I'm white, married to a Vietnamese woman. I know exactly what Mr Haidt means about racial humor in that context. It's positively a bulwark of our marriage and a plentiful source of laughs. She calls me round eye all the time and it absolutely cracks me up. I tell her that if I'm ever in a physical fight I want her near so that her latent Kung fu skills, inherent to her race, will at last surface and be put to good use. There's just something healthy about it to me. I can't quite describe it.
A shop keeper in a cash and carry who was asked for 2 kilos of glutenous rice looked at my Cambodian husband and said no you 10 kilo and promptly gave him the bag 😂 He has haughed at it ever since. He will spontaneously walk around the house and say "no, me ten kilo" He didn't question it and paid dutifully. I would never dream of saying that but he makes me laugh every time. I think she looked at his belly to be honest 😂.
its because ir reaffirms the strength of your relationship. If your relationship can withstand "racist" jokes, it means its highly resilient and strong. The same would be with insults (all in good faith of course) even of the personal kind. The worse the poking without cracking the relationship, the stronger it is. Its extremely satisfying and reassurring to poke the relationship from time to time, like jiggling a chair before sitting on it, to ensure it can withstand your weight. Its also useful in 'identity' relations in society, and its no wonder that the same people that profit from these all sorts of divisions (the more the divisions, the more you can step in and 'lecture' people and be the 'hero'), are the same people trying to prevent other people from making such jokes.
In the US it seems the radicals push for power may have come up short. They got control of the government but were not quite able to permently keep themselves in power with HB1 that would have put them in control of national elections. Dr. Haidt's chart shows that conservatives are about systems and liberals (the US kind) about people. But what is also shows, at least to me, is that the liberals are devoid of respect. But his chart does not depict the leaders attitudes. When the mob comes you have to pick a side whether you want to or not.
By that time it’ll be too late. The CC P will dominate the world, and all the young weaklings of this American generation will finally learn about hardships
Fair statement. Undermining all of the hard work of the civil rights period is not progressive at all. This is what Black Leaders did back in the day (1954-1968): Grace. Reconciliation Love. This is what White Leaders are doing when they enable Neo-Marxit with CRT: Guilt Reperations. Hate. Blacks actually voted more for Trump in 2020 than 2016, and that was after 4 hard years of labeling Trump as the ultimate Racist. Just like the Jonathan reports in this video, 4:18. The more the left makes it about idenity, the more voters they lose. 100% agree. Same goes for Spanish Americans in Texas and Florida. It's not about voting for the GOP, its about voting against the Libtards. But like Jonathan said in the video. This will take care of itself. The Mid-Term elections are going to be huge for the GOP. And they did very little to go after voters. They are coming to them.
What distinguishes one politician from another? What is job security? How do I survive my 4 year performance review? Is it easier to convince an informed public..... or an uninformed public. Ask the right questions and they answer themselves. Give politicians a time limit.
Somehow it will burn itself out??? How much damage has to be done first? This is both physical damage and all kinds emotional and mental damage. This is nuts.
You see the us/them thinking all over the comments on channels like Steven Crowder and Mark Dice. I tend to agree with the politics to some degree, but then they go full on with the derision of the entire category of 'The Left'. Turns me right off. As Jordan Peterson said in a speech in the middle of a protest against him "Don't let them provoke you"
ATT John Anderson : Perhaps you could interview a pollster type person and look at how the various election scenarios play out. For instance if One Nation and UAP harness a lot of votes. What effect will that have on the parliament. In summary I'm asking does a "protest vote" achieve what the protestor wants? Or is it counter productive to their intention?
UAP is now the largest political party in Australia, by membership (no I am not a member of any party). What that means once the count is finalised and preferences are distributed remains to be seen, however it does prove the point I made earlier, there are many people that do not fit into the false dichotomy. I would also refute the suggestion that it is merely a protest vote, the impression people have given me is that they are deeply shocked and revolted by what they have seen both major parties do.
Jonathan, you might want to update your research. Care today is no longer care of the past. Today, generally speaking, care is a tool used to virtue signal and to gain power. Why? Because care is selective, depending on your politics and class. True care would be blind to those things. Even in the medical community, politics trumps care!
this is balderdash. Firstly, nobody has a monopoly of compassion. It is simply a case of how to express it. "Be cruel to be kind" is an old expression. The left is an idealology of collective, coercive conformity which is the exact opposite of the right's individual freedom & choice. Care is subjective. You do not care for people by telling them what to do. That is unfair & often counter productive. Loyalty, authority & sanctity all stem from coercive conformity. They are not right wing at all. History is not a linear progression. There are always times of regression. Conservative is more likely to be a left wing mantra, as when there are strikes about the closure of coal mines. Simply put, people do not normally like change. Nothng progressive about that. The right is much more likely to embrace change & progression by innovation and invention. These are all reasons why socialism has never flourished anywhere at any time. This professor likes his income but not the truth. As for morality, that is a subjective expression of a culture. Once it was "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". This is thousands of years old Babylonian morality, supposedly ditched by Christianity. No morality is eternal and changes with society, which always is subjective for its times.
You should read his book and find out how he came to his conclusions and the methods he used, instead of just claiming that the conclusions themselves are wrong based off of your own conjecture.
@@guyvert49 Neither do I man but Haidt isn't woke. In fact he co-wrote a book about how woke ideas are damaging to students, it's called 'The Coddling of the American Mind'. You really should read someone's work before you critique it! All the best.
@@tomlewis7898 the critique hit home nonetheles it seems. But back to the basic premise. Left & right are not about compassion or idealism or authoritanism but about how the state controls its people. You should strive to understand that there is a continuum & that the extreme left is about slavery & the extreme right about liberty. That is the guiding principle, not some arbiitrary moral compass. The basic question is about the extent of collective, coercive conformity as opposed to individual freedom & choice. All these other concepts have nothing to do with the case. That is why National Socialism, Fascism & Marxist/Communism are left wing & Democracy is right wing. Perhaps you should read & understand what I write before you respond
I understand what you're saying and I have heard it before. According to you right wing authoritarianism simply doesn't exist, by definition. It sounds like you are one of those people for whom 'the left' or 'the right' just means "everything I don't like in politics". You were quick to label Haidt as 'woke' because you see his ideas as contrary to your own. But I really do think you would benefit from and enjoy his book 'The Righteous Mind' as he does do a good job of explaining what actually drives our differing political beliefs from a psychological perspective, and how they are rooted in fundamental moral emotions like fear and disgust (which are themselves pre-rational and coded into the limbic system), and that this also helps to explain why some care more about things like liberty than others do. You seem like you've been thinking about these things a lot I would have thought that this book would already be on your radar, it is almost a decade old. Cheers.
I don’t think much of ‘identity politics’ lines. Right now in federal politics the extreme right Qld LNP fringe is breaking away from the Morrison government because of covid restrictions and vaccine mandates by the state government. There’s no rational reason for this but cultural, libertarian ‘identity’ posing by the right’s meme-driven anti-government extremists, but it is never called out with the labels the right likes to apply to the left. It is the job of politicians to assemble coalitions. Just because groups are different or new these days is irrelevant. Today, the right of the Coalition is battling with Newman and Palmer for their loopy fringe, trying to assemble coalitions of voters exactly over right wing identity politics.
I agree with much (but not all) what was said here but I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the approach taken. It is assumed that the definition of 'Left' and 'Right' are fully defined and agreed by all. I do not believe this to be so. For example populism is widely portrayed as a right wing trait but it invariably involves a large degree of social or economic control which are associated with the left. This is not meant to be a fait accompli but only to show how complicated the concepts of right and left actually are. Daniel Hannan gave the best definition of right and left when he said the left wingers see themselves as 'goodies' and therefore anything bad must be right wing.
As a former far left progressive I assure you that the left does not “care” more than the right. The simply talk about caring more than the right does. The right takes action.
In my observation the left has a much more narrow and intense kinda of empathy. It’s almost like the empathy of people on the right is like a lantern, that shines more faintly but in all directions. The empathy of the left is like a high intensity flash light. It’s very intense but only shines in one direction. It’s hyper tribal.
This statement is simply a platitude with no meaning. Haidt's books address this in detail. Left and right wing folks tend to focus on different populations, issues, and approaches. Although folks who swing from far left to the right are an interesting case. Somehow totally changed your taste buds.
@@alanjenkins1508 The right isn't necessarily better at it; rather they prefer to spend money on a bloated military that doesn't always have the best return. For instance, a better healthcare model would save more lives than any new weapons system.
"highlight commonalities" 95% of the MSM does the exact opposite. Same with higher education which is all about oppressor vs oppressed. Which force drives these intuitions?
What’s all this calm, rational, intelligent, respectful discussion? How can anyone understand the complexity of issues and broaden their minds this way? I prefer pundits shouting “racist!” like they do on the tv news.
We'll never learn anything just by rational discussion. : ) Discussion and considered debate is becoming a dying necessity. Sad that is it 2021 and with the push of the 'progressives' we have regressed as a community and population. I thought we got over these hurdles in the 1946-1970 era. But these last dozen years have slipped on the proverbial banana peel back to early 20th century or more.
“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself. ” -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
And culture is constrained by many factors. And politics are unconstrained because the anointed can save us from ourself. This is from the book, a conflict of visions, by Doctor T. Sowell.
@@travisdonaldstanley6420 that sounds like “great man theory”. Where only a small proportion of humans is meant to lead humanity through their superior intellect, character, and morality. That line of thinking has led to countless atrocities in history. And has also been disproven by sociological findings that after all, it was never the charismatic figureheads, but the masses that actually drive history.
@@Charles-pf7zy Their goal is to drive the thinking of the masses. " The unconstrained (utopian) vision Edit Sowell argues that the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as "the self anointed." Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society"
I like Jonathan, but his assessment is wrong. The difference between the left and the right lies in where they think accountability should be. The left thinks that the problem is always external to them, the world, a system, or the rest of society. The right thinks that the responsibility lies with the individual. You can also think of it as collectivists vs individualists. Compassion has nothing to do with it, it's simply a convenient rationalization that satisfies the ego.
I agree this dichotomy of external vs internal accountability exists and is fairly central to each worldview but I’m not sure it is what defines left vs right. People are more complex than that. It sounds like your right wing heightened sense of fairness is focussing on this particular aspect of our differences. Just my 2 cents worth… I could be wrong.
@@davidraymond4616 Why would pointing out the differences in ideological belief systems make me right wing? I'm using the very words they do to describe their systems.
By you definition Nazis who are clearly right wing are individualist, right? The national socialist party was anything but individualistic, it was highly collectivistic and ‘exclusive’. Individualism is something very liberal. So it really depends on how much you stretch ‘right’. Does it cover traditionalists as long as traditionalists have liberal roots like in the USA? Or does it exclude liberal at all and narrow down on exclusiveness thus racism, nationalism and fascism? For me right wing starts where liberal ends, this includes individualism. And individualism ends where it harms other individualism. A basic respectful coexisting life requires cooperation and to a certain degree collective rules. And this is already collectivism to me. Both can exist along with each pretty well. I guess what you meant is communism, where indeed individualism is almost completely eliminated. Right wing is always exclusive, in regards to nation, race, religion or other exclusive traits. Left wing is exclusive to a certain degree and interestingly in a way very close to right wing regarding its absolutistic views and liberal is pretty much inclusive. I wouldn’t call republicans liberals, rather traditionalists because they are exclusive in so many ways, same goes for the left as much as they like to view themselves as inclusive. Just for information, the right-left terminology originates from the seat order of the parliament of the Weimarer Republic (today Germany) between 1918-1933 where the nationalists and fascist sat on the right side(wing) and the internationalists and communists sat on the left side. They consciously choose to sit as much afar from each other as possible because they are sworn enemies. P.S. the Republican Party in the US for me is basically a traditionalist party that tries to implement elements of liberalism in the framework of traditions and nationalism, thus they dance on the volcano all the time. It is undergoing a dangerous transformation to a right wing party in my opinion and becoming more chauvinistic, racist, imperialistic and totalitarian and less liberal, that’s why I chose to call it a dance on top of a volcano. Certainly Trump fuels those right wing sentiments and has dramatically changed the Republican Party into a right wing party.
I'm so pleased there are rational people such as Dr. Haidt exploring this subject with what used to be standard, academic, rigor, instead of raw emotions.
@@CSUnger He started a program at his college in New York to allow students to provide feedback on things. Plus, the internet is open to all. Out of 100 libtards, you might get 10 who watch this video, and maybe 1 person will finally understand that they are just as bad as the right wing guys they dislike so much.
@@trustmetours57 Yes, the nordic countries. (But let me guess -- that's not socialism; socialism is Venezuela...) Got any examples of capitalism working?
@@Dasein2005 I have been to Norway and Denmark more times than you can shake a stick at I can tell you categorically they are not socialist countries, capitalism is working fine for them both.
When the Left and Right realise that a topic like maths isn’t a Right or Left issue, they may be a step closer to realising that topics like rationality and free speech aren’t either.
I appreciate that Jonathan Haidt is at least trying to bring people together, and help us all see the good in “the other side”. This is important. That said, when I look at the bar chart, I see one group of people with a very simple and limited moral foundation and another group with a complex, balanced, and we’ll-developed moral foundation. Also, when watching earlier talks he has given on his theory of moral foundations, I have always felt that he doesn’t really understand conservatives. Again, at least he’s trying. But I have often wanted to invite him to spend a week with my family. There are “people on the right” who fit his preconceptions, but there are “people on the left” who are exactly the same. And those perceptions don’t fit my conservative family members and friends at all. For example, some of the most tribal people I know are my liberal friends. And my parents, now in their 80s, are extremely open to new things, are highly educated, and world travelers. They are solid conservatives. So his theory does describe some interesting differences between people, but I don’t think it accurately describes “the left” and “the right” at all.
The blue bars all being weighted equally does not make the value system "simple". Conservativism can be simple or complex, in exactly the same way as liberalism. It depends on the depth of the individual's own thought. Simplistic liberalism = just give poor people money, just let everyone do whatever they want because it doesn't affect you. Simplistic conservativism = don't let your kids read Harry Potter because it's satanic.
I used to call myself a liberal until I became more educated and learned about the world. Borders have existed for as long as humans for a reason. Look at Europe falling apart in real time due to eliminating its borders.
But I think that borders were originally created by tribes. And civilization was a system for tribes to interact in peaceful means for the betterment of both without destructive wars.
I actually think would I heard and that is that the left thinks conservatives are bad people and they don't listen to him or care about them and that's what they're taught with a conservative will think the people aren't bad they just have bad ideas
@@cynthialocher393 The problem with liberals is that they get their definition of conservative purely from other liberals who have no idea what they are talking about. Part of any dialog requires listening, but it feels like modern liberals are no longer interested in even listening to opinions that are different from their own.
Wrong! The European Union is falling apart because it’s been targeted from all sides by nationalist and imperialist powers since it has been established, who relentlessly work to subvert, divide, undermine, plot against and control Europe. Europe is a competitor on the world stage and viewed as opponent or even enemy, by the USA by China, by Russia or and all the others. Europe is a target because on the world stage there is no such thing as unity, but only competition. Competition for markets, competition for natural resources and thereby for economical power. All the alliances on the world stage are just loose bonds of temporal opportunities in the struggle for domination and survival, be it economically, culturally or military. Europe in the eyes of those power must fail and must not serve as a role model for a global United human kind without borders. A fragmented Europe is not much of a competition for those big player, in opposite to the EU. So it will continue until it escalates and end in a tragic catastrophe for all human kind, namely our self made extinction event. Ironically the Nations or those loose alliances are just puppets of the tiny elites that are the shareholders in the economic system and are themselves fighting for power on the global stage. In the end we all are just pawns in their big chess game to be sacrificed. We could only be a threat to them if we unite and that’s why they want us to keep fighting, that’s why they finance and corrupt both sides, the nationalists and the internationalists and lobby both groups to do their biddings. However, a global united humanity is an inevitable logical step to secure peace, save our environment and tame the predatory capitalism that is responsible for worldwide conflicts, destruction of our environment and inequality on earth. Nationalist or re visionary groups can’t change it, they just can delay it and by doing so they risk our complete annihilation.
Can you give reasons why you interpret what he’s saying in that way? He talks a lot to explain his position and it’s fine if you disagree but why do you infer insincere motivation in his part? Your single sentence doesn’t really convey anything other that you dismiss out of hand any thing he says. Perhaps anything anyone says not in tune with your own current position.
@@TechToWatch Of course he won't, because lefties can never justify their opinions, it's always accusations and name calling, and vague hand wavy claims that are never supported by facts. Look at the recent Rittenhouse trial. All the actual evidence and facts were prestented in court, but left media and talking heads ignored it all and went with what they felt was true instead. White Supremacist, domestic terrorist etc. all emotive BS completely fabricated that creates more problems. These people are psychopaths
@@TechToWatch His central thesis about the difference between left and right seems to be just re-stating stuff that has been well understood for well over a century (and to some extent was part of the definitions of these terms from the beginning), but presenting it as a new research finding that he discovered. The rest of the video just makes him sound a bit clueless (like suggesting that the Cold War was a period in which 'us vs them' impulses were 'turned off'...)
It’s my contention that the label “Right” is completely inappropriate to characterize a conservative in the context of the USA. Those who are called “Rightists” in the U.S. obviously don’t support kingships or other royal titles; thus, the term “Right-winger” can be legitimately used to denote European conservatives ONLY. Ironically, as staunch defenders of the U.S. Constitution i.e. one of the most revolutionary documents in history American “conservatives” even in 2021 are de facto the most authentic “revolutionaries” on the planet. P.S. Another improper usage which irks me is the use of “Nazi” to denote National Socialists. Imagine how “ignorant” it would sound nowadays to refer to Communists as “Commies”. Yet one virtually never reads or hears of a National Socialist being referred to by the correct term; it’s always “Nazi”. Obviously this is intentional obfuscation as Leftists are horrified by the prospect that people might realize that National Socialism was a Left-wing movement. See Dinesh D’Souza’s book “The Big Lie” for more on this issue.
They just claim they weren’t “real”socialists or other such nonsense. It’s very hard to argue with people who just make up definitions of the words they use. Words are now “violence” which is a physical act. Racism is redefined so it’s ok if it’s against whites or other such nonsense; it’s all racism. I also think there’s a lot of mental illness that is driving social media fuelled extremism. I mean the left band speakers online and at universities for saying men aren’t women, it’s really bonkers.
I think Individualist is a better term because the primary ideological force of the Zeitgeist Americana is Self-reliance/Self-agency. Placing as much power/liberty in the hands of the individual as possible.
Problem is that there are like 10 different copasses so left and right can mean anything. In Czech republic we use terms left and right onlty for economic issues. Right want weak state no regulations a low tax. Left want state regulations and strong social systems and progressive tax. To counter capitalistic winner takes all problems
@@MusicalMemeology not only are words supposedly violence. Silence is also violence. That always makes me laugh as it sounds like something from a Dr Seuss political manifesto.
Fewer kids are going to college, so fewer are coming back wrong. Colleges, especially the modern "LIberal" Arts, are a threat to human society. "Colleges really are big pet cemeteries, aren't they?" said Kyle. "You send people there, and they come back wrong." --'Danielle's Passion', Tired Moderate.
Do you think people are basically good? Or do you think people are basically self interested. Everything grows out of this basic difference. Including the differences identified here. It’s been this way for a long time. Read A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. I appreciate Haidt’s work, but he’s engaging in equivocation between the Left and Right because he’s trying to maintain a middle position so that he doesn’t get painted as a right winger. It’s only a matter of time though.
Prof Haidt is a great mind. I hope others can learn from him. As a black person, i find some conversations on both sides quite destructive to my community and i think his approach to this is more sensible.
I have a very minority position, as something of a political agonist, but I think the internal strife and factionalism is a net positive. Through conflict, we pressure-test each side, and both are forced to compete and innovate. On a individual level, such conflict may well feel uncomfortable, but on a macro-level it is far more valuable than homogeny and stasis.
That is quite the minority position. The 20th century showed that when polarization goes too far, genocide and famine ensue. Fascism in Italy was a response to socialism.
John, would the coalition ever have implemented the Superannuation system for the wider group of Australian's if the left hadn't done so? My beef with conservatives is they see no reason to change because the staus quo suits them. That doesn't mean I agree with the far left either.
These are the faults of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives don’t like change. Even if something is harming them, as long as it isn’t unbearable, they will still resist change. On the flip side, liberals see something wrong, and want to completely throw it out. They often want to implement a quick solution with little thought of the long term affects it can have. It might solve the immediate problem, but cause 2 more issues in its place. It’s like wack-a-mole. This is why conservatives and liberals need each other. Liberals make conservatives act, but conservatives play devils advocate to ideas of change and actually make liberals think about the big picture. Is it worth it, or will it cause more harm than good. But this only happens when they work together.
@@bondy7564 Don't disagree with some of your sentiments - but Australia should not have gone to war with several of the countries that have contributed to the refugee crisis if we weren't prepared to deal with the outcome. Libya was a block to all the African migrants heading to Europe - and that block was removed. It was a totally predictable outcome for them. Was the war in Syria required? Whom did it advantage?
@@bondy7564 Actually trans folks are a perfect example of Haidt's primary hypothesis in The Righteous Mind. There is essentially no logical reason to oppose trans rights, but folks just emotionally feel uncomfortable so they invent reasons to oppose them. As the right has done with homosexuals for hundreds of years. FoxNews ran more stories about trans women in sports than there were incidents in the entire USA last year. Look at the numbers and try and meet some trans folks. They are not scary or dangerous.
@@AJ-hc5zo I’m all for people identifying with what they want. But I will not go along with the absurdity of allowing biological males to compete in sports or share showers with biological women. They can call themselves trans women but biologically they will always be men.
I noticed this issue in the charts, is it respect or is it just lazy thinking, or some form of passive control, a kind of superiority pedestal of morality? It follows that if morality is the foundation from which you base yourself, you will always seek to find inequality, which is why the transgender issue has become so in vogue for them, i.e. 'the world is unfair, therefore I must seek out injustices to give my life meaning.'
I'm curious to what extent Haidts description of his theory in terms of a Trumpian conservatism versus the left might be better served by pointing out how this might change. Or how can we keep the yin-yang working effectively, rather than disruptively and/or undermining rights or the country? He does seem to get to some of this later about the need to highlight and emphasize commonalities. Haidt is absolutely correct: the use of (reductive static) binaries almost inevitably will not lead to unity or the common good.
Na ludzi , którym brak zielonego pojęcia czym jezt dyskusja i na czym polega powinno być brak miejsca pośród tzw. liderów - czyli tych , którzy przewodzą w społeczeństwach .
Sadly racial division seem to used to gain political support. So every election the tension will increase, emotion get vote more efficiently than reason. But I fear it is dangerous for democracy over the long term.
The difficulty there is that neither side is particularly good/prone to doing that. There is a very strong tendency across the spectrum of “My side, right or wrong” style of thought and actions. There are outliers of course, but consider Newt Gingrich has never gotten laughed out of the room whenever he opens his yap about the sanctity of marriage. Likewise, ‘progressives’ are quick to ignore blatant moral failures in their own stalwarts, so long as said failures don’t depart from The Message.
The term "False Dichotomy" comes to mind. I bet you can't find a convenient pigeonhole to honestly fit me into, and I know there are many people like me out there in the real world. At the next federal election you will learn exactly how many of us there are.
@Dani... : So after we see the result of the next federal election and if you are mistaken will you come back to this comment and record that there are not many of "us"?
@@buildmotosykletist1987 That is a good idea, John can send me an email to remind me. I'd ask the same of you except that you effectively don't exist as a legal person.
I bet if i know your view on one certain subject i can pick your view on most other subjects. You may not like to be pidgeon holed, but you will be crammed in there and forced to choose. You will be forced to pick a side.
@@terrythetuffkunt9215 Ask away, but expect a nuanced reply and note my original request for honesty. As for if I can be forced to do anything, I doubt it because breaking the system itself is always an option if it no longer is fit for purpose, and by that I mean the generally accepted purpose and not that which some have perverted it into serving.
My favorite "care and compassion" that the left shows is how they are OK with restricting, jobs, freedom, and healthcare from those who don't get vaxxed.
They are restricted so they don't spread the disease. They care very much about themshelves but very little about other people. In the Middle Ages they would've been thrown into a walled ghetto or an island.
That combined with the fact that there were no units on the graphs makes me assume that the graph is actually hugely misleading because the right wing levels are used as an index to compare the left wing levels to. In other words they're all exactly equal because whatever the result happens to be for the right is then set to e.g. 100 and the result for the left is then shown as a percentage of that. Which of course means, without context, nobody understands the graph, and make incorrect assumptions (which I sort of feel might be intentional).
It is easy to see that Haidt himself is conservative, and allows conservative ideology to impair his thinking. He has implicitly accepted the reality of the completely arbitrary terms 'the left' and 'the right', which is a hallmark of ideological thinking, and the opposite of pragmatism. In reality these are completely artificial catch-all terms for groups of people which contain MANY different varieties of thought, MANY different sets of values, and many different positions on most political issues. In point of fact he is doing a serious disservice in continuing to perpetuate these terms as tribal labels. It is one of the things Americans must stop if they expect their country to reverse course from its current decay.
You really thought you did something here… Haidt isn’t a conservative, and the vast majority of academics regardless of political orientation use the terms left and right because as long as you are aware of the limitations, they have practical use and do a reasonable job of broadly defining the political spectrum. I agree that we need to be more nuanced to avoid tribalistic modes of thought but the reality is that the vast majority of people do identify in terms of left and right and so the terms are relevant.
@@jamesrutterford576 Haidt himself has said in interviews that he leans 'right'. This is not his first rodeo, nor is it mine. I'm very familiar with his writings, owning several of his books myself. It does, however, lend fake gravitas to his arguments when rightists can pretend he is not one himself.
Haidt is so full of it at times it's stunning. He gets so caught up in stereotype. A perfect example is care & compassion. He see's care & compassion from a leftist's perspective of giving things to people. I as a Conservative don't see that as compassionate. What's compassionate is creating a system that helps a person help themselves. Every person I've virtually known in my lifetime who's lived off the system, lives in poverty. That is actually more cruel to a person over their lifetime.
All lefties want to do is to create this system that let's people help themselves (the right does too, but disagree on what that system looks like) . Things like free healthcare, free education, better transit options (cycling, buses and trains) so you don't have shell out for a depreciating car, fewer internal combustion engines so we don't give our kids asthma and senior citizens cancer. Contrary to popular belief these systems are not socialist or communist. Just makes my life pleasant and not have to worry about taking risks because I have access to these services ❤️.
You’re not wrong. However, I can take the bad with the good from Haidt, as he’s one of the very few still making the rational points that MIGHT reach some on the left. I gave up on that years ago as I have a much lower tolerance for futility, but I don’t begrudge Haidt trying.
Sounds like you're getting caught up on stereotypes, frankly. His comments aren't based on them at all, but on self reporting by thousands of people about how they see the world. You're applying the same judgment to the other group that he's describing here.
@@parameshnat Wow, there's the "free" again, with all due respect. Nobody, and I mean nobody is against people having access to healthcare. The difference is how do we pay for it like adults, and how do we give people choice. As far as creating a system that let's people help themselves, well, we've tried the left's perspective for more than a half century, spent trillions of dollars, and we're in the exact same place as we were at the start. Free education: Education is pretty inexpensive and highly subsidized already in America. Just because an individual picks the wrong major, picks a school that steals their money because they're looking for a social accreditation with the name on the diploma doesn't mean the rest of society is obligated to pay for that advanced education. As my good buddy in Upsalla, Sweden once stated..."I'd rather have the American system, because that free-at-the-point of service system we have is quite expensive, as I end of paying for it the rest of my life through high taxes". That's another point, why can't we be honest and say that? Why can we speak like adults and say..."that free education will actually be funded with high taxes the rest of your life". I'm asking you, why do you use the term "free", when is NOT free? The rest of you comment was virtue signaling. Glad you care so much about grandma.
I'm white, married to a Vietnamese woman. I know exactly what Mr Haidt means about racial humor in that context. It's positively a bulwark of our marriage and a plentiful source of laughs. She calls me round eye all the time and it absolutely cracks me up. I tell her that if I'm ever in a physical fight I want her near so that her latent Kung fu skills, inherent to her race, will at last surface and be put to good use.
There's just something healthy about it to me. I can't quite describe it.
I would describe it as having a sense of humor.
That's because it makes both of you unique and special to recognize your differences.
A shop keeper in a cash and carry who was asked for 2 kilos of glutenous rice looked at my Cambodian husband and said no you 10 kilo and promptly gave him the bag 😂 He has haughed at it ever since. He will spontaneously walk around the house and say "no, me ten kilo" He didn't question it and paid dutifully. I would never dream of saying that but he makes me laugh every time. I think she looked at his belly to be honest 😂.
its because ir reaffirms the strength of your relationship. If your relationship can withstand "racist" jokes, it means its highly resilient and strong. The same would be with insults (all in good faith of course) even of the personal kind. The worse the poking without cracking the relationship, the stronger it is. Its extremely satisfying and reassurring to poke the relationship from time to time, like jiggling a chair before sitting on it, to ensure it can withstand your weight.
Its also useful in 'identity' relations in society, and its no wonder that the same people that profit from these all sorts of divisions (the more the divisions, the more you can step in and 'lecture' people and be the 'hero'), are the same people trying to prevent other people from making such jokes.
Heh, that chair analogy is so sweet 😊
It'd be interesting to see an updated chart that graphs the widening gap between the progressivism and liberalism also.
We can't wait a generation for this stuff to pass
it might be what we're stuck with. There are tons of different takes on it but the discipline is usually called "social cycle theory"
In the US it seems the radicals push for power may have come up short. They got control of the government but were not quite able to permently keep themselves in power with HB1 that would have put them in control of national elections.
Dr. Haidt's chart shows that conservatives are about systems and liberals (the US kind) about people. But what is also shows, at least to me, is that the liberals are devoid of respect. But his chart does not depict the leaders attitudes. When the mob comes you have to pick a side whether you want to or not.
Not going to happen unless the left gains complete control because you'll seem them squash and quell all dissent.
By that time it’ll be too late. The CC P will dominate the world, and all the young weaklings of this American generation will finally learn about hardships
@@jb8408 China can't even keep the power running in it's cities, I don't think this is a real concern.
I object to the left being called 'progressive'; comparatively this term is so loaded with connotations
Maybe regressive?
Fair statement.
Undermining all of the hard work of the civil rights period is not progressive at all.
This is what Black Leaders did back in the day (1954-1968):
Grace.
Reconciliation
Love.
This is what White Leaders are doing when they enable Neo-Marxit with CRT:
Guilt
Reperations.
Hate.
Blacks actually voted more for Trump in 2020 than 2016, and that was after 4 hard years of labeling Trump as the ultimate Racist.
Just like the Jonathan reports in this video, 4:18.
The more the left makes it about idenity, the more voters they lose. 100% agree.
Same goes for Spanish Americans in Texas and Florida.
It's not about voting for the GOP, its about voting against the Libtards.
But like Jonathan said in the video. This will take care of itself. The Mid-Term elections are going to be huge for the GOP.
And they did very little to go after voters. They are coming to them.
What distinguishes one politician from another?
What is job security?
How do I survive my 4 year performance review?
Is it easier to convince an informed public..... or an uninformed public.
Ask the right questions and they answer themselves.
Give politicians a time limit.
Somehow it will burn itself out??? How much damage has to be done first? This is both physical damage and all kinds emotional and mental damage. This is nuts.
You see the us/them thinking all over the comments on channels like Steven Crowder and Mark Dice. I tend to agree with the politics to some degree, but then they go full on with the derision of the entire category of 'The Left'. Turns me right off.
As Jordan Peterson said in a speech in the middle of a protest against him "Don't let them provoke you"
The conservative graph shows care for all of those things equally. The progressive graph is highly skewed.
The issues with what he said regarding ethnicity is that it will continue until end time.
ATT John Anderson : Perhaps you could interview a pollster type person and look at how the various election scenarios play out. For instance if One Nation and UAP harness a lot of votes. What effect will that have on the parliament.
In summary I'm asking does a "protest vote" achieve what the protestor wants? Or is it counter productive to their intention?
I second this. A valuable question.
UAP is now the largest political party in Australia, by membership (no I am not a member of any party). What that means once the count is finalised and preferences are distributed remains to be seen, however it does prove the point I made earlier, there are many people that do not fit into the false dichotomy. I would also refute the suggestion that it is merely a protest vote, the impression people have given me is that they are deeply shocked and revolted by what they have seen both major parties do.
I like Haidt, but he clearly understands and studies the "left" far more than he does the "right".
Jonathan, you might want to update your research. Care today is no longer care of the past. Today, generally speaking, care is a tool used to virtue signal and to gain power. Why? Because care is selective, depending on your politics and class. True care would be blind to those things. Even in the medical community, politics trumps care!
this is balderdash. Firstly, nobody has a monopoly of compassion. It is simply a case of how to express it. "Be cruel to be kind" is an old expression. The left is an idealology of collective, coercive conformity which is the exact opposite of the right's individual freedom & choice. Care is subjective. You do not care for people by telling them what to do. That is unfair & often counter productive. Loyalty, authority & sanctity all stem from coercive conformity. They are not right wing at all. History is not a linear progression. There are always times of regression. Conservative is more likely to be a left wing mantra, as when there are strikes about the closure of coal mines. Simply put, people do not normally like change. Nothng progressive about that. The right is much more likely to embrace change & progression by innovation and invention. These are all reasons why socialism has never flourished anywhere at any time. This professor likes his income but not the truth. As for morality, that is a subjective expression of a culture. Once it was "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". This is thousands of years old Babylonian morality, supposedly ditched by Christianity. No morality is eternal and changes with society, which always is subjective for its times.
You should read his book and find out how he came to his conclusions and the methods he used, instead of just claiming that the conclusions themselves are wrong based off of your own conjecture.
@@tomlewis7898 no time for errrant wokeism
@@guyvert49 Neither do I man but Haidt isn't woke. In fact he co-wrote a book about how woke ideas are damaging to students, it's called 'The Coddling of the American Mind'. You really should read someone's work before you critique it! All the best.
@@tomlewis7898 the critique hit home nonetheles it seems. But back to the basic premise. Left & right are not about compassion or idealism or authoritanism but about how the state controls its people. You should strive to understand that there is a continuum & that the extreme left is about slavery & the extreme right about liberty. That is the guiding principle, not some arbiitrary moral compass. The basic question is about the extent of collective, coercive conformity as opposed to individual freedom & choice. All these other concepts have nothing to do with the case. That is why National Socialism, Fascism & Marxist/Communism are left wing & Democracy is right wing. Perhaps you should read & understand what I write before you respond
I understand what you're saying and I have heard it before. According to you right wing authoritarianism simply doesn't exist, by definition. It sounds like you are one of those people for whom 'the left' or 'the right' just means "everything I don't like in politics". You were quick to label Haidt as 'woke' because you see his ideas as contrary to your own. But I really do think you would benefit from and enjoy his book 'The Righteous Mind' as he does do a good job of explaining what actually drives our differing political beliefs from a psychological perspective, and how they are rooted in fundamental moral emotions like fear and disgust (which are themselves pre-rational and coded into the limbic system), and that this also helps to explain why some care more about things like liberty than others do. You seem like you've been thinking about these things a lot I would have thought that this book would already be on your radar, it is almost a decade old. Cheers.
I don’t think much of ‘identity politics’ lines. Right now in federal politics the extreme right Qld LNP fringe is breaking away from the Morrison government because of covid restrictions and vaccine mandates by the state government.
There’s no rational reason for this but cultural, libertarian ‘identity’ posing by the right’s meme-driven anti-government extremists, but it is never called out with the labels the right likes to apply to the left.
It is the job of politicians to assemble coalitions. Just because groups are different or new these days is irrelevant.
Today, the right of the Coalition is battling with Newman and Palmer for their loopy fringe, trying to assemble coalitions of voters exactly over right wing identity politics.
Let's go Brandon!
I agree with much (but not all) what was said here but I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the approach taken. It is assumed that the definition of 'Left' and 'Right' are fully defined and agreed by all. I do not believe this to be so. For example populism is widely portrayed as a right wing trait but it invariably involves a large degree of social or economic control which are associated with the left. This is not meant to be a fait accompli but only to show how complicated the concepts of right and left actually are. Daniel Hannan gave the best definition of right and left when he said the left wingers see themselves as 'goodies' and therefore anything bad must be right wing.
As a former far left progressive I assure you that the left does not “care” more than the right. The simply talk about caring more than the right does. The right takes action.
You succeed when you do not throw good money after bad. The right is generally better at that than the left.
In my observation the left has a much more narrow and intense kinda of empathy. It’s almost like the empathy of people on the right is like a lantern, that shines more faintly but in all directions.
The empathy of the left is like a high intensity flash light. It’s very intense but only shines in one direction. It’s hyper tribal.
@@alanjenkins1508 Why do you think so?
This statement is simply a platitude with no meaning. Haidt's books address this in detail. Left and right wing folks tend to focus on different populations, issues, and approaches. Although folks who swing from far left to the right are an interesting case. Somehow totally changed your taste buds.
@@alanjenkins1508 The right isn't necessarily better at it; rather they prefer to spend money on a bloated military that doesn't always have the best return. For instance, a better healthcare model would save more lives than any new weapons system.
"highlight commonalities"
95% of the MSM does the exact opposite. Same with higher education which is all about oppressor vs oppressed.
Which force drives these intuitions?
The wealthy elites who want people to hate each other over the way we are born, and ignore all their changes to tax policy.
What’s all this calm, rational, intelligent, respectful discussion? How can anyone understand the complexity of issues and broaden their minds this way? I prefer pundits shouting “racist!” like they do on the tv news.
We'll never learn anything just by rational discussion. : ) Discussion and considered debate is becoming a dying necessity. Sad that is it 2021 and with the push of the 'progressives' we have regressed as a community and population. I thought we got over these hurdles in the 1946-1970 era. But these last dozen years have slipped on the proverbial banana peel back to early 20th century or more.
Ahh, you must be a Leftie ;-D
"I prefer pundits shouting “racist!” like they do on the tv news." Oh, really? Cite even one example of that. C'mon. Don't just give us crickets.
@@thomasthompson6378 nice try, but it's obvious you are one of the 50 cent army bots.
@@thomasthompson6378 Watched MSNBC any time lately?
“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself. ”
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
And culture is constrained by many factors.
And politics are unconstrained because the anointed can save us from ourself.
This is from the book, a conflict of visions, by Doctor T. Sowell.
@@travisdonaldstanley6420 that sounds like “great man theory”. Where only a small proportion of humans is meant to lead humanity through their superior intellect, character, and morality.
That line of thinking has led to countless atrocities in history. And has also been disproven by sociological findings that after all, it was never the charismatic figureheads, but the masses that actually drive history.
@@Charles-pf7zy
Their goal is to drive the thinking of the masses.
"
The unconstrained (utopian) vision
Edit
Sowell argues that the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as "the self anointed." Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society"
I like Jonathan, but his assessment is wrong.
The difference between the left and the right lies in where they think accountability should be. The left thinks that the problem is always external to them, the world, a system, or the rest of society. The right thinks that the responsibility lies with the individual. You can also think of it as collectivists vs individualists.
Compassion has nothing to do with it, it's simply a convenient rationalization that satisfies the ego.
I agree this dichotomy of external vs internal accountability exists and is fairly central to each worldview but I’m not sure it is what defines left vs right. People are more complex than that. It sounds like your right wing heightened sense of fairness is focussing on this particular aspect of our differences. Just my 2 cents worth… I could be wrong.
@@davidraymond4616 Why would pointing out the differences in ideological belief systems make me right wing?
I'm using the very words they do to describe their systems.
@@davidraymond4616 Why do you assume he's right wing? This comment says a lot more about you than him.
By you definition Nazis who are clearly right wing are individualist, right? The national socialist party was anything but individualistic, it was highly collectivistic and ‘exclusive’. Individualism is something very liberal. So it really depends on how much you stretch ‘right’. Does it cover traditionalists as long as traditionalists have liberal roots like in the USA? Or does it exclude liberal at all and narrow down on exclusiveness thus racism, nationalism and fascism? For me right wing starts where liberal ends, this includes individualism. And individualism ends where it harms other individualism. A basic respectful coexisting life requires cooperation and to a certain degree collective rules. And this is already collectivism to me. Both can exist along with each pretty well. I guess what you meant is communism, where indeed individualism is almost completely eliminated. Right wing is always exclusive, in regards to nation, race, religion or other exclusive traits. Left wing is exclusive to a certain degree and interestingly in a way very close to right wing regarding its absolutistic views and liberal is pretty much inclusive. I wouldn’t call republicans liberals, rather traditionalists because they are exclusive in so many ways, same goes for the left as much as they like to view themselves as inclusive. Just for information, the right-left terminology originates from the seat order of the parliament of the Weimarer Republic (today Germany) between 1918-1933 where the nationalists and fascist sat on the right side(wing) and the internationalists and communists sat on the left side. They consciously choose to sit as much afar from each other as possible because they are sworn enemies. P.S. the Republican Party in the US for me is basically a traditionalist party that tries to implement elements of liberalism in the framework of traditions and nationalism, thus they dance on the volcano all the time. It is undergoing a dangerous transformation to a right wing party in my opinion and becoming more chauvinistic, racist, imperialistic and totalitarian and less liberal, that’s why I chose to call it a dance on top of a volcano. Certainly Trump fuels those right wing sentiments and has dramatically changed the Republican Party into a right wing party.
@@scoobydoo936 I'm not reading all that.
I'm so pleased there are rational people such as Dr. Haidt exploring this subject with what used to be standard, academic, rigor, instead of raw emotions.
Yeah, but what good does it do to preach to the choir? Guys like this need to calling for scalps; not telling us that it's just the way it is.
@@CSUnger
He started a program at his college in New York to allow students to provide feedback on things.
Plus, the internet is open to all. Out of 100 libtards, you might get 10 who watch this video, and maybe 1 person will finally understand that they are just as bad as the right wing guys they dislike so much.
Center left politics of old is one thing but ‘progressive’ politics is just a newish term for socialism.
“Socialism” - the new conservative boogeyman for Fox News watchers.
@@Dasein2005 Really? Got any examples of socialism working?
@@trustmetours57
Yes, the nordic countries. (But let me guess -- that's not socialism; socialism is Venezuela...)
Got any examples of capitalism working?
@@Dasein2005 I have been to Norway and Denmark more times than you can shake a stick at I can tell you categorically they are not socialist countries, capitalism is working fine for them both.
@@Dasein2005 HAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa
I recently discovered this channel. Great content, intelligent guests. Keep up the good work! Thank you.
When the Left and Right realise that a topic like maths isn’t a Right or Left issue, they may be a step closer to realising that topics like rationality and free speech aren’t either.
I appreciate that Jonathan Haidt is at least trying to bring people together, and help us all see the good in “the other side”. This is important.
That said, when I look at the bar chart, I see one group of people with a very simple and limited moral foundation and another group with a complex, balanced, and we’ll-developed moral foundation.
Also, when watching earlier talks he has given on his theory of moral foundations, I have always felt that he doesn’t really understand conservatives. Again, at least he’s trying. But I have often wanted to invite him to spend a week with my family. There are “people on the right” who fit his preconceptions, but there are “people on the left” who are exactly the same. And those perceptions don’t fit my conservative family members and friends at all. For example, some of the most tribal people I know are my liberal friends. And my parents, now in their 80s, are extremely open to new things, are highly educated, and world travelers. They are solid conservatives.
So his theory does describe some interesting differences between people, but I don’t think it accurately describes “the left” and “the right” at all.
The blue bars all being weighted equally does not make the value system "simple". Conservativism can be simple or complex, in exactly the same way as liberalism. It depends on the depth of the individual's own thought.
Simplistic liberalism = just give poor people money, just let everyone do whatever they want because it doesn't affect you. Simplistic conservativism = don't let your kids read Harry Potter because it's satanic.
I used to call myself a liberal until I became more educated and learned about the world. Borders have existed for as long as humans for a reason. Look at Europe falling apart in real time due to eliminating its borders.
But I think that borders were originally created by tribes. And civilization was a system for tribes to interact in peaceful means for the betterment of both without destructive wars.
I actually think would I heard and that is that the left thinks conservatives are bad people and they don't listen to him or care about them and that's what they're taught with a conservative will think the people aren't bad they just have bad ideas
@@cynthialocher393 The problem with liberals is that they get their definition of conservative purely from other liberals who have no idea what they are talking about. Part of any dialog requires listening, but it feels like modern liberals are no longer interested in even listening to opinions that are different from their own.
Wrong! The European Union is falling apart because it’s been targeted from all sides by nationalist and imperialist powers since it has been established, who relentlessly work to subvert, divide, undermine, plot against and control Europe. Europe is a competitor on the world stage and viewed as opponent or even enemy, by the USA by China, by Russia or and all the others. Europe is a target because on the world stage there is no such thing as unity, but only competition. Competition for markets, competition for natural resources and thereby for economical power. All the alliances on the world stage are just loose bonds of temporal opportunities in the struggle for domination and survival, be it economically, culturally or military. Europe in the eyes of those power must fail and must not serve as a role model for a global United human kind without borders. A fragmented Europe is not much of a competition for those big player, in opposite to the EU. So it will continue until it escalates and end in a tragic catastrophe for all human kind, namely our self made extinction event. Ironically the Nations or those loose alliances are just puppets of the tiny elites that are the shareholders in the economic system and are themselves fighting for power on the global stage. In the end we all are just pawns in their big chess game to be sacrificed. We could only be a threat to them if we unite and that’s why they want us to keep fighting, that’s why they finance and corrupt both sides, the nationalists and the internationalists and lobby both groups to do their biddings. However, a global united humanity is an inevitable logical step to secure peace, save our environment and tame the predatory capitalism that is responsible for worldwide conflicts, destruction of our environment and inequality on earth. Nationalist or re visionary groups can’t change it, they just can delay it and by doing so they risk our complete annihilation.
@@gooble69 - Both sides do that. No one recognizes their opponents’ definitions of themselves.
Even more broadly, like in academe.
3:10 American politics infected by soccer hooligans. Sounds about right.
IDENTITY politics started in FRANCE in the 70's a failure.... I'll leave it that.
Because the Nazis never engaged in any identity politics no sir, nothing to see there...
Maybe Haight is correct, but to me he comes across as a self-centered, egotistical grifter.
Can you give reasons why you interpret what he’s saying in that way? He talks a lot to explain his position and it’s fine if you disagree but why do you infer insincere motivation in his part? Your single sentence doesn’t really convey anything other that you dismiss out of hand any thing he says. Perhaps anything anyone says not in tune with your own current position.
@@TechToWatch Of course he won't, because lefties can never justify their opinions, it's always accusations and name calling, and vague hand wavy claims that are never supported by facts. Look at the recent Rittenhouse trial. All the actual evidence and facts were prestented in court, but left media and talking heads ignored it all and went with what they felt was true instead. White Supremacist, domestic terrorist etc. all emotive BS completely fabricated that creates more problems. These people are psychopaths
@@TechToWatch His central thesis about the difference between left and right seems to be just re-stating stuff that has been well understood for well over a century (and to some extent was part of the definitions of these terms from the beginning), but presenting it as a new research finding that he discovered. The rest of the video just makes him sound a bit clueless (like suggesting that the Cold War was a period in which 'us vs them' impulses were 'turned off'...)
It’s my contention that the label “Right” is completely inappropriate to characterize a conservative in the context of the USA. Those who are called “Rightists” in the U.S. obviously don’t support kingships or other royal titles; thus, the term “Right-winger” can be legitimately used to denote European conservatives ONLY. Ironically, as staunch defenders of the U.S. Constitution i.e. one of the most revolutionary documents in history American “conservatives” even in 2021 are de facto the most authentic “revolutionaries” on the planet.
P.S. Another improper usage which irks me is the use of “Nazi” to denote National Socialists. Imagine how “ignorant” it would sound nowadays to refer to Communists as “Commies”. Yet one virtually never reads or hears of a National Socialist being referred to by the correct term; it’s always “Nazi”. Obviously this is intentional obfuscation as Leftists are horrified by the prospect that people might realize that National Socialism was a Left-wing movement. See Dinesh D’Souza’s book “The Big Lie” for more on this issue.
They just claim they weren’t “real”socialists or other such nonsense. It’s very hard to argue with people who just make up definitions of the words they use. Words are now “violence” which is a physical act. Racism is redefined so it’s ok if it’s against whites or other such nonsense; it’s all racism. I also think there’s a lot of mental illness that is driving social media fuelled extremism. I mean the left band speakers online and at universities for saying men aren’t women, it’s really bonkers.
I think Individualist is a better term because the primary ideological force of the Zeitgeist Americana is Self-reliance/Self-agency. Placing as much power/liberty in the hands of the individual as possible.
Problem is that there are like 10 different copasses so left and right can mean anything. In Czech republic we use terms left and right onlty for economic issues. Right want weak state no regulations a low tax. Left want state regulations and strong social systems and progressive tax. To counter capitalistic winner takes all problems
@@MusicalMemeology not only are words supposedly violence. Silence is also violence. That always makes me laugh as it sounds like something from a Dr Seuss political manifesto.
You’re brain dead if you believe Nazis were left wing. Next thing you’ll say is that the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea is a democracy.
English soccer hooligans? He’s 30 years out of date
Really, what happenes when they follow the national team
@@cunniffe42 I remember when it really was a very serious problem
John Anderson is a great interviewer. Thank you sir.
Always sensational. Love your work.
Fewer kids are going to college, so fewer are coming back wrong. Colleges, especially the modern "LIberal" Arts, are a threat to human society.
"Colleges really are big pet cemeteries, aren't they?" said Kyle. "You send people there, and they come back wrong."
--'Danielle's Passion', Tired Moderate.
Do you think people are basically good? Or do you think people are basically self interested.
Everything grows out of this basic difference. Including the differences identified here.
It’s been this way for a long time. Read A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. I appreciate Haidt’s work, but he’s engaging in equivocation between the Left and Right because he’s trying to maintain a middle position so that he doesn’t get painted as a right winger.
It’s only a matter of time though.
The centre is slowly disappearing, siphoning off new recruits to the extremes of both Left or Right ideologies.
Prof Haidt is a great mind. I hope others can learn from him. As a black person, i find some conversations on both sides quite destructive to my community and i think his approach to this is more sensible.
This guy lives in a fantasy world, as do most "progressive" thinkers.
At some point in time, politics and flow of money needs to be explored. It really is about power and money!
Jonathan Haidt is my favourite of all the public intellectuals.
The middle isn’t shrinking. The left now just identify the middle as right.
Hahaha love the “moral foundation“ graph.
There's none, just two wings of the same J vulture. Next!
I'm a little of both. However I now lean more to the right. The left has just gone too far.
I have a very minority position, as something of a political agonist, but I think the internal strife and factionalism is a net positive. Through conflict, we pressure-test each side, and both are forced to compete and innovate. On a individual level, such conflict may well feel uncomfortable, but on a macro-level it is far more valuable than homogeny and stasis.
That is quite the minority position. The 20th century showed that when polarization goes too far, genocide and famine ensue. Fascism in Italy was a response to socialism.
John, would the coalition ever have implemented the Superannuation system for the wider group of Australian's if the left hadn't done so? My beef with conservatives is they see no reason to change because the staus quo suits them. That doesn't mean I agree with the far left either.
These are the faults of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives don’t like change. Even if something is harming them, as long as it isn’t unbearable, they will still resist change. On the flip side, liberals see something wrong, and want to completely throw it out. They often want to implement a quick solution with little thought of the long term affects it can have. It might solve the immediate problem, but cause 2 more issues in its place. It’s like wack-a-mole. This is why conservatives and liberals need each other. Liberals make conservatives act, but conservatives play devils advocate to ideas of change and actually make liberals think about the big picture. Is it worth it, or will it cause more harm than good. But this only happens when they work together.
Progressives have gone way too far…100 Genders, Men in Women’s sport and Changing rooms, open borders, etc
@@bondy7564 Don't disagree with some of your sentiments - but Australia should not have gone to war with several of the countries that have contributed to the refugee crisis if we weren't prepared to deal with the outcome. Libya was a block to all the African migrants heading to Europe - and that block was removed. It was a totally predictable outcome for them. Was the war in Syria required? Whom did it advantage?
@@bondy7564 Actually trans folks are a perfect example of Haidt's primary hypothesis in The Righteous Mind. There is essentially no logical reason to oppose trans rights, but folks just emotionally feel uncomfortable so they invent reasons to oppose them. As the right has done with homosexuals for hundreds of years. FoxNews ran more stories about trans women in sports than there were incidents in the entire USA last year. Look at the numbers and try and meet some trans folks. They are not scary or dangerous.
@@AJ-hc5zo I’m all for people identifying with what they want. But I will not go along with the absurdity of allowing biological males to compete in sports or share showers with biological women. They can call themselves trans women but biologically they will always be men.
He didn't say anything about the economic conservatives.
3:00 - 3:08 John's inner contentment at good sense on show. He looks like he's a little boy again!
Says the guy living a lie and pretending to be straigh
Note on the graph, the conservatives have high respect for all those values equally. Progressives do not. Their feelings override everything else.
No, they are just disloyal, unfair scammers who cover everything with their moralizing. Self-reported focus on charity is worth nothing in research.
I noticed this issue in the charts, is it respect or is it just lazy thinking, or some form of passive control, a kind of superiority pedestal of morality?
It follows that if morality is the foundation from which you base yourself, you will always seek to find inequality, which is why the transgender issue has become so in vogue for them, i.e. 'the world is unfair, therefore I must seek out injustices to give my life meaning.'
You have completely misinterpreted Haidt if this is what you took away from him.
Moral foundations are fundamentally about emotion, not reason.
@@nicobruin8618 In your mind, is religion based on morality?
@@garylake1676 yes.
Religion is in part a codification of morality.
I'm curious to what extent Haidts description of his theory in terms of a Trumpian conservatism versus the left might be better served by pointing out how this might change. Or how can we keep the yin-yang working effectively, rather than disruptively and/or undermining rights or the country? He does seem to get to some of this later about the need to highlight and emphasize commonalities.
Haidt is absolutely correct: the use of (reductive static) binaries almost inevitably will not lead to unity or the common good.
Always intresting 👌
The diminution of "the middle" is not natural. Our social/political incentive structures are such that the powerful benefit from division.
The graph is quite valuable !
The left and right used to have overlap, the left have moved to a place where no overlap exists so the right can't engage. No more common ground.
Mr. Haidt's comments are somewhat off-balance...too much equivocation.
Please provide examples
Na ludzi , którym brak zielonego pojęcia czym jezt dyskusja i na czym polega powinno być brak miejsca pośród tzw. liderów - czyli tych , którzy przewodzą w społeczeństwach .
good job
What is the most influential factor that determines a human beings ability to be ok with themselves?
The middle is being forced to the right beca8se the left has lost their minds. Lol
Sadly racial division seem to used to gain political support.
So every election the tension will increase, emotion get vote more efficiently than reason.
But I fear it is dangerous for democracy over the long term.
Democracy is two wolves arguing about who eats the lamb first. Liberty is a well-armed sheep.
Disappointed that Mr. Haidt did not emphasize the importance of each group insisting on truth and honesty in dealing with each other.
The difficulty there is that neither side is particularly good/prone to doing that. There is a very strong tendency across the spectrum of “My side, right or wrong” style of thought and actions. There are outliers of course, but consider Newt Gingrich has never gotten laughed out of the room whenever he opens his yap about the sanctity of marriage.
Likewise, ‘progressives’ are quick to ignore blatant moral failures in their own stalwarts, so long as said failures don’t depart from The Message.
So it's bad to think in binaries? Got it.
The term "False Dichotomy" comes to mind. I bet you can't find a convenient pigeonhole to honestly fit me into, and I know there are many people like me out there in the real world. At the next federal election you will learn exactly how many of us there are.
@Dani... : So after we see the result of the next federal election and if you are mistaken will you come back to this comment and record that there are not many of "us"?
@@buildmotosykletist1987 That is a good idea, John can send me an email to remind me. I'd ask the same of you except that you effectively don't exist as a legal person.
I bet if i know your view on one certain subject i can pick your view on most other subjects. You may not like to be pidgeon holed, but you will be crammed in there and forced to choose. You will be forced to pick a side.
@@terrythetuffkunt9215 Ask away, but expect a nuanced reply and note my original request for honesty. As for if I can be forced to do anything, I doubt it because breaking the system itself is always an option if it no longer is fit for purpose, and by that I mean the generally accepted purpose and not that which some have perverted it into serving.
@@DanielSMatthews : Oh, how do I exist then? As an illegal person?
My favorite "care and compassion" that the left shows is how they are OK with restricting, jobs, freedom, and healthcare from those who don't get vaxxed.
They are restricted so they don't spread the disease. They care very much about themshelves but very little about other people. In the Middle Ages they would've been thrown into a walled ghetto or an island.
Been waiting for this interview for awhile! Thanks.
@pete... : G'day Mate. It's been been here for a few years, see the full interview at: th-cam.com/video/xFeuNuRBPfg/w-d-xo.html
enjoy.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 found Mr Anderson about a year ago.
Reminds me of the Hoover Institute's interviewer- Peter Robinson.
This guy makes a chart with progressive in Red and conservative in blue? Come on son.
Yeah - the American colours are flipped in a lot of Commonwealth countries aye
Good stuff. Thanks
Honest and truthful
The conservative god is money, while the progressive is people. Meanwhile, god sits in the middle polishing his nails
Anyone else find it odd how all six categories for the Conservatives polled were all exactly at the same height on the graph?
That combined with the fact that there were no units on the graphs makes me assume that the graph is actually hugely misleading because the right wing levels are used as an index to compare the left wing levels to. In other words they're all exactly equal because whatever the result happens to be for the right is then set to e.g. 100 and the result for the left is then shown as a percentage of that.
Which of course means, without context, nobody understands the graph, and make incorrect assumptions (which I sort of feel might be intentional).
I would recommend his book for more detail. I think this is just a visual representation more like a pictograph then a graph (if that makes sense).
Looks like he used conservative perspective as base and then showed liberal perspective relative to that. A better label would have helped.
Nothing does
Left = Insanity. The Right = not insanity.
It is easy to see that Haidt himself is conservative, and allows conservative ideology to impair his thinking. He has implicitly accepted the reality of the completely arbitrary terms 'the left' and 'the right', which is a hallmark of ideological thinking, and the opposite of pragmatism.
In reality these are completely artificial catch-all terms for groups of people which contain MANY different varieties of thought, MANY different sets of values, and many different positions on most political issues. In point of fact he is doing a serious disservice in continuing to perpetuate these terms as tribal labels. It is one of the things Americans must stop if they expect their country to reverse course from its current decay.
You really thought you did something here…
Haidt isn’t a conservative, and the vast majority of academics regardless of political orientation use the terms left and right because as long as you are aware of the limitations, they have practical use and do a reasonable job of broadly defining the political spectrum. I agree that we need to be more nuanced to avoid tribalistic modes of thought but the reality is that the vast majority of people do identify in terms of left and right and so the terms are relevant.
@@jamesrutterford576
Haidt himself has said in interviews that he leans 'right'. This is not his first rodeo, nor is it mine. I'm very familiar with his writings, owning several of his books myself. It does, however, lend fake gravitas to his arguments when rightists can pretend he is not one himself.
Left based on emotion. Right on reason. Left = women. Right equals men.
So according to the chart the right wins 5:1 I knew I was on the right side
Haidt is so full of it at times it's stunning. He gets so caught up in stereotype. A perfect example is care & compassion. He see's care & compassion from a leftist's perspective of giving things to people. I as a Conservative don't see that as compassionate. What's compassionate is creating a system that helps a person help themselves. Every person I've virtually known in my lifetime who's lived off the system, lives in poverty. That is actually more cruel to a person over their lifetime.
All lefties want to do is to create this system that let's people help themselves (the right does too, but disagree on what that system looks like) . Things like free healthcare, free education, better transit options (cycling, buses and trains) so you don't have shell out for a depreciating car, fewer internal combustion engines so we don't give our kids asthma and senior citizens cancer.
Contrary to popular belief these systems are not socialist or communist. Just makes my life pleasant and not have to worry about taking risks because I have access to these services ❤️.
You’re not wrong. However, I can take the bad with the good from Haidt, as he’s one of the very few still making the rational points that MIGHT reach some on the left. I gave up on that years ago as I have a much lower tolerance for futility, but I don’t begrudge Haidt trying.
Sounds like you're getting caught up on stereotypes, frankly. His comments aren't based on them at all, but on self reporting by thousands of people about how they see the world. You're applying the same judgment to the other group that he's describing here.
@@parameshnat Wow, there's the "free" again, with all due respect. Nobody, and I mean nobody is against people having access to healthcare. The difference is how do we pay for it like adults, and how do we give people choice.
As far as creating a system that let's people help themselves, well, we've tried the left's perspective for more than a half century, spent trillions of dollars, and we're in the exact same place as we were at the start.
Free education: Education is pretty inexpensive and highly subsidized already in America. Just because an individual picks the wrong major, picks a school that steals their money because they're looking for a social accreditation with the name on the diploma doesn't mean the rest of society is obligated to pay for that advanced education. As my good buddy in Upsalla, Sweden once stated..."I'd rather have the American system, because that free-at-the-point of service system we have is quite expensive, as I end of paying for it the rest of my life through high taxes". That's another point, why can't we be honest and say that? Why can we speak like adults and say..."that free education will actually be funded with high taxes the rest of your life". I'm asking you, why do you use the term "free", when is NOT free?
The rest of you comment was virtue signaling. Glad you care so much about grandma.
@@dagtiqueg I hear ya, thanx for the reply.
One of the great modern thinkers.
English soccer hooligans? Bit of a stereotype there.