Beyond Reason: Why we Hate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ต.ค. 2024
- Tired of arguing in circles? It's not always about facts. This video explores the underlying emotional and moral dimensions of disagreements. Discover strategies for bridging divides and fostering meaningful dialogue. Have you ever been so tired you just can’t anymore, but anxious in a way that won't let you rest? This is unrelated to the description, I just want to vent. I’m making this video to get rid of this anxious gnawing feeling I got last week that I have to do something meaningful, but once I release it I’m not sure if that feeling will go away. Even if it does, the exhaustion might just take over. Here's hoping for a better tomorrow.
Citations:
Jonathan Haidt & Craig Joseph. Intuitive ethics: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues web.archive.or...
Jonathan Haidt. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. 2012. ISBN 978-0307377906
Graham, Jesse; Nosek, Brian A.; Haidt, Jonathan; Iyer, Ravi; Koleva, Spassena; Ditto, Peter H. (2011). "Mapping the moral domain" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101 (2): 366-385. doi:10.1037/a0021847. web.archive.or...
This reminded me that Arda was flat and the Undying Lands could be reached by ship until the fall of Numenor, when God separated the Undying Lands and made the rest of the world into a globe. Tolkien is great at creating that feeling of wistfulness and melancholy.
I think what you're saying here is really important. It's definitely true that people hamstring themselves rhetorically by ignoring their opponents' moral contexts. Even when there's no chance of convincing your opponents, I think it's still important to try to understand what they're feeling, just to remind yourself that they're not crazy or inhuman.
If nothing else, even if half the world is inhuman, we all still live together. I think understanding is a tool to be able to negotiate meaningfully.
Wistful for what. Tolkien today or maybe always was something for white Europeans to separate themselves from the mortals.
@@ColtraneTaylor Wistful for pre-industrial England, among other things. I don't think his books have much to say about modern racial politics.
@@zeumai Deflection.
@@ColtraneTaylor Pick a fight with someone else, bud.
When you talk i feel you are looking right through my soul
Huh, interesting.
First video of yours that I've encountered. Served up by the all-mighty Algorithm (blessed be the machine) to me...
Sometimes you get empathetic gold, other times you get false climate solutions
By the way, I just linked my Global Ethics students to this video, because I was discussing Haidt. Thanks for a short, accessible video on this topic!
Short, accessible and, one might add, with a leftist spin. The interaction between leftists and conservatives based on the differences in moral foundation actually favor leftists generally: Because conservatives can feel more empathy for their arguments than the other way around. That is how I have learned about it at least, and it makes sense that have a wider range of values actually means that you have more empathy generally. And that is what other psychological research have found about the leftist/conservative person difference. Although, this obviously clashes with how leftists always portrays themselves.
I like Haidt. His stuff was influential on me when I was doing my MA Thesis. I ended up realizing that the true problem of moral disagreement lay deeper, in a potentially unresolvable and unprovable set of core beliefs and values. If people truly disagreed on these, there would be no hope for moral agreement, unless we could somehow, without argument, move them to our position. The ultimate moral foundations, truths about what we have reason to care about for its own sake, is something that modern people now are deeply divided over. Nihilism, when truly embraced, makes argument impossible. What ultimately worries me is that, at the end of all my research, I concluded that there was no way to defeat nihilism through rational means.
should’ve called the video Why We Haidt
I think I agree about not being able to change other people's morals. What I'm advocating is moving back to a world no longer in gridlock where we can at least negotiate our positions? To do that we have to recognize people with other beliefs as fully human and identify the source of their motivations, which is often different than what they profess.
For example, if some "neighborhood preservation" group is blocking new low income housing because they say it is "super important but we really need more businesses instead" you could get lost circling them on the facts of zoning. Or you could realize they are feeling a "degradation" to their neighborhood and instead negotiate for something else they actually want.
@@HGModernism Yes I completely agree. I think, overall, what has been considered the "internalist" approach to ethical disagreement (appealing to their existing moral motivations and sentiments) is the most practical and effective in terms of convincing people and getting things done. I have faith that, for the most part, there is a fairly universal core of moral sentiments that arguments can be built upon.
My big concern is that what unites us has been buried so far down in the American psyche that the time and effort it takes to dig that deep and come to substantial agreement will prevent the vast majority of people from engaging in that sort of dialogue. We are so averse to basing political and social decisions on values other than economic impact that I have a hard time imagining the American public ever having real conversations about, say, the aesthetics of a neighborhood and the moral value of maintaining a beautiful community. Until we normalize bringing non-material values into the public sphere--and having substantive dialogues about them--we'll essentially always be stuck in grid lock, I think. We have to elevate morals to the level of logic and reasons, in order for there to be a possibility of resolving tensions between them. Otherwise, grid lock between competing values can only be resolved by (a) rhetorical manipulation or (b) force or (c) segregation.
Haidts theory is far too simplistic and entirely too willing to portray self-identified conservatives as some kind of deep, reasoned people. He attributes entirely too much credit to their "moral foundation" and fails to ask himself "what relevance the foundation has if the structure built on it is shit?"
fake news, Arda was always a donut, wake up sheepelves
Your videos are so well-made, Keep making them!
Really really excellent video. We often forget that human beings are composed equally of emotions and logic, and while facts are essential in order to agree upon a logical baseline, if we ignore the emotions of ourselves or others, we're missing out on an entire part of discourse, and the experience of each other and ourselves as well. Job well done, and I can't wait to see more!
I adore this. I hope more people come across it. Sorely needed wisdom these days.
My brother and I were discussing this phenomenon a couple weeks ago--cool to see it formalized! We also explored how a person's morals can also lead them to have logical incongruencies baked into their moral framework. Glad I stumbled onto this video!
Your videos are very interesting, just binged through all of them. Keep up the good work!
Words and their definitions play an essential role here. For example, you mentioned that libertarians value "liberty", but what does that entail? Marx was also invested in "liberty" and claimed that we can only be truly free and develop ourselves individually if we are free from labour exploitation and from the existence of classes that hold some of us back. Needless to say, libertarians do not see capitalism as infringing on liberty, which may or may not be argued with.
Property is a subtle contradiction - or really, tension - at the heart of liberalism in all its forms. Read Ian Dunt's new book.
besides, just the fact that authority is put in the same side as care and subversion in the same side as harm, both being orthogonal to liberty, is enough to make me feel like this system can't really include my morals, for exemple
@@whophd to go back before Marx, Proudhon also argued that. The point still stands that libertarians disagree and that there can be conflicting views on what "liberty" even is
My problem with the other side is that I was on that side at one point, and came to realize how abusive their beliefs are. They would disagree of course, but people often don't realize how much damage they do with their beliefs. Or even worse, they don't care, and welcome the damage that they do.
The algorithm has blessed me today
I just found your channel a minute ago and I'm already subbing! I don't know what background you come from, but these videos are really nice food for thought.
I am adding this to my pile of important things.
I just binge watched all of your videos and subscribed! Everything you talk about is getting me excited about learning but these videos about arguing, debating, political polarisation are on another level still. I haven't heard anyone else talk about these ideas which really promote empathy as well as pragmatic solution finding. Amazing stuff, it'd be a delight to learn more from you. Oh no this sounds like one of those generic "thank you for getting me to think bot comments. Ahhhh I'm not a bot love the hair okay byeee
This was so insightful! Thanks for making this video!!
I feel like it would be better if we could just point blank ask each other to state our values. I feel as if the space of "care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, liberty" might be limiting what we can see people's moral foundations as stemming from.
Maybe this is just me, but I can say moral foundations can be changed, or at least the level right above those emotional foundations to change such that it practically resembles different foundations.
I say this mostly cause that happened to me, and a few others I know. I grew up being a staunch libertarian with conservative leanings for context. I was very much on the "harm" side, preferring punishment as a method to correct societal ills, "fairness" where I would rather a social assistance program be removed if people exploited it, "liberty" cause libertarian however I defined it more along economic lines in contrast to how I do now. I didn't care for sanctity however, to me everything was dispassionate and nothing was sacred.
But over the next 15 years I went from that to a vaguely reactionary classical liberal, to a neoliberal/centrist pickme, to a socdem, to a syndicalist, and now a democratic socialist or really just any kind of leftism that works (I'm not picky at this point). Worth pointing out that during all of this I was accepting myself as trans and transitioning.
The weird thing is I now have a very collective utilitarian view of care, where harm is minimized. I've retooled my fairness to be more about correcting unfair systems such as capitalism, where a few "unfair" people who cheat any social program is negligible. Liberty was restricted down to rights that don't do collective harm (so your typical progressive causes). Interestingly I actually gained a non-conservative take on sanctity where I get the typical disgust response to certain values or actions, for example a lot of bigoted views and ones apathetic to suffering. I can say it is a very visceral feeling that I didn't really get before.
I'd also say from my experience the values bleed into each other, care/liberty/sanctity can all support each other depending on the belief itself. A good example is many conservatives frame their anti-trans views in the language of "caring" about trans people. It's just their version of "care" is forceful detransition.
Yeah but I find it depressing. A lot of people will always fundamentally disagree with me no matter what I say.🤷
I agree that it's crucial to try to understand how other people think and what they value. But, like much of Haidt's work, it seems to imply that all values and ways of thinking are equal, which is not true. Another point he misses is that, while we all want to believe we are driven by core values, we tend to implement these values in ways that are best for us.
Do you believe that perhaps polarisation and disagreement is (or at least has become) a deliberate feature of Western ‘democracy?’
I like the cool T-shirt.
I really love your videos. As someone who doesn't really get to vote. Its nice to see there are ways we can talk about topics in a productive way to achieve better end results.
Keep the cool videos up :)
I read that book. Highly recommended.
Great videos! Keep it up!
Geeeeeeeeeeeesh..... 😳ANNNND you're *ACTUALLY, LEGITIMATELY,* MENTALLY AND INTELLECTUALLY brilliant: 😦
WHO KNEW??! 👁.☝🏽😉
People get very emotional if i mention that eating animals means harming them, therefore it's animal abuse. I get that no one what's to believe they're animal abusers. How can I explain this in a way they people understand? Any recommendations?
Consider that the way you’re defining the word ‘abuse’ in this case is not necessarily how others would define it. You will easily fall into the trap of arguing semantics and talking past each other. Killing is not always abuse, even though a possible interpretation of the definition of abuse includes killing, because it’s violent and obviously harms the victim of it.
You may disagree on whether killing is ever justified. It may be more productive to start there and figure out where your actual disagreement stems from.
I think you sort of answered your own question here in a way. You correctly pointed out that accusing people of abuse is inflammatory language and will not serve you. Practice understanding what they believe and why; then meet them where they are rather than expecting them to do the work of figuring out where you’re coming from and meeting you there.
Good lord above this is such a good comment!
As a fellow vegan, I agree with what is stated above. More "neutral" language can help. For instance, you may say that eating animals is both unnecessary (in the context of most people you interact with) and that it is harmful (because it, well, kills and exploits animals). If that is established, most people will concede that they should avoid something that is both unnecessary and harmful (as much as possible and practicable, as stated in the definition of veganism).
Also, you need to find out what kind of person you are dealing with... There is a difference between online and irl arguments, between arguing with trolls who enjoy pissing vegans off and someone who simply never considered any of that... One needs to adapt to the audience (if you care about convincing them, of course).
I just had another online converstaion about how people lock up when they are called racist. Most people don't think of themselves as racist, and it's not their intent to be. But we all grew up in a racist society and older people for example might be used to slurs which for them are just normal. Or people have actually harmful stereotypes about certain groups being dangerous. Similarly, like you said, no carnivore sees themselves as an animal abuser but we all grew up in a "carninormative" society. When you tell people "hey you as a person are bad, the thing you did says something about you as a person and it was bad", they are less likely to listen to you then if you clarify "I know you don't mean any harm, but just consider what you just did or said and what effect it has on others. Not how you meant it, just what it means from an outside perspective. Can you see how that is iffy?" That really works if the person is actually acting in good will and open to change
@edgbarra Tell people the truth. For you will never alter your society's acceptance,
that meat ( sanitised from the reality of the abattoir ) is a prime source of nourishment.
Remind them... "two hundred million farm animals were slaughtered today... for the meat,
for you to eat. ...and tomorrow, another two hundred million."
And watch, as they will glaze over and within five minutes forget every word you said.
This world is devoid of fairy tale conclusions. Stories with cathartic endings,
are human inventions that exist only in the human mind. Just know every creature,
no matter how long or how wretched their existence is... if they remain in the present,
it is manageable. And is far better to experience life, than to never exist at all.
You can't negotiate with someone who delights in human suffering. When you poll them, they will lie, list myriad principles (whichever is most useful to their argument), and then act with malicious intent.
It actually wouldn't hurt to get in the minds of these people. Not saying that you have to deal with abusive situations but help learn what created a person like that in the first place.
@@shadyd2544 It's definitely useful to "get in their mind," but solely as a way to capture, contain, and possibly treat them. attempting to negotiate with them 'on their terms' in good faith is unproductive at best.
@@triangleunderstander Yes, you can't even offer them what will objectively help them and improve their lives. They prefer to pull others down than to move up at all, even zero effort. There was a Batman movie quote about this …
@whophd When did you ever get the impression that people do what's most logical the vast majority of the time? They say your brain knows what it's going to do before you conciouly think it most the time. Not saying we shouldn't at least try to be logical but there are a ton of unknown variables you can't accout for.
@whophd Not to mention also I don't think the people your talking about actively see it that way most the time. Not many people see themselves as true villains at the end of the day. Sometimes there's no way of knowing which direction we are going because it's not black and white
We hate because of greed
The sheer joy of it?
People are often scared to acknowledge this as a motivation.
@@triangleunderstanderIt goes against the idea of human nature being inherently good.
@@stevecooper7883 it's scary when people are in near-complete denial of the monsters in our midst. to their credit, the human social instinct does foster cooperation and empathy (which most people would consider "good") for survival reasons (individual humans are weak), but... people can easily become psychologically malformed, and those same instincts can be played against us.
...what if someone is liking the "immoral/negative" side of the concepts more?
Don't you wish someone would aline character traits and social development to trading areas on a map. Then assign smart tracking (phone) for each and every individual to follow.
Of course include monthly schedules based on the moon phase and copyright sanctions. Would be nicer...
Grug like this woman. She do a big think. Grug impressed with her bravery. Even small think hurts brain.
Nice video keep it up!
1:04 Jonathan…WAIT!?
Not going to work, sadly. The beauty and strength of diversity which I perceive as a moral good is directly at odds with the "purity" that right-wing authoritarians prize. The broad public political engagement and widespread questioning of authority which I consider to be the mark of a truly virtuous society is directly at odds with the "authority/respect" pillar. And the accountability for mistakes and desire for justice which I prize as a positive virtue flies directly in the face of the "loyalty" pillar ("My country/leader/team/party/faction, right or wrong").
Haidt is a persuasive writer, but he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the central political divide in modern society, which is between authoritarianism and egalitarianism. Either you believe that some people should rule while others should be ruled, or you believe that people should share power and rule themselves to the greatest extent. That is the point of contention. Historically, authoritarianism has, unsurprisingly, been in charge of virtually every society in history. Modern culture recognizes for the first time ever that, not only have they been getting it wrong all this time, but also that things do not have to stay this way. The transition from authoritarian to egalitarian society is messy and scary and it leads many people to long for the "good old days" when "everyone knew their place". Authoritarianism is attractive for its simplicity. But authoritarianism in various forms has also created the existential threats of environmental devastation and nuclear war. We can't dig our way out of those holes by digging deeper. Only an egalitarian culture can defeat these threats to human survival. Either we succeed, or humanity goes extinct. I wish it were not so, but there it is.
This is probably the worst understanding of conservatism I have ever read, and starting off assuming this is what any particular conservative wants or is motivated by is the perfect way to avoid a meaningful conversation about worldviews.
It's one thing to disagree whether or not conservatism leads to the ills you think it does, it's another to assume that is the ideals of most conservatives.
@@Chicky_Lumps Interesting that you chose to criticize my view of conservatives when I didn't even mention them. I'm rtalking about right- wing authoritarians. Do you think that's what conservatives are? What is it you think they're trying to conserve? Real conservatives seek to preserve and protect things that should be conserved. Right wing authoritarians seek to restore an imagined golden age when things were good, typically by eliminating a perceived social enemy which they perceive as a disease that must be purged. If you are conflating the two, that says a great deal about you and your beliefs.
@@joanmoriarity8738 I think I misunderstood your comment, it read like you were generalizing anyone right of center as falling into this specific group.
You have so many bots commenting on your posts, and i'm not even sure you're not in charge of them at this point LOL
Maybe there is something basic to human nature that people need someone to hate as much as they need someone to love. Why? For the same kind of instinct that nearly every wild animal that you approach too closely will either flee or start warning and threatening.
Hate can be like sport, making people feel like a superior, winning team.
Not all hate is morally equal. The Nazis who hates the Jew is a being an ignorant, arrogant, calloused animal, using a scapegoat. The Jew who hates the Nazis has damned good reasons.
Do not fall for "both-sides-ism".
lol. wow, of course thats your arguement.
never look into why the N's hated the J's.
Haidt is such a joke. His definitions for all of these categories are dubious at best.
Care and fairness are supposed to be the root of liberal social policy but are defined as individualistic.
Sanctity means a narrow band of religious zeal.
"Loyalty" here, meaning blindly loyal patriotism. "Authority" meaning blind deference to authority.
Liberty is never clearly defined like everything else, and there is never a distinction between concern for one's own liberty and concern for liberty as a prevailing social condition.
As a moral framework, this is utterly insane.
As a tool of political analysis, this offers all the insight of getting kicked in the head by a horse.
Psychologically there may something to moral foundations as a concept, but this model has more to do with Haidt's own political neuroses than political thought.
Ugh, I dislike Dr. Haidts works so much. He simplifies the situation to a point beyond usefulness and then tries to "both sides" the result.
Yes - it’s much better to focus on ONE side, your side, which is obviously the correct side, and the other side is obviously wrong, and they should be properly vilified. Huh huh. 🙄
@@RC-qf3mp wtf are you on about?
@@gonzoengineering4894It really isn't that hard to figure out :)
But unironicly. One side is good, and one side is evil. this is fairly obvious if you open your eyes.
@@Bassanova100fucking delusional, good and evil are spooks and non existent, more people should read stirner
No insane person believes that they're insane. I could be completely out of my mind and i wouldn't know.
not actually true, compulsive thoughts and delusions are not always fixed or absolute, and even a full-blown hallucinatory psychosis can have a measure of self-awareness, especially if it's not the first time. Still, for most people you're probably right.
that dichotomy between "individual" and "collective" values seems completely arbitrary to me. I'm literally a communist and I don't give a fuck about authority or sanctity (and loyalty is entirely neutral, the SS were fanatically loyal), whereas "care, fairness and liberty" are kinda the 3 most important reasons to want a communist society. But then I suppose as a communist I'm obliged to point out Marx would call this whole video bourgeois idealism.
Are we supposed to be impressed that you don't care about sanctity? Or are we supposed to discredit sanctity since you apparently "don't give a fuck" about it and you're apparently very important?
Hey, I remember when I grew up, too. It'll happen to you.
@@darklazerx7913 why are you so upset about me expressing an opinion you disagree with?
@@Sercer25 i'm sure that rate of profit will rise one day, keep holding out
There’s a 2500+ year tradition in the West that has thoroughly analyzed all these issues. It’s called “philosophy”. Nothing new here. Why bother reading Haidt when the most sophisticated thinkers of the past hundreds of years have thoroughly contemplated all these issues and made great progress? See Hume, Kant, Hegel, McIntyre, Rawls, Nozick, Gadamer, Habermas, etc. but now…you go with… Haidt? Like watching minor league instead of major league.
It's fine, we've seen the $100 answer, now let's take the $250 please
It would be an interesting topic if you and most your commentors didn't see it through narrowminded american left view lense. Its tiresome at this point, really. All i see is echo-chamber, almost cult-like behavior.
Sincerely, some random lurker from asia who got randomly recommended your video.
The right has its own echo chamber, both tiresome i must say
@@plaidchuck they don't try to push their ideology to me, not infiltrated every possible media and ruin them.
All your American politics and propaganda is annoying. Especially the "we are in the right side of history" position, looking down on other nations and trying to lecture them and force to be cater to you.
Id not care about right or left, but your far left is a crazy movement that makes most other world hate you. Your right it's barely noticable outside of few clowns.
It is such a joke that you are talking about facts and morals.
Can you please tell me the context, because it seems she has only made a few videos, and none of the topics seem controversial. What specifically do you dislike?
@@darklazerx7913 I have a feeling this is a bot account, all of their comments are really generic
Your talk about morals makes me sick.
Too fast a talker for me. Way too fast
.75 speed is your friend
low iq
Acting in good faith? That is a laugh. You're doing nothing but telling lies. Bring out these "facts". I want to hear them.
When I see you, I know why we hate...
the t-shirt reference made me chuckle :D
The anti vaccine grip of Australia is crazy