effective, even if they landed well.
@rustynails68 that is called verbal abuse, and not violence, for a reason. So she was verbally abusive, so you moved on. Living with a physically abusive spouse prevents a physically weaker person, such as a woman being physically abused by a man, from leaving. A man batters a woman in her own home every nine seconds in the United States alone, where Violent Men kill 3 women in their own home every day, in domestic violence. If you are a victim of verbal abuse, you can leave, but if you're a victim of physical abuse, you are not free to go. That's why all those women are getting killed. When you are being violated verbally, you figure it out and you leave, when you are being violated physically, you have a high chance of getting killed if you try to leave. If not killed you're going to get violently battered. Do you see the difference between verbal and physical abuse, now? The word violent refers to physical violation and we can't change the word just because you feel violated, we all feel violated when someone abuses us verbally, but that's not violent violation, it's still just verbal abuse. It happens in public all the time, and you need to step up and defend yourself against bullies. There is a profound difference between being verbally accosted in public and being assaulted. You can dare to use all the harshest words you want in public and even try to verbally abused people but when you try to punch them, you have completely changed the situation. A famous philosopher of the Enlightenment said it this way, your freedom ends where my nose begins.
Erik Paterson, you made perfect sense. It's rough when people put you down, or when you feel as if they have, but you have to stand up to bullies with your own words, and trying to legislate against bullying puts the physically violated people in greater danger.
@@janelliot5643 My wife kept me suicidal for 20 years. I could have died. I was far to weak to escape, especially with a single income and kids. 50% of abusers are men. Things are better now. When her sex drive faded, so did the quasi orgasmic euphoria that she experienced when she successfully injured me.
The part I wish were different about these anti-woke videos...not just yours, but all of them, is that we have to go almost exclusively to right-wing, Christian folks. It makes it look like that must be the way to go, when in fact, they just happen to align on this issue, but there are so many things about both right-wing people & Christians that need their own "anti" videos.
There are plenty of people pushing back on "right wing" people, like for instance, Sam Seder, Rachel Madow or Cenk Uygur. Sadly there is nothing of value in any of their criticisms.
Not all Christians would consider themselves right wing. I am a Christian and consider myself a centrist as would many in the parish with whom I worship. And my husband is our priest.
outstanding conversation with Dorian.Peter,what about having a conversation with Dorian or his with a christian about the existence of the Christian God: John Lennex et al?
Peter, please read Verlan Lewis & Hyrum Lewis's new book The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America (2023), then please have/record a conversation with the brothers Lewis about their argument, findings, & claims.
i agree. we need to get our young people back to committing to each other and having children. having children completes us. men and women. growing as a family is healthy for children to watch their parents struggle, work and improve for the family.
I have a thought experiment for you. This will reveal much of the underlying thinking of DEI to you. Imagine two candidates applying for a post in a physics department. One of them is a European Jew. The other is a black American. If you give the job to the black American, will that black American come up with, or discover, whatever the European Jew would have if the job went the other way? Does having the job cause the success? If the European Jew is a much better candidate and would produce vastly better work, is it better to give the job to the black American because having the job will mean that black Americans will eventually produce that work? That you will get to the destination in the end? Is it possible that ONLY that specific European Jew could discover or work out something? Would it be better to let that go in order to advance the interests of black Americans? Can you identify all the moving parts here? Are you filling in some information that is not directly included in the above in your thinking? After going through the above, can you identify some useful testable hypotheses?
I'm working with the largest corporations in my city and I'm wondering how every single one has a DEI policy? where is this coming from (I *know,* but who specifically?)
Freedom of speech means freedom from ideological censorship. If this consequence is just that then YES freedom of speech does mean freedom from that consequence it has to to mean anything.
@@joelanderson5285 If you yell bomb at an airport, you are guilty not of speech but of incitement. Ideological censorship is intended to prevent speech itself, not the outcomes
The equality of opportunity discussion really made me question the topic, he raises a good point, but all it did is complexify the topic. I thought it was a black and white topic, but after hearing his point of view, it clearly isn't. The reason why it's good, is that through adversity, comes the works of the great. So opportunity to flourish is important. A lot of business do so, fail time and time again until they find something that succeeds and succeeds big. But same is true with not having the capabilities to be able to flourish despite the adversity. Like for example constantly failing and not even failing upwards, clearly not cut out for it. But I still think overall, equality of opportunity is a net positive. It's a part of the American dream. Coming with little to nothing and succeeding greatly in spite of the adversity.
outstanding conversation with Dorian.Peter,what about having a conversation with Dorian or with a christian about the existence of the Christian God: John Lennex et al?
It's hard to take a scientist seriously, even in his field, when he falls for religious dogma. Someone with even rudimentary critical thinking skills should be able to think their way past that nonsense.
@sebastiansirvas1530 No. The arguments for the existence of any gods are really bad. Most people around me are religious, and I still like them, but their assessment of the evidence is laughable.
@@biggregg5 That really depends on the definition of god or gods they are using. Assuming some sort of caricature of a big man in the clouds or some woowoo mystical sentient force is very uncharitable if one expects a good quality conversation on the issue.
@sebastiansirvas1530 A quality conversation can't be had either if the person claiming there is a god is going to manipulate what a god is supposed to be into nonsense woo.
43:32 No. A hard no, it does not correlate. You can ask me how if you want, but I don't think RU-vid comments is the best place to have this discussion.
39:32 This is where he breaks down and gets it wrong. No one can get it wrong by teaching reality, and the best method for teaching reality is practicing objectivity. Oh yes, and you can quote me on this! 😊😊
By objectivity, you mean transcendental patterning of interpersonal interpretation of extrapersonally co-ordinated experiences? Can you tell me something that has always existed, and will continue to do so in the same state, then how that is of invariant use and value to all to make it sufficiently agreeable and relevant to not be a trivial objectivity? Objectivity is necessary but radically insufficient, same way subjectivity is inescably primary but also insufficient. Same way shutting a L or R eye still allows vision but not necessarily depth, oppositional but not antagonistic processes. I'd recommend Iain McGilchrist and/or John Vervaeke
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 I get why you would desire to frame objectivity in such a way, but I reject what you are trying to do here. Dialectical thinking is a religious belief system. The thesis, objectivity, the antithesis, subjectivity, creating a synthesis between the two to move the dialectic forward is cult religion territory. You can't marry a truth, objectivity, to a lie, subjectivity, and get a more true truth. That is a contradiction of terms and reality. The scientific method rejects "scientific socialism", which employs this kind of dialectical thinking. The scientific method is incongruent with the dialectic and its resulting "scientific socialism". The scientific method, when practiced correctly, is only concerned with objectivity, and does not recognize a dichotomy between the analytic and the synthetic which is a masterful red hearing that comes out of the religious tenants of "scientific socialism. I'm naming the dynamic so you realize I'm stepping outside of your wizards circle where you attempt to frame reality to reflect your religious belief's. I respect your right to have them, I just choose to reject them based on how reality actually works. Good try though.
When Abbot said he didn't subscribe to Equality of Opportunity I almost bounced totally on this interview... he's so unclear. It's almost the litmus test of 2023 reasoning to see that equality of opportunity and equity are fundamentally incompatible. If you say that to some people who are purely outcomes / feelings oriented, their eyes will just goggle in their head as if their brains have just been broken.
Imagine a person who wants to become a surgeon and do appendectomies. He is given a pass through out his schooling and is never corrected. He does not need to practice surgery as that would hurt his feelings if he made a mistake and was corrected. Do you want him to operate on your child?
Rather than being treated equally, I would prefer to be treated individually, where possible. I am not equal to the next person, but I am an individual and should be treated as such.
The evidence for 'happier' religious people is actually incredibly shaky. I love these conversations but Peter could give the guests a little more replies.
How do we create more Dorian Abbott’s in the academy? I will happily fund this. As an investor, I see the long term benefit of fostering this sort of thinking.
@@drpeterboghossian Thank you. Just looked this up. After paying for one of my kids to go to school near there at UT, this looks like a better use of my money. Adding University of Austin to where we donate.
In order for there to be equal outcome(s), the choices of those who decide that, if they have choice, must be geared with or align with whateverdetermines "equal outcome" (infavour of it being predetermined equal)... otherwise someone might not agree. Say, that if you are a widget designer and your widget designs are more popular than another widget designer's, then you must have gotten an unequal opportunity or how could that be an equal outcome or "equality of outcome? It shows that the decision is taken out of your hands and does not really apply to you, at least not to you, if you are defined as having a choice. Your only choice is not to believe you have one, or not to believe in nonsubmission to some mechanized authority that is considered to be all knowing, beyond your knowing, and to whom you submit as the final judge ( and jury), in determining a final equitable outcome. This relieves you of all choice input, but you do get the choice to obey for the good of "equity of outcome" achievement goals. It would then just be a matter of keeping disagreeable people or influences "under wraps."
I in some way received a warning from RU-vid that I may have done something wrong . I've read RU-vid's conditions etc. , yet I'm confused on for what I commented that may be foul . RU-vid , if you read this please let me know what I might or what I did wrong ... Thank you , M. Weber
Abbot states that he thinks that "human flourishing" is more important than equality of opportunity, but I am not clear what that means, apart from the obvious. Is it acceptable for a society to have a class of people--social, racial economic, whatever--that, while most of their needs are met, simply cannot access higher education? Who flourish in the sense that they have adequate nutrition and housing and health care, but can't really get ahead because of income or educational inequality? I'd be curious for more explanation in this regard.
By higher education do you mean no access to phones and the internet as the equivalence of higher education is readily available on RU-vid and google for those with sufficient drive
@@notmyrealpseudonym6702 I'm far from convinced that the average person derives the same benefits from RU-vid and Google as they would from a degree from, say, Yale or the University of Pennsylvania, or even a community college, so I can't even answer that question.
Socioeconomic mobility does not necessarily require greater socioeconomic equality. If that class of people exist merely out of their natural characteristics and free decisions without anyone going against their (negative) rights, what os the problem? If someone is not happy with that syaye of aggairs, why should he force everyone else (going against their negative rights) into doing what he thinks will address the issie instead of finding people that think like him and voluntarily using his own wealth to help?
"Verbal abuse is violence" Not only is verbal abuse not violence, that also goes into exactly what they mean by "abuse". For the radical Woke ideologues, "abuse" is broadly defined as anything that does not conform totally to their ideology as it currently exists (i.e. something that was previously not "abuse" can become "abuse" if the ideology changes). There seems a common theme. The justification for violence from the Woke ideologues boils down to "someone disagrees with my ideology, therefore they are committing "violence" against the woke ideologues, to which a violent reaction is (to them) justified".
My human nature being what it is, this would result in recepicating with actual violence; and I could justifiy it just by looking at what happened with historical communism, and then engage in pre-emptive self-preservation. I wonder if these people know this and are engaged in grifing revolution in order to wipe out the old and bring in the new? (but they're actually bringing in decredited old and calling it new)
