I was born '97, midsized metropolitan area northwestern Illinois/southeastern Iowa. We had a lot of kids in the neighborhood, we we're allowed to play unsupervised luckily. Helped build our character, I do believe that. It also let us do risky things that truly broadened our lives for worse, but mostly for better.
Love Dr. Haidt, thought his book "The Righteous Mind" was terrific, worth adding to the list of things all students ought to read before attending any higher education. Looking forward to reading this work, too. Thanks for the video, could easily watch more of both of you discussing such interesting and important ideas.
My father used to have a saying - "those given advantage, take advantage". He left China in the time of Mao - at that time there were devout cultural revolutionists whos job it was to point out enemies of the revolution. Dad explained the corruption that was inherent in the state, so at first the businesses, groups or individuals pointed out were universally disliked by the community. But soon these revolutionists started to use the power for thier personal advantage, against people who they didnt like, not just 'enemies of the revolution', and since it benefitted the revolution these people misusing the name of revolution were condoned. In this conversation, which I really enjoyed, both speakers acknowledge the reality of inequality in society but don't factor in that when given the license and credibility to 'point out injustice' some will use it in unscrupulous ways. I think its an important point because evolution favors those that have, or take, advantage..That 'instinct' may be older than compassion because - in evolution anyways, success beats compassion. It may be simplistic but whoever we give the gavel of social justice should be carefully monitored for misuse of it, we seem to be doing a bad job at tgat right now.
Sam - That was a very interesting comment. Your Dad was right. Socialism/Communism damaged millions of lives and murdered millions of people in China. The problem with Communists, now calling themselves Socialists, is that they hide among us, infiltrate and sabotage our institutions. They get into Government and make damaging policy, they get into our schools and create havoc, they have undermined the Universities years ago and many Academics carry on the work of Socialism, quietly unobtrusively carrying out Social Engineering. But these two men in the video plead ignorance about how this possibly could have happened, not true they, have been active in the system for years. Red Flag. People like these pretend to not know about what is happening to the young within our educational systems yet they are the one's who bring about cultural disruptions, encourage racism by using favouratism, or like Obama set one group against the other, creating division. These men are deflecting by setting up a false narrative saying that this only started in 1995. These problems have been around for years. But the crazy little Snowflakes and Antifa and the SJW gave away the game. Let the cat out of the bag so to speak. They are the duplicitous Left. The Left always lies and they are pushing "Socialism" now-a-days. These men are friends with those of the left and admire those of the left - actually one of these men actually quotes from a really far-left man Van Jones - talking about "Life is like a gym...etc..." Van Jones and Axelrod are well known Far-Left Activists left over from Obama's divisive time as President. Everybody is a racist since Obama's time in politics. Awful. Obama's Parents were Communist, so were his Grandparents who brought him up, Frank Davis, his mentor in childhood was a rabid Communist. Obama was assisted in his drive to become President by many people including Bill Ayers and his wife Benardine Dohrn. Look up these two activist Communists. They are in the University Institutions even now. So shocking. The Social Scientists made a mistake and the last batch of kids came out useless to them as "Snowflakes", so these two are now talking about hardening them up so they will become useful "progressive" activists. Be aware that the Left is still active in most countries and they will destroy a society as your Father knows. (See Venezuela) No conscience, Godless, never stopping driven to destroy, they do not create, they manipulate and destroy. They are easy to spot but also hide behind appearing to be "compassionate", "Caring" but they always want to control everything people do and use the State to do it. They need and love Big Government. Thanks for mentioning your Father's experience people of today need to know what communism/Socialism does to people. Take Care. Regards.
I say give no man the right to use coercion and violence against a peaceful person. Government is a farce that has humanity under it's spell for most of human history....it's a form of religion. Most people are more devout in their worship of government than they are to other religions of the world. If you're interested, read (audio book), "Neither Bullets Nor Ballots" th-cam.com/video/mhuuN8c6J3A/w-d-xo.html and "The Most Dangerous Superstition" th-cam.com/video/Kg0zIvxwVaM/w-d-xo.html
Very insightful comment. Thank you for posting that. I learned a little about life in China during the 20th century by reading a book called "Wild Swans" by Jung Chang. Absolutely fascinating but also terrifying book. Her father was the most tragic character in the entire saga, in my opinion. Motivated rightly, fair, faithful and upright. He believed fervently in the ideals espoused by Chairman Mao and the party, but was ultimately betrayed. The lessons we learn from our parents are priceless.
1:06:48 on the subject of self censorship due to pressure. I love the following quote about censorship due to the Communist party of Czechoslovakia, from director Miloš Forman. "And then the censorship itself, that's not the worst evil. The worst evil is - and that's the product of censorship - is the self-censorship, because that twists spines, that destroys my character because I have to think something else and say something else, I have to always control myself. I am stopping to being honest, I am becoming hypocrite - and that's what they wanted, they wanted everybody to feel guilty," Miloš Forman GWU interview 1997
I picked up social media when I was 18. I can only imagine the havoc that environment would wreak on a younger me. Can't say banning it would work but, the psychology that environment engages should be taught.
samthepoor I agree with you, but we have to be careful _how_ it’s taught. Right now, it’s by companies like Twitch in ideological seminars like “Latinx in Gaming: You Belong Here”. Twitchcon is riddled with panels like that, which aren’t helping and further dividing impressionable young kids. I know that may not be exactly what you’re talking about, but I think it displays that we’d need to discuss how navigating the current tech landscape is a complex issue within itself.
samthepoor I agree with you, but we have to be careful _how_ it’s taught. Right now, it’s by companies like Twitch in ideological seminars like “Latinx in Gaming: You Belong Here”. Twitchcon is riddled with panels like that, which aren’t helping and further dividing impressionable young kids. I know that may not be exactly what you’re talking about, but I think it displays that we’d need to discuss how navigating the current tech landscape is a complex issue within itself.
Parental supervision is non-existent with so many empty homes for children to come back to from school. Parents used to counteract propaganda but it seems that Mums are too busy working for that lovely new lounge set, or those cute shoes and so on. Social media is only one aspect of this awful mess. Too many women have reneged on their maternal duties to go work for some strange boss at a boring business, they sadly and are calling it their "Career". Children come first or don't have them.
Social media has become hypnotical media. Everything is being impacted by it, and kids' lives especially. There's a workbook called 30 Days Without Social Media by Harper Daniels that I really liked. Taught mindfulness meditation.
Shermer was talking about race and IQ and he said "Why would you even want to study this," which is exactly what Sam Harris said. Haidt said "I'm not even going to touch that," and went on to talk about the n-word. If that's their reaction, I think we have to assume that they tacitly agree with Murray. Because if they didn't agree with that, they would wholeheartedly exclaim "Murray is a kook, and here is why he's wrong." So they pretty much give their opinion without even stating it.
Two of my favorite thinkers. However, I'm disappointed with Shermer's comments on IQ and race at 33:52. Not only do his comments come across as a disingenuous cop-out, but it' really antithetical to the thrust of what these two are discussing - the free exchange of ideas, experiences, and data regardless of whether it morally offends someone. Michael - Here's a handful of reasonable arguments for why studying and talking about IQ and race is important for a society. I'd love to hear your responses to these: 1. Understanding a persistent causal factor of disparate educational and economic outcomes between ethnicities - the alternative being to endlessly blame and direct hostility at an entire group of people [whites] for the lower performance of blacks while coming up with ever more implausible [and wrong] explanations for these ethnic differences [white privilege, implicit bias, unconscious bias, micro aggressions, etc] 2. Re-designing the education system to educate students of different IQ levels simply to reach their potential rather than designing expensive and ineffective programs such as No Child Left Behind which is focused on achieving equal academic outcomes. 3. Ending expensive, but well-meaning educational programs such as Head Start which has not succeeded in lasting academic improvement or IQ boosts to close the ethnic achievement gaps. Even Haidt comments on this at 45:16! 4. Immigration policy: Should a higher IQ nation import large numbers of lower IQ immigrants, who in just a few generations, will permanently change the caliber and character of the host nation into something that begins to resemble the society that the immigrants came from? Low IQ leads to chronic dependence of social welfare systems, unemployment, a preference for larger government and socialism, and an inability to attain higher levels of education and economic participation. This should be very worrying to a Libertarian such as yourself. 5. Ending affirmative action: Simply hire the best candidate for the position, or the best students for a school, regardless of race or sex. AA sets up a system that leads to intense resentment between ethnicities, a culture of lower expectations, and the mismatching people into roles that they are not capable of handling long-term. It's a failure, and it will not achieve equal outcomes per each population. 6. If we can understand all of the causal factors that lead to IQ differences between ethnicities, then and only then, can we begin to innovate real and actual solutions to mitigating or closing the gaps, whether it's through gene editing or by other means. Not studying or talking about this is tantamount to burying your head in the sand and just hoping that trying some new education or social program will eventually solve it. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.
I am watching two very duplicitous characters here in this video already planning the next set of behaviours to modify. This time they seem to think the Snowflakes will need to be hardened up to become better progressive activists. They actually are quoting a known far left man Van Jones talking about "Life is like a gym etc. Past tyrants have had gymnasiums and Youth Groups and greenie beliefs, vegan beliefs, open air living to toughen up the young activists too. It's all out in the open and they are back pedaling like crazy. Detestable men, deflecting and pretending like Sergeant Schultz saying, "I know nothing." They as Social Scientists have had a hand in all of this terrible mess, they have either been complicit in it or have been there with the rest of us trying to stop what has been happening in the school and higher education system. I haven't seen them working against the Left. I am sorry you respect these men but only someone with a far left twist could go along with them. Know thyself.
Win/win. When Shermer is a dumb-fuck, which he *can* be, someone takes the opportunity to provide cogent push-back that we otherwise may not have heard. Well played, Element 59!
Please consider the social media/adolescent mental health decline connection with respect to the rapid rise in transgender-identifying pre-teens and teens. Please see the groundbreaking, peer-reviewed study on the effect that social media may play in trans-identifying youth (Littman, L. (2018). Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports. Plos One, 13(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202330). My depressed 12 year old daughter "discovered" that she was trans by taking online quizzes and watching TH-cam transition videos, resulting in gender dysphoria that lasted a year and came with multiple requests for puberty blockers, testosterone, and a double mastectomy. For the past 1 year and half, she thanks us for listening and supporting her but not affirming her belief that she was a boy (in contrast to the recommendations by APA and WPATH). She says in her own words that she "just wanted a reason for the way I felt" and "it felt good to finally belong somewhere" and "But now I was realizing that this was not the solution. I was suddenly grateful that I had not transitioned. It would have ruined me." FYI - We were not a part of Littman's study because I didn't know about it at the time of recruitment. In addition, there is a huge controversy going on about acquiescing to the demands of social justice warriors and sensitive college students who want to ban this research. Please consider signing the petition supporting research into the social contagion aspect at Universities (link for petition is www.ipetitions.com/petition/brown-university-and-plos-one-defend-academic?).
Think Blink , thanks for speaking out so clearly on this. And I'm glad your daughter ultimately didn't succumb to the propaganda and social contagion . I wish you both well .
I'd add that the most brutal censorship in academia is of academics exposing child trans practices to evidence testing or other analysis. And that censorship is even more brutal if the academic is on the left , and secular , so they will make a more convincing opponent . Organised , dark PR enabled, billionaire funded campaigns to target dissenting academics need to be considered in understanding all of this too. A lot of the money behind this has been credibly mapped in detail too. And recently in the UK quite a few masks have fallen in terms of this kind of campaigning against dissent , as well as internet censorship of the same. The ground level players recently exposed in the media are so creepy they'd seen implausible if they were fiction . The top level funders are similarly horrific .
Well there has to be some 'powers that be' to have been so successful in disseminating the trans ideology based upon such a vast dearth of scientific evidence, medical research, and clinical evidence. I just hope the truth comes to light and kids and adults with gender dysphoria get the help they need to be healthy in the long term. That'll only happen when we stop treating this as a civil rights issue and start treating it as (non-stigmatized as much as possible) mental health issue.
What a wonderful parent you have been to your child during her desperate time. None of this need to have happened and I hope many more parents will stand between their children and the tyranny in our schools and Universities, we are having the same problems in Australia. Good luck in the future and thank you for writing about what happened to your child. Regards.
I think the dark side of this issue begins with kids at risk. For all the distance we think we've come over the past 4 decades on safety issues - I think this one is the Trojan horse that can so easily roll in past the protective barricades. And of course, social media plays a huge part. When parents become the "enemies" of the proponents, then this becomes a war on the family. And the stakes are huge.
Schools like Sudbury Valley in Framingham mass and Summerhill in the UK have demonstrated over more than 100 years now in Summerhil and well over 30years in Sudbury Valley that students can educate themselves without classes or grades or textbooks and the use of very few staff as resource persons not teachers. Only basic rule , don’t mess with anyone else’s stuff and no bullying . all students are involved with major school decisions from Kindergarten on up as long as they could demonstrate an understanding of the issues.
Could it be that students who don't have a strong community are seeking that connection in college, and can't risk feeling alienated or threatened in that community?
At some point we should also acknowledge that a lot of these problems are corollaries to university administrators and tenured professors being absolute cowards. Wonderful discussion, though.
Haidt does discuss this in the book. That in capitulating to internet mobs they are helping to create more mobs. He proposes the only solution is an iron determination to *never* immediately react to what these mobs demand. Always initiate an investigative process that takes its time and carefully gathers evidence, and gives the mob time to disperse.
I like Haidt, but I think he gives to much credit to people for being well meaning. There have been a number of incidents where people have faked events. As part of the many things that happened at Mizzou, one of the student protesters who was blocking the university’s president, while he was trying to drive home one day, throw himself in front of the car, so he could claim the president was trying to run him over. There are other incidents like that one else where, and I’m not saying it’s a majority who act like that, just that are some who act like that.
Maybe, but it's a good practice to assume people are acting in good faith. When speaking generally, or lacking evidence, it's counterproductive to assume people are dishonest or evil.
I agree, sometimes I think that Haidt is really overly optimistic in his assessment of things but that being said, maybe a tilt towards the optimistic has utility in times like these.
He appears to be a very duplicitous man, They two men are in denial and are never going to admit being part of this Social Scientists' series of experiments on our kids and others, It's been going on for years all through the education system.. Don't let them off the hook - this did not start when some children were born in 1995. This has been engineered by adults and they are still working out how to get their way. Now they realize they have to "harden" up these little Snowflakes and turn them into better progressive activists. Watch the video a second time. Regards.
I went to college in 2002, and came back in 2012. 2012 was a different world. A professor in a government class said, with a slide, "only 8% of fortune 500 CEO's are women. This is proof of sexism in society." I asked "how do we know different groups pursue status in the same way? How was that demonstrated?" 4 people stood up and started shouting at me, flailing their arms in threatening and aggressive ways. A girl I had spoken to on 3 different occasions for around 2 hours never spoke to me again. In 2002 disagreements were curious entertainment, in 2012, it was very clear they were precursors to a desire to cause harm. It's not vague or subtle. We can see when people want to fight in non verbal cues, not to mention them accompanying vague and insane, irrelevant accusations. So when people say "when I walk around campus things seem normal." I wonder, yeah, what are you waiting for, buildings to be burnt to the ground at every college? Have you tried talking to anyone? Have you seen how much more poorly these radical types deal with someone presenting them with a reasonable alternative explanation to their conspiracy theories? How can you not notice when presenting non progressive alternative explanations to disparities is met with very clear violent intent? You have to be trying not to.
34:10 Because it has consequences. Someone gathers statistics and notices that group A is proportionally under-represented in medicine, law, physics, math, etc. So some people clamor for all kinds of policies to counteract what they assume must be some kind of discrimination against group A. But group A has a lower average IQ than other groups. That means at the top end of the intelligence scale, they have proportionally fewer people, and it's from the top end that those studying medicine, law, etc. come. With sufficient knowledge of those differences, you can crunch some numbers and see that the representation of group A in those high-intelligence fields is right where it should be, corrected for intelligence. Or go the other way. I won't even use an alias. Ashkenazi Jews are highly over-represented in pretty much any field where intellectual ability is an advantage. Jews have a higher average IQ than any other tested group. That means there are going to be proportionally more Jews with high intelligence than people of other groups. It's only natural to expect higher Jewish representation participation rates in these intellectually demanding fields and positions. If you try to hide these differences, what you end up with are social programs trying to correct under-representation that doesn't exist, hurting both those passed over in favor of the policy-favored group, and members of that favored group who lack the ability to succeed being set up for failure. And you get conspiracy theories about Jews controlling everything, ensuring their fellow Jews get all the good jobs. When viewed, instead, in light of IQ differences, disparate statistics can be properly analyzed to determine if there is true disproportionate representation due to factors we don't want (artificial barriers due to bigotry or unearned benefits due to affiliation), or if differences between groups accounts for it all. This says nothing about why the differences exist. The difference between whites and blacks, for example, is certainly due in large part to differences in poverty rates. It takes years of solid nutrition to build a brain that matches the full genetic potential of the genome constructing it. If we notice a large disparity in average group intelligence, we can look into it and see if there are correctable reasons for it. Alleviating those causes (as happened naturally with the white population over decades, as average height and IQ rose with higher standards of living and better nutrition) will address numerical under-representation at the root cause, without causing harmful side effects. So that's why sensible people would want these things studied.
the thrust of your response is exactly correct, and i believe this is the position of charles murray and why he wrote the bell curve. i will push back however on one small statement (everything else written here is very cogent and accurate) about the causation. i think you are putting too much emphasis on environmental factors (i.e. poverty). that seems to lead to the hypothesis that we are all born destined to have 100 IQ, but anyone who has lower is there due to poor nutrition. how then do we have 150 IQ people? what did they eat? surely there are genetic differences between humans. these differences are heritable. this has to extend to their IQ. and as much as people may dislike it, racial/ethnic groups have genetic/IQ differences.
You seem to be missing the point. Or several, perhaps. IQ is highly heritable and highly variable. If a person with the genes for building a brain with an IQ of 150 is starved of proper nutrition, either in the womb or while growing up in childhood, the actual brain constructed will not have an IQ of 150. It will be substantially lower. Rinse and repeat over an entire population. Then you get an average IQ that's lower than it could be. That doesn't mean there can't be differences in average IQ between races that would persist after making all else equal. And the causes for that difference would be genetic. But who cares? The only utility in knowing that average is in properly understanding other statistics for the group in question, such as participation rates in various aspects of society that depend in large part on IQ. That is, you can't justify keeping everyone from group A out of physics because group A's average IQ is only 90. But you can say that group A's lower participation rate in physics is explained by the smaller numbers of group A members capable of succeeding in the field (if that's supported by the actual numbers), rather than by some kind of systemic discrimination based on group membership. But we're not there. You can't legitimately make the claim you do in your final sentence. Neither you nor anyone else knows what the actual genetic differences in average intelligence are between races because there are far too many confounding environmental factors at the present time.
If that population as a consequence doesn't value IQ and result in only the lower end of their demographics IQ bell curve procreating then over thousands of generations wouldn't that result in their race having a lower average IQ?
A Moment In Time That's not how evolution works. Reproduction doesn't happen by committee. You can reasonably argue that, in a culture which makes it easier for people of low intelligence to reproduce than people of high intelligence, there would be a trend towards lower intelligence over a long period of time. But there are no such cultures. Don't put too much stock in the plot of _Idiocracy._ We do live in a culture which makes it easier for everyone to reproduce successfully, but that's through a reduction in external confounding factors, like starving to death or being eaten. It's not the case that any culture rewards stupidity with higher reproductive success. It's also not the case that any particular culture ever lasts long enough to drive long-term evolutionary trends like that.
>You seem to be missing the point yes i could have missed something. i am very interested in IQ and IQ differences so i would be very glad to learn more. >IQ is highly heritable yes this is correct >and highly variable nope. for the most part IQ is similar to, and converges to the parent's IQ. but yes there is some variability and regression to the mean. >If a person with the genes for building a brain with an IQ of 150 is starved of proper nutrition, either in the womb or while growing up in childhood, the actual brain constructed will not have an IQ of 150. It will be substantially lower agreed. however that just confirms my point. different people can be born differently (i.e. with genes for building brains of differing IQ). >That doesn't mean there can't be differences in average IQ between races that would persist after making all else equal. yes this is my point. >But who cares? this is exactly why your original message was so great, so accurate, and precisely what i agreed with. people are different. different groups of people are different. if you just look at the outcome of group A and say they are discriminated against because they have a different outcome is patently wrong. >Neither you nor anyone else knows what the actual genetic differences in average intelligence are between races except that we do know that there are differences now. noone can deny this. all experimentation/data show this. i will agree that we do not necessarily know the cause. it could be as you describe, effectively an evolved lowering of threshold due to poor nutrition. which to me still makes it a genetic difference because of the heritability of IQ. or it could be the position i hold which is that different genes have evolved differently and have different thresholds. this seems to fit with other examples of different outcomes. notice how people of west african descent are tremendously adept at sporting endeavors. this is genetic. that is why the NBA has something like 90% black players in a country where they only make up 10% of the population.
Monitoring the trends on college campuses, emphasising the positives, and speculating on and investigating the negatives is commendable. When analysing college student behaviour, mainly questionable behaviour and trying to correct it with norms, we are once again being substantively more reactive, than prescriptive or proactive. If we want prescription with regard to college students, then we need to learn more about the minds of children and adolescents. Having The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind by Alison Gopnik (Author and mom), Andrew N Meltzoff (Author), Patricia K Kuhl (Author) and Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood, A Cultural Approach by Jeffry, Jensen, Arnett on the table, having been read, having considered the implications, and previously establishing prescriptive norms for parents, grandparents, coaches and teachers would make prescriptive norms set by college profs and administrators more consequential.
Shemer is being very unintellectual by saying why would you research and speak about difference in IQ and genetics. Knowledge is knowledge. Burying your head in the sand ignore such is not only foolish, but it's counterproductive in trying to correct the problem. Problems only get worse when you don't address them head-on. And him saying that he wouldn't use the "n-word" is just plain silly. No words are off limit, ever!
Anyone who is an academic who says "why do you want to know that?" is deeply worrying to me. I've also seen a tendency to say "why do you know that?" to people who break out facts that undermine politically correct assertions about the world.
Sorry, not sure what you're saying? The book you linked to seems to back up the idea that IQ is really quite useful and not discredited at all (and it isn't) "He dispels common misconceptions, such as the belief that IQ tests are biased or meaningless, " And IQ does vary by race, by entire standard deviations (which is huge variance in social science)
I was responding to your quite clear assertion here; "I think once one starts to get a grip on what's understood about both IQ and GI, one will realize they're both pretty useless" I simply countered by saying the book you linked makes clear they aren't useless. You didn't specify you were referring only to their validity with regards to race. You might want to work on your own reading comprehension instead of lecturing others about their intelligence or suggesting they're acting in bad faith.
Well a big part of the problem is that he said, "race and IQ" yet you heard, "IQ and genetics". We know about IQ and genetics it's about a .6 correlation. So almost half of variance has nothing to do with genetics a fairly important thing to remember when talking about different cultures. Genetics has little to do with race. Africans are often considered a race yet have more genetic variation than the rest of our species. The real problem with such discussions is people like you making assumptions because they don't understand the topic yet have strong opinions on it.
Watching these two guys brought to mind Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroe's, he always claimed, "I know nothing!" I am astounded at the duplicity of these two pretenders. Where have you two been all these years since the deliberate infiltration years ago ,and eventual take over, of the Universities by the Frankfurt School, by men from the extreme Left bent on Social Change? Why don't you know where this horrifying mess is coming from? Could it be coming directly from the Crony Government Universities, (Obama doubled down on debt for Students and parents), and their "Experts". Are you not aware that the Main-stream Media helped create Obama, we soon saw him as The Emperor with No Clothes? Do you really believe that the history of this distasteful present era started in 1995 with the birth of children into the age of more technology? So now you want to toughen up your "Snowflakes", use them as more effective activists after a word or quote or two from Mr. Van Jones and Mr. Axelrod, 2 Obama left overs, using the Media power. Do you not know, self proclaimed Professor of the Social Sciences, Mr. Haidt, of the years of haphazard experimentation in our schools by Social 'Scientists'? The drugging of energetic boys with Ritalin and such so they become zombies trapped at their desks", no longer allowed to play. The lauding of girls' behaviours as better than boys who are now being attacked by adult 'Experts' claiming being male is toxic? Don't you know of the hours of homework now inflicted on children out of school hours that chains them still to a desk instead of playing and thinking for themselves? Have you missed the assault on little children with the attempt at teaching them that all sexual activities and behaviours are normal and OK? Do you realize that little children are afraid to go to sleep because they are frightened that they may wake up changed overnight to boy or girl because they are taught in their tender years that boys can be girls and girls can turn into boys? Do you not know that our Science System has been misused, (ACGW) and the STEM subjects are now being dumbed-down too so the women's "quota" can be filled? You are of the School of Secular Thought and are doing far more harm to our Science and our Social cohesion than any religion has ever done. Do you really think we believe that you are as naive as you pretend to be. You have exposed yourself to the light, we see you Sir. We know now what you are doing with your Social Sciences. But now you wish to "back pedal" a little. Shame on you. Parents please be aware they will never admit to what they do so stand between them and your children. Education has been thoroughly corrupted. I am sorry for those who respect these people but go do your own studies about all these people and be forewarned. Regards.
"70% *_to 30%"_* percent of women wouldn't really suggest a preference toward women. Two thirds more of men hardly can be a bias towards women. I've coincidentally once heard there's a study that men think there's a majority of women once there's 1/3 of women. When people say women "should" go into tech, they're most likely saying in the sense that "just as much as men 'should'". Granted, some people would really think that perhaps more women really should be in those fields and less men, so things approach 50% in everything, but in general it's probably "should if they want to", "should seek careers wherever there are good opportunities regardless of stereotypes" and so on.
Still shaking my head at how intellectually bankrupt Shermer is. 1) Only people with "credentials" should be invited on campus. That, and "baiting the left," is why Milo shouldn't be invited according to Shermer. That's pretty rich since his standard would eliminate Bill Gates and Steve Jobs (neither graduated) as well as many protest groups (unless they had degrees) and almost all celebrities & artists (Steven Spielberg could still speak at Yale since he has his BA but Sean Combs should have never spoken to Howard since he doesn't). 2) Steve Bannon shouldn't be invited Because, and you'll notice a trend, Shermer thinks Bannon is beyond the pale and "baits" the left. Amusingly, Haidt shuts Shermer down by reminding him the Bannon helped run a presidential campaign. And, as I see it, a maverick presidential campaign to successfully elect a non-politician with vastly different views from his predecessor. 3) IQ and race: Shermer doesn't know "why you would want to speak about it or write about it" Are you kidding me?!?! If we're talking about experiments on humans or building a backyard nuclear bomb, i.e. research that would threaten measurable physical harm, I could understand a ban on research. But if you side with Shermer, exactly which areas of study should be off-limits to research? Or that can be studied but can't publish results? Following Shermer's crap logic, creationist profs can nix research on evolution. Feminists can nix research debunking the wage gap. You get the point. I wasn't aware of Shermer before - he seemed reasonable on Rubin - but I now know what a complete intellectual partisan he truly is.
To be fair, Haidt shot Shermer down each time he tried to label someone on the right or some topic beyond the pale. Haidt's described himself as center left ("always voting for Democrats"). Shermer claims to be objective and a centrist, but interviews like this demonstrate how Shermer is unquestionably far left.
These dudes are intelligent, thoughtful and they are baby boomer, straight, white guys with fairly like minded baby boomer or Gen X spouses and this sort of thing extends in to how they interpret the information that they gather. Many people still believe that stats are all that’s needed to find answers to sociological issues but it isn’t enough to get to truth. Did he really just use an anecdotal example of how his four year old nephews used dinosaur toys to fight while the niece was all “Im your mommy and I’m never gonna leave you”? Did he really say that to make a point? 🤯
I appreciate Jonathan's analysis of riding adolescent mental health issues . I also know however that there are a couple of powerful cultural factors you haven't included . Re girls in particular , the experience of extremely violent female degrading porn typically now being part of children's formative introduction to sexuality is devastating to girl's sense of their place in the world , and to their experience of puberty and emergent sexual feelings. ( It's pretty aweful for boys in many ways too). Secondly there is the factor of deliberate mega- funded propaganda , including the suicide sell of trans ideology now sold directly in schools, and bin UK and Australia , even in preschools and early child care centers. Kids ( especially already vulnerable kids) are sold enticing narratives of mysterious cloaked "specialness ", that rapidly transform ( in a classic grooming pattern ) to add paranoia of danger and threat from the supposedly " rejecting " outside world . And then the revelation that their developing bodies are supposedly an existential threat. They are also literally sold a dependence on explicit , ideology and identity label affirming external validation for their very sense of self .
These guys have been part of this. They are back pedaling. Fancy thinking we would fall for the narrative that this started in 1995, it came out of the universities years ago and they have been in with it all along yet they pretend - "I know nothing!" They are deflecting but also planning the next set of modifications on their failure with the "Snowflakes", now they must be hardened up. Step between them and protect your kids. The Left and Big Gov. always causes crises which then must be "fixed" at great expense and over a long period of large pay for them and loads of respect for those "fixing" the problem that they caused in the first place. Standard behaviour. Watch this video again without the rose-coloured glasses. Good luck with your children's safety and happiness.
36:38 Not necessarily. A lot of non-black people - perhaps most - use "nigger" not as a label for someone of a black race, but as a label for someone with a particular anti-social culture. It's perhaps best explained in the Chris Rock bit where he talks about who he's looking for over his shoulder at the ATM. Context always matters.
The standard comments about this being an interesting and well-informed talk apply. But I shall show my respect for the piece in the form of *criticism*. 1:11:00 On Cbt :/ I have my misgiving about CBT... of course I have no evidence but maybe you should ignore me, but I'll say what I think anyway. So my misgivings are: * A good framing of the world must be true - not just encourage responsibility * A good framing of the world should maximize your ability to act (subject to the constraints of truth) * The "distortions" listed in CBT are not intrinsically untrue - rather they just suggest that you *might* be wrong and that you *might* have to think about something else. I would maintain, rather arrogantly, that CBT is useful insofar as as it ensures your framing of the world is more true, empowers you more (subject to the constraints of truth) and makes your thinking more complete and correct as *guided* by the idea of distortions - gives you a fuller more complete view of the world. The thing about CBT is if you take someone who has been genuinely abused and throw CBT at the them it can act as a form of gaslighting... at the effects of this mightn't be pretty and I feel as if the framing you used here risk denying that anything can be wrong with the world, or that any one could have done anything wrong that might have negative effects on people's lives. Appreciating how external factors might have played into unfortunate experiences in your life is not to the same as not understanding how you might exert more control over your life, and a model of the world is not more healthy by virtue of finding fault in yourself if this is not true. Haidt likes to talk about concepts of social justice being valued above truth, I might counter that he risks leaning the other way and valuing the idea of "instilling virtue / character" as being more important than correctly understanding the world. Understandable given some of the attitudes that exist.
As a born-again Christian (who has a degree in Psychology and have seen my share of hard times in life), I have found this book interesting, but there are points where Mr. Haidt's liberal leanings break through. One place is on Pages 61-62. Here the author's one-sided understanding leaks through on the the particular subject of "gay marriage" and how the "...enonobling common-humanity approach played a major role in the movement that won marriage equality to the gay people in several statewide elections in 2012, paving the way for the Supreme Court to rule that gay marriage would become the law of the land." Just because the liberal social media and those who used "techniques" to "humanize" gays, does not mean that their "behavior" that is not compatible with the majority of the World's major religions is good or appropriate. We can show people respect, but to use techniques that manipulate people who are not that educated or knowledgeable about the religion they claim they follow (example: wordly nominal Christians), is not a "win" as Mr. Haidt claims. Using manipulation techniques that are "...appealing to powerful moral principles....." and "This is the way to win hearts, mins, and votes..." is just that, manipulation. How is Mr. Haidt defining "powerful moral principles? What about the powerful moral principles on the other side of the issue that says that certain behaviors are not appropriate nor compatible to their religion? According to Mr. Haidt, the "liberal and progressive" moral principles are the ONLY ones to listen to and follow. If he looked at recent studies, he would learn that EVERY church denomination that has allowed "liberal and progressive" teachings to enter into their churches, are DYING. The churches that are growing yearly are the traditional, orthodox, conservative leaning churches. To be conservative, traditional and orthodox does not mean hateful, disrespectful, racist or promoting any other form of bad behavior. But Christian scripture is full of teachings that teach that we are not to go down certain paths, or we will have many serious problems. Scripture teaches how to set healthy firm boundaries - preferably in a loving but again firm way. Mr. Haidt needs to do more research in certain areas. He has a lot of good information from what research he has done, but he misses the mark big time in the field of faith. The University of Michigan just came out with a study that showed that God helps lonely and depressed people survive, and to feel they have purpose - even though they have no friends. Religion/true faith has a place in our lives, and one big reason that many in Generation Z are depressed and turning to suicide, is because they have "anomie" [as Mr. Haidt says in another of his video interviews] - defined as: a "condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals". It is the breakdown of social bonds between an individual and the community, e.g., under unruly scenarios resulting in fragmentation of social identity and rejection of self-regulatory values." This book does show the symptoms of Generation Z's behavior, but at times it misses the mark on how to correct or redirect this maladaptive behavior to a more productive and mentally healthy form of thinking and believing. Mr. Haidt misses the mark when he attempts to speak of faith issues - particularly in regards to true Christian faith. Otherwise, this book is a good read.
The problem is, you have no coherent, moral argument to counter homosexuality. You say it’s wrong simply because the Bible says it’s wrong which only appeals to those who share the same beliefs as you. Homosexual marriage won out at the end of the day because those who opposed it offered no compelling moral argument against it.
While the civilization-killing problem of political correctness replacing truth is most pronounced in the top 100 schools, it is also found in other colleges. Looks at Evergreen State.
Free range , diverse ,advocacy-efforts in politics can be legitimate, even sometimes with a relevant focus on identity . But that is not identity politics. Identity politics is an entirely different beast , and one that is absolutely instrumental in powerful interests using identity puppetry to radically undermine representative democracy , transparency and accountability. Identity politics is used as a term for that game by people on both sides, and it's a reasonably clearly understood term. I think it's not helpful at all to neutralise or diffuse criticism of the identity politics systems and ideology by re-purposing that term for universal human rights framed advocacy like that of Martin Luther King , or principled resistance efforts like Ghandi. Jonathan repeatedly mentions procedural fairness . One of the defining characteristics of Identity Politics is that it rejects procedural consistency and an objective.
There is some points where we can't understand say a black female person living in place X,Y or Z. Yeah kinda, in the same sense you can't truly understand how it is to be another person, be it as someone as close as your mother. Also, it goes both ways. Can someone non white understand how it is to be a white person, or can a female understand how it is to be a male. With this in mind, I cannot see any other option than a ugly tribal mentality/power game based in immutabile properties like skin colour growing out of it. This is why I think such arguements should be mocked at every turn.
Haidt, you are not just being polite, you tend to err on the disingenuous side. It may be expedient, it does not serve truth. I think you can talk about differences in other traits than skin, we are no tabula rasa.
Haidt Should probably meet Peterson too. You Guys have a lot in common and Peterson could learn a thing or two about other causes than the marxist revolutionaries did It!
You won't uncover how completely brutal censorship can be at your institution until you do something like advocate open conversation about the evidence base for ( or against ) child transition , or even a rights of the child analysis of the same.
How about this for a reason for a rise in girl suicide Now they have to have the looks, the home, the family AND the highly demanding job that pays a living wage. And how ya gonna do all that if your relationship falls apart (as you're lead to believe it stands a good chance of doing) On top of this (for both guys and girls) you have to be taking great care of yourself inside and out, both physically and mentally No pressure!
lol. And ancient creative artists will tell you that the key for creativity is leisure (otium) and the lack of a stressful environment which allow you to attend to your imagination. Both Ovid and Horace make this point. So, Jonathon, we can cherry pick ancient wisdom that contradicts your cherry picked ancient wisdom.
What do you call it when you are publicly threatened with physical violence in a classroom at a top 10 university, and the professor does nothing, because you asked "how was it demonstrated that men and women pursue status in the same way?" It's not "technically a moral panic?" Neither of these people want to face the backlash attendant to taking this problem seriously, both say relatively outrageous things about right wingers in an effort to maintain leftist credibility. Peter Boghossian is being brought up on human rights violations, because hoaxing grievance studies journals amounts to "conducting tests on human subjects." Your cowardice enables this Shermer! I thought you were better than this Haidt!
What about the culture of elementary school education training for men? I'm sick of the one way perception of these issues from the hyperagreeable types like Haidt. I love his work. But the self-abnegating sweetness of his personality type is just. Well. Par for the course. And that says something. That's as tough as you you can be in the academic world if your world view doesn't fit the mold. Any disagreeableness. Aka, balls. And you're just intolerable.
He is a lefty monster - complicit as all hell in what has been happening for years and years. Does he really think we will believe his narrative that this only started in 1995 and so on. They messed up the Snowflakes and now they are planning to "harden them up" - nice one guys. Creeps. Social engineers. Not sweet, not innocent, complicit. Deflecting.
Sloppy reasoning on the strength of innate sexual psychological differences. Parents who think of themselves as egalitarians are already cultivating different tendencies in babies, without realizing, even interpreting the same exact expression/behavior in stereotypical patterns depending on the gender that's assigned to a baby. Preferences to things like astronomy are not biologically gendered, it's not something that universally attracts males, but specifically some kinds of nerds, even most males wouldn't go on doing astronomical trips. In more egalitarian and developed countries even males will also be proportionately more employed in less masculine/more feminine professions (office work rather than dangerous physical labor), it's more common for people to prefer to avoid most strenuous and dangerous work. I'm not saying that hormones wouldn't do anything, but you can't discount the fact that even learning juggling or being a taxi driver produces changes in your brain, that can be distinguished from non-jugglers or non-taxi drivers in informed comparisons. A life of different, "gendered" experiences also ought to cultivate differences. In different cultures you can have changes in such patterns or even flips. In Brazil, males throw balls like girls, because baseball isn't really a thing, and football is proper football, not using hands; there are also one or another "matriarchal" culture were women play certain psychological experiment "games" displaying more competitiveness than men.
I was born '97, midsized metropolitan area northwestern Illinois/southeastern Iowa. We had a lot of kids in the neighborhood, we we're allowed to play unsupervised luckily. Helped build our character, I do believe that. It also let us do risky things that truly broadened our lives for worse, but mostly for better.
Love Dr. Haidt, thought his book "The Righteous Mind" was terrific, worth adding to the list of things all students ought to read before attending any higher education. Looking forward to reading this work, too. Thanks for the video, could easily watch more of both of you discussing such interesting and important ideas.
Thanks Mr Shermer - excellent guest!
My father used to have a saying - "those given advantage, take advantage". He left China in the time of Mao - at that time there were devout cultural revolutionists whos job it was to point out enemies of the revolution. Dad explained the corruption that was inherent in the state, so at first the businesses, groups or individuals pointed out were universally disliked by the community. But soon these revolutionists started to use the power for thier personal advantage, against people who they didnt like, not just 'enemies of the revolution', and since it benefitted the revolution these people misusing the name of revolution were condoned.
In this conversation, which I really enjoyed, both speakers acknowledge the reality of inequality in society but don't factor in that when given the license and credibility to 'point out injustice' some will use it in unscrupulous ways. I think its an important point because evolution favors those that have, or take, advantage..That 'instinct' may be older than compassion because - in evolution anyways, success beats compassion.
It may be simplistic but whoever we give the gavel of social justice should be carefully monitored for misuse of it, we seem to be doing a bad job at tgat right now.
Sam - That was a very interesting comment. Your Dad was right. Socialism/Communism damaged millions of lives and murdered millions of people in China.
The problem with Communists, now calling themselves Socialists, is that they hide among us, infiltrate and sabotage our institutions. They get into Government and make damaging policy, they get into our schools and create havoc, they have undermined the Universities years ago and many Academics carry on the work of Socialism, quietly unobtrusively carrying out Social Engineering. But these two men in the video plead ignorance about how this possibly could have happened, not true they, have been active in the system for years. Red Flag.
People like these pretend to not know about what is happening to the young within our educational systems yet they are the one's who bring about cultural disruptions, encourage racism by using favouratism, or like Obama set one group against the other, creating division. These men are deflecting by setting up a false narrative saying that this only started in 1995. These problems have been around for years. But the crazy little Snowflakes and Antifa and the SJW gave away the game. Let the cat out of the bag so to speak.
They are the duplicitous Left. The Left always lies and they are pushing "Socialism" now-a-days. These men are friends with those of the left and admire those of the left - actually one of these men actually quotes from a really far-left man Van Jones - talking about "Life is like a gym...etc..." Van Jones and Axelrod are well known Far-Left Activists left over from Obama's divisive time as President. Everybody is a racist since Obama's time in politics. Awful.
Obama's Parents were Communist, so were his Grandparents who brought him up, Frank Davis, his mentor in childhood was a rabid Communist.
Obama was assisted in his drive to become President by many people including Bill Ayers and his wife Benardine Dohrn.
Look up these two activist Communists. They are in the University Institutions even now. So shocking. The Social Scientists made a mistake and the last batch of kids came out useless to them as "Snowflakes", so these two are now talking about hardening them up so they will become useful "progressive" activists. Be aware that the Left is still active in most countries and they will destroy a society as your Father knows. (See Venezuela)
No conscience, Godless, never stopping driven to destroy, they do not create, they manipulate and destroy. They are easy to spot but also hide behind appearing to be "compassionate", "Caring" but they always want to control everything people do and use the State to do it. They need and love Big Government. Thanks for mentioning your Father's experience people of today need to know what communism/Socialism does to people. Take Care. Regards.
I say give no man the right to use coercion and violence against a peaceful person. Government is a farce that has humanity under it's spell for most of human history....it's a form of religion. Most people are more devout in their worship of government than they are to other religions of the world. If you're interested, read (audio book), "Neither Bullets Nor Ballots" th-cam.com/video/mhuuN8c6J3A/w-d-xo.html and "The Most Dangerous Superstition" th-cam.com/video/Kg0zIvxwVaM/w-d-xo.html
Very insightful comment. Thank you for posting that. I learned a little about life in China during the 20th century by reading a book called "Wild Swans" by Jung Chang. Absolutely fascinating but also terrifying book. Her father was the most tragic character in the entire saga, in my opinion. Motivated rightly, fair, faithful and upright. He believed fervently in the ideals espoused by Chairman Mao and the party, but was ultimately betrayed. The lessons we learn from our parents are priceless.
How come intsec's always say: "You don't know how it is to be a *insert group*" But they assume to know how it is to be a white middle age man?
Jonathan Haidt is the man. It's got to be tough to say things that are unpopular, but true.
Lol.
1:06:48 on the subject of self censorship due to pressure. I love the following quote about censorship due to the Communist party of Czechoslovakia, from director Miloš Forman.
"And then the censorship itself, that's not the worst evil. The worst evil is - and that's the product of censorship - is the self-censorship, because that twists spines, that destroys my character because I have to think something else and say something else, I have to always control myself. I am stopping to being honest, I am becoming hypocrite - and that's what they wanted, they wanted everybody to feel guilty,"
Miloš Forman GWU interview 1997
Great interview, Michael, thank you!
I picked up social media when I was 18. I can only imagine the havoc that environment would wreak on a younger me. Can't say banning it would work but, the psychology that environment engages should be taught.
samthepoor I agree with you, but we have to be careful _how_ it’s taught. Right now, it’s by companies like Twitch in ideological seminars like “Latinx in Gaming: You Belong Here”. Twitchcon is riddled with panels like that, which aren’t helping and further dividing impressionable young kids.
I know that may not be exactly what you’re talking about, but I think it displays that we’d need to discuss how navigating the current tech landscape is a complex issue within itself.
samthepoor I agree with you, but we have to be careful _how_ it’s taught. Right now, it’s by companies like Twitch in ideological seminars like “Latinx in Gaming: You Belong Here”. Twitchcon is riddled with panels like that, which aren’t helping and further dividing impressionable young kids.
I know that may not be exactly what you’re talking about, but I think it displays that we’d need to discuss how navigating the current tech landscape is a complex issue within itself.
Yeah, I picked it up when I was 35. It has been somewhat disastrous for me.
Parental supervision is non-existent with so many empty homes for children to come back to from school. Parents used to counteract propaganda but it seems that Mums are too busy working for that lovely new lounge set, or those cute shoes and so on. Social media is only one aspect of this awful mess. Too many women have reneged on their maternal duties to go work for some strange boss at a boring business, they sadly and are calling it their "Career". Children come first or don't have them.
Social media has become hypnotical media. Everything is being impacted by it, and kids' lives especially. There's a workbook called 30 Days Without Social Media by Harper Daniels that I really liked. Taught mindfulness meditation.
Free range kids and Haidts new book just got in from Amazon today! Thank you for your the interview!
Shermer was talking about race and IQ and he said "Why would you even want to study this," which is exactly what Sam Harris said. Haidt said "I'm not even going to touch that," and went on to talk about the n-word. If that's their reaction, I think we have to assume that they tacitly agree with Murray. Because if they didn't agree with that, they would wholeheartedly exclaim "Murray is a kook, and here is why he's wrong."
So they pretty much give their opinion without even stating it.
Well they are legitimate scientists so they know he was correct but they can't talk about it because they are bound by their progressive allies.
Great discussion. I'll be getting Dr Haidt's book.
Two of my favorite thinkers. However, I'm disappointed with Shermer's comments on IQ and race at 33:52. Not only do his comments come across as a disingenuous cop-out, but it' really antithetical to the thrust of what these two are discussing - the free exchange of ideas, experiences, and data regardless of whether it morally offends someone.
Michael - Here's a handful of reasonable arguments for why studying and talking about IQ and race is important for a society. I'd love to hear your responses to these:
1. Understanding a persistent causal factor of disparate educational and economic outcomes between ethnicities - the alternative being to endlessly blame and direct hostility at an entire group of people [whites] for the lower performance of blacks while coming up with ever more implausible [and wrong] explanations for these ethnic differences [white privilege, implicit bias, unconscious bias, micro aggressions, etc]
2. Re-designing the education system to educate students of different IQ levels simply to reach their potential rather than designing expensive and ineffective programs such as No Child Left Behind which is focused on achieving equal academic outcomes.
3. Ending expensive, but well-meaning educational programs such as Head Start which has not succeeded in lasting academic improvement or IQ boosts to close the ethnic achievement gaps. Even Haidt comments on this at 45:16!
4. Immigration policy: Should a higher IQ nation import large numbers of lower IQ immigrants, who in just a few generations, will permanently change the caliber and character of the host nation into something that begins to resemble the society that the immigrants came from? Low IQ leads to chronic dependence of social welfare systems, unemployment, a preference for larger government and socialism, and an inability to attain higher levels of education and economic participation. This should be very worrying to a Libertarian such as yourself.
5. Ending affirmative action: Simply hire the best candidate for the position, or the best students for a school, regardless of race or sex. AA sets up a system that leads to intense resentment between ethnicities, a culture of lower expectations, and the mismatching people into roles that they are not capable of handling long-term. It's a failure, and it will not achieve equal outcomes per each population.
6. If we can understand all of the causal factors that lead to IQ differences between ethnicities, then and only then, can we begin to innovate real and actual solutions to mitigating or closing the gaps, whether it's through gene editing or by other means. Not studying or talking about this is tantamount to burying your head in the sand and just hoping that trying some new education or social program will eventually solve it.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.
I am watching two very duplicitous characters here in this video already planning the next set of behaviours to modify.
This time they seem to think the Snowflakes will need to be hardened up to become better progressive activists. They actually are quoting a known far left man Van Jones talking about "Life is like a gym etc.
Past tyrants have had gymnasiums and Youth Groups and greenie beliefs, vegan beliefs, open air living to toughen up the young activists too.
It's all out in the open and they are back pedaling like crazy. Detestable men, deflecting and pretending like Sergeant Schultz saying, "I know nothing." They as Social Scientists have had a hand in all of this terrible mess, they have either been complicit in it or have been there with the rest of us trying to stop what has been happening in the school and higher education system. I haven't seen them working against the Left. I am sorry you respect these men but only someone with a far left twist could go along with them. Know thyself.
Win/win. When Shermer is a dumb-fuck, which he *can* be, someone takes the opportunity to provide cogent push-back that we otherwise may not have heard. Well played, Element 59!
Please consider the social media/adolescent mental health decline connection with respect to the rapid rise in transgender-identifying pre-teens and teens. Please see the groundbreaking, peer-reviewed study on the effect that social media may play in trans-identifying youth (Littman, L. (2018). Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports. Plos One, 13(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202330). My depressed 12 year old daughter "discovered" that she was trans by taking online quizzes and watching TH-cam transition videos, resulting in gender dysphoria that lasted a year and came with multiple requests for puberty blockers, testosterone, and a double mastectomy. For the past 1 year and half, she thanks us for listening and supporting her but not affirming her belief that she was a boy (in contrast to the recommendations by APA and WPATH). She says in her own words that she "just wanted a reason for the way I felt" and "it felt good to finally belong somewhere" and "But now I was realizing that this was not the solution. I was suddenly grateful that I had not transitioned. It would have ruined me." FYI - We were not a part of Littman's study because I didn't know about it at the time of recruitment. In addition, there is a huge controversy going on about acquiescing to the demands of social justice warriors and sensitive college students who want to ban this research. Please consider signing the petition supporting research into the social contagion aspect at Universities (link for petition is www.ipetitions.com/petition/brown-university-and-plos-one-defend-academic?).
Think Blink , thanks for speaking out so clearly on this. And I'm glad your daughter ultimately didn't succumb to the propaganda and social contagion . I wish you both well .
I'd add that the most brutal censorship in academia is of academics exposing child trans practices to evidence testing or other analysis. And that censorship is even more brutal if the academic is on the left , and secular , so they will make a more convincing opponent .
Organised , dark PR enabled, billionaire funded campaigns to target dissenting academics need to be considered in understanding all of this too. A lot of the money behind this has been credibly mapped in detail too. And recently in the UK quite a few masks have fallen in terms of this kind of campaigning against dissent , as well as internet censorship of the same. The ground level players recently exposed in the media are so creepy they'd seen implausible if they were fiction . The top level funders are similarly horrific .
Well there has to be some 'powers that be' to have been so successful in disseminating the trans ideology based upon such a vast dearth of scientific evidence, medical research, and clinical evidence. I just hope the truth comes to light and kids and adults with gender dysphoria get the help they need to be healthy in the long term. That'll only happen when we stop treating this as a civil rights issue and start treating it as (non-stigmatized as much as possible) mental health issue.
What a wonderful parent you have been to your child during her desperate time. None of this need to have happened and I hope many more parents will stand between their children and the tyranny in our schools and Universities, we are having the same problems in Australia. Good luck in the future and thank you for writing about what happened to your child. Regards.
I think the dark side of this issue begins with kids at risk. For all the distance we think we've come over the past 4 decades on safety issues - I think this one is the Trojan horse that can so easily roll in past the protective barricades. And of course, social media plays a huge part.
When parents become the "enemies" of the proponents, then this becomes a war on the family. And the stakes are huge.
Three people felt micro-oppressed by this video so far.
Schools like Sudbury Valley in Framingham mass and Summerhill in the UK have demonstrated over more than 100 years now in Summerhil and well over 30years in Sudbury Valley that students can educate themselves without classes or grades or textbooks and the use of very few staff as resource persons not teachers. Only basic rule , don’t mess with anyone else’s stuff and no bullying . all students are involved with major school decisions from Kindergarten on up as long as they could demonstrate an understanding of the issues.
Could it be that students who don't have a strong community are seeking that connection in college, and can't risk feeling alienated or threatened in that community?
Very interesting conversation. Thanks for sharing.
Two of my favorites!1
Thanks for putting this together
At some point we should also acknowledge that a lot of these problems are corollaries to university administrators and tenured professors being absolute cowards. Wonderful discussion, though.
Haidt does discuss this in the book. That in capitulating to internet mobs they are helping to create more mobs. He proposes the only solution is an iron determination to *never* immediately react to what these mobs demand. Always initiate an investigative process that takes its time and carefully gathers evidence, and gives the mob time to disperse.
I just love how these two culpable guys have deflected any blame away from themselves - nicely done.
One of the other reasons that workplace training is not fully effective is because if it seems ideological then it simply becomes a formality.
Great video, thank you both.👍👍
I like Haidt, but I think he gives to much credit to people for being well meaning. There have been a number of incidents where people have faked events. As part of the many things that happened at Mizzou, one of the student protesters who was blocking the university’s president, while he was trying to drive home one day, throw himself in front of the car, so he could claim the president was trying to run him over. There are other incidents like that one else where, and I’m not saying it’s a majority who act like that, just that are some who act like that.
Maybe, but it's a good practice to assume people are acting in good faith. When speaking generally, or lacking evidence, it's counterproductive to assume people are dishonest or evil.
Rio Stover, I agree, but there’s a distinct element that has been shown to be working in bad faith.
I agree, sometimes I think that Haidt is really overly optimistic in his assessment of things but that being said, maybe a tilt towards the optimistic has utility in times like these.
There's actually no alternative. If you assume your ideological opposite is dishonest or evil, the only reasonable option is outright war.
He appears to be a very duplicitous man, They two men are in denial and are never going to admit being part of this Social Scientists' series of experiments on our kids and others, It's been going on for years all through the education system.. Don't let them off the hook - this did not start when some children were born in 1995. This has been engineered by adults and they are still working out how to get their way. Now they realize they have to "harden" up these little Snowflakes and turn them into better progressive activists. Watch the video a second time. Regards.
Fantastic video, needs more exposure.
I went to college in 2002, and came back in 2012. 2012 was a different world. A professor in a government class said, with a slide, "only 8% of fortune 500 CEO's are women. This is proof of sexism in society." I asked "how do we know different groups pursue status in the same way? How was that demonstrated?" 4 people stood up and started shouting at me, flailing their arms in threatening and aggressive ways. A girl I had spoken to on 3 different occasions for around 2 hours never spoke to me again. In 2002 disagreements were curious entertainment, in 2012, it was very clear they were precursors to a desire to cause harm. It's not vague or subtle. We can see when people want to fight in non verbal cues, not to mention them accompanying vague and insane, irrelevant accusations.
So when people say "when I walk around campus things seem normal." I wonder, yeah, what are you waiting for, buildings to be burnt to the ground at every college? Have you tried talking to anyone? Have you seen how much more poorly these radical types deal with someone presenting them with a reasonable alternative explanation to their conspiracy theories? How can you not notice when presenting non progressive alternative explanations to disparities is met with very clear violent intent? You have to be trying not to.
Great stuff! Get Peterson on schermer. Sort out your religion phobia and join forces, you are 95 percent aligned.
34:10 Because it has consequences.
Someone gathers statistics and notices that group A is proportionally under-represented in medicine, law, physics, math, etc. So some people clamor for all kinds of policies to counteract what they assume must be some kind of discrimination against group A. But group A has a lower average IQ than other groups. That means at the top end of the intelligence scale, they have proportionally fewer people, and it's from the top end that those studying medicine, law, etc. come. With sufficient knowledge of those differences, you can crunch some numbers and see that the representation of group A in those high-intelligence fields is right where it should be, corrected for intelligence.
Or go the other way. I won't even use an alias. Ashkenazi Jews are highly over-represented in pretty much any field where intellectual ability is an advantage. Jews have a higher average IQ than any other tested group. That means there are going to be proportionally more Jews with high intelligence than people of other groups. It's only natural to expect higher Jewish representation participation rates in these intellectually demanding fields and positions.
If you try to hide these differences, what you end up with are social programs trying to correct under-representation that doesn't exist, hurting both those passed over in favor of the policy-favored group, and members of that favored group who lack the ability to succeed being set up for failure. And you get conspiracy theories about Jews controlling everything, ensuring their fellow Jews get all the good jobs. When viewed, instead, in light of IQ differences, disparate statistics can be properly analyzed to determine if there is true disproportionate representation due to factors we don't want (artificial barriers due to bigotry or unearned benefits due to affiliation), or if differences between groups accounts for it all.
This says nothing about why the differences exist. The difference between whites and blacks, for example, is certainly due in large part to differences in poverty rates. It takes years of solid nutrition to build a brain that matches the full genetic potential of the genome constructing it. If we notice a large disparity in average group intelligence, we can look into it and see if there are correctable reasons for it. Alleviating those causes (as happened naturally with the white population over decades, as average height and IQ rose with higher standards of living and better nutrition) will address numerical under-representation at the root cause, without causing harmful side effects.
So that's why sensible people would want these things studied.
the thrust of your response is exactly correct, and i believe this is the position of charles murray and why he wrote the bell curve. i will push back however on one small statement (everything else written here is very cogent and accurate) about the causation. i think you are putting too much emphasis on environmental factors (i.e. poverty). that seems to lead to the hypothesis that we are all born destined to have 100 IQ, but anyone who has lower is there due to poor nutrition. how then do we have 150 IQ people? what did they eat? surely there are genetic differences between humans. these differences are heritable. this has to extend to their IQ. and as much as people may dislike it, racial/ethnic groups have genetic/IQ differences.
You seem to be missing the point. Or several, perhaps. IQ is highly heritable and highly variable. If a person with the genes for building a brain with an IQ of 150 is starved of proper nutrition, either in the womb or while growing up in childhood, the actual brain constructed will not have an IQ of 150. It will be substantially lower. Rinse and repeat over an entire population. Then you get an average IQ that's lower than it could be.
That doesn't mean there can't be differences in average IQ between races that would persist after making all else equal. And the causes for that difference would be genetic. But who cares? The only utility in knowing that average is in properly understanding other statistics for the group in question, such as participation rates in various aspects of society that depend in large part on IQ. That is, you can't justify keeping everyone from group A out of physics because group A's average IQ is only 90. But you can say that group A's lower participation rate in physics is explained by the smaller numbers of group A members capable of succeeding in the field (if that's supported by the actual numbers), rather than by some kind of systemic discrimination based on group membership.
But we're not there. You can't legitimately make the claim you do in your final sentence. Neither you nor anyone else knows what the actual genetic differences in average intelligence are between races because there are far too many confounding environmental factors at the present time.
If that population as a consequence doesn't value IQ and result in only the lower end of their demographics IQ bell curve procreating then over thousands of generations wouldn't that result in their race having a lower average IQ?
A Moment In Time That's not how evolution works. Reproduction doesn't happen by committee. You can reasonably argue that, in a culture which makes it easier for people of low intelligence to reproduce than people of high intelligence, there would be a trend towards lower intelligence over a long period of time. But there are no such cultures. Don't put too much stock in the plot of _Idiocracy._
We do live in a culture which makes it easier for everyone to reproduce successfully, but that's through a reduction in external confounding factors, like starving to death or being eaten. It's not the case that any culture rewards stupidity with higher reproductive success. It's also not the case that any particular culture ever lasts long enough to drive long-term evolutionary trends like that.
>You seem to be missing the point
yes i could have missed something. i am very interested in IQ and IQ differences so i would be very glad to learn more.
>IQ is highly heritable
yes this is correct
>and highly variable
nope. for the most part IQ is similar to, and converges to the parent's IQ. but yes there is some variability and regression to the mean.
>If a person with the genes for building a brain with an IQ of 150 is starved of proper nutrition, either in the womb or while growing up in childhood, the actual brain constructed will not have an IQ of 150. It will be substantially lower
agreed. however that just confirms my point. different people can be born differently (i.e. with genes for building brains of differing IQ).
>That doesn't mean there can't be differences in average IQ between races that would persist after making all else equal.
yes this is my point.
>But who cares?
this is exactly why your original message was so great, so accurate, and precisely what i agreed with. people are different. different groups of people are different. if you just look at the outcome of group A and say they are discriminated against because they have a different outcome is patently wrong.
>Neither you nor anyone else knows what the actual genetic differences in average intelligence are between races
except that we do know that there are differences now. noone can deny this. all experimentation/data show this. i will agree that we do not necessarily know the cause. it could be as you describe, effectively an evolved lowering of threshold due to poor nutrition. which to me still makes it a genetic difference because of the heritability of IQ. or it could be the position i hold which is that different genes have evolved differently and have different thresholds. this seems to fit with other examples of different outcomes. notice how people of west african descent are tremendously adept at sporting endeavors. this is genetic. that is why the NBA has something like 90% black players in a country where they only make up 10% of the population.
Monitoring the trends on college campuses, emphasising the positives, and speculating on and investigating the negatives is commendable. When analysing college student behaviour, mainly questionable behaviour and trying to correct it with norms, we are once again being substantively more reactive, than prescriptive or proactive. If we want prescription with regard to college students, then we need to learn more about the minds of children and adolescents. Having The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind by Alison Gopnik (Author and mom), Andrew N Meltzoff (Author), Patricia K Kuhl (Author) and Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood, A Cultural Approach by Jeffry, Jensen, Arnett on the table, having been read, having considered the implications, and previously establishing prescriptive norms for parents, grandparents, coaches and teachers would make prescriptive norms set by college profs and administrators more consequential.
What a treat!
36:20 George Carlin was right.
Whew! this is an eye opener!
Haidt is 63? That's freaking mind blowing
Shemer is being very unintellectual by saying why would you research and speak about difference in IQ and genetics. Knowledge is knowledge. Burying your head in the sand ignore such is not only foolish, but it's counterproductive in trying to correct the problem. Problems only get worse when you don't address them head-on. And him saying that he wouldn't use the "n-word" is just plain silly. No words are off limit, ever!
Anyone who is an academic who says "why do you want to know that?" is deeply worrying to me. I've also seen a tendency to say "why do you know that?" to people who break out facts that undermine politically correct assertions about the world.
Sorry, not sure what you're saying? The book you linked to seems to back up the idea that IQ is really quite useful and not discredited at all (and it isn't)
"He dispels common misconceptions, such as the belief that IQ tests are biased or meaningless, "
And IQ does vary by race, by entire standard deviations (which is huge variance in social science)
Thank you Xenophon. That is precisely my point. I have an allergic reaction to people saying "don't look there", because xyz.
I was responding to your quite clear assertion here;
"I think once one starts to get a grip on what's understood about both IQ and GI, one will realize they're both pretty useless"
I simply countered by saying the book you linked makes clear they aren't useless. You didn't specify you were referring only to their validity with regards to race. You might want to work on your own reading comprehension instead of lecturing others about their intelligence or suggesting they're acting in bad faith.
Well a big part of the problem is that he said, "race and IQ" yet you heard, "IQ and genetics". We know about IQ and genetics it's about a .6 correlation. So almost half of variance has nothing to do with genetics a fairly important thing to remember when talking about different cultures.
Genetics has little to do with race. Africans are often considered a race yet have more genetic variation than the rest of our species. The real problem with such discussions is people like you making assumptions because they don't understand the topic yet have strong opinions on it.
Great interview
"Thats right" - Jonathan Haidt
Love it.
I would blame everyone gets a trophy, not internet.
Watching these two guys brought to mind Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroe's, he always claimed, "I know nothing!"
I am astounded at the duplicity of these two pretenders.
Where have you two been all these years since the deliberate infiltration years ago ,and eventual take over, of the Universities by the Frankfurt School, by men from the extreme Left bent on Social Change? Why don't you know where this horrifying mess is coming from? Could it be coming directly from the Crony Government Universities, (Obama doubled down on debt for Students and parents), and their "Experts". Are you not aware that the Main-stream Media helped create Obama, we soon saw him as The Emperor with No Clothes? Do you really believe that the history of this distasteful present era started in 1995 with the birth of children into the age of more technology? So now you want to toughen up your "Snowflakes", use them as more effective activists after a word or quote or two from Mr. Van Jones and Mr. Axelrod, 2 Obama left overs, using the Media power.
Do you not know, self proclaimed Professor of the Social Sciences, Mr. Haidt, of the years of haphazard experimentation in our schools by Social 'Scientists'? The drugging of energetic boys with Ritalin and such so they become zombies trapped at their desks", no longer allowed to play. The lauding of girls' behaviours as better than boys who are now being attacked by adult 'Experts' claiming being male is toxic?
Don't you know of the hours of homework now inflicted on children out of school hours that chains them still to a desk instead of playing and thinking for themselves? Have you missed the assault on little children with the attempt at teaching them that all sexual activities and behaviours are normal and OK? Do you realize that little children are afraid to go to sleep because they are frightened that they may wake up changed overnight to boy or girl because they are taught in their tender years that boys can be girls and girls can turn into boys?
Do you not know that our Science System has been misused, (ACGW) and the STEM subjects are now being dumbed-down too so the women's "quota" can be filled?
You are of the School of Secular Thought and are doing far more harm to our Science and our Social cohesion than any religion has ever done. Do you really think we believe that you are as naive as you pretend to be. You have exposed yourself to the light, we see you Sir. We know now what you are doing with your Social Sciences. But now you wish to "back pedal" a little. Shame on you.
Parents please be aware they will never admit to what they do so stand between them and your children. Education has been thoroughly corrupted. I am sorry for those who respect these people but go do your own studies about all these people and be forewarned. Regards.
"70% *_to 30%"_* percent of women wouldn't really suggest a preference toward women. Two thirds more of men hardly can be a bias towards women. I've coincidentally once heard there's a study that men think there's a majority of women once there's 1/3 of women. When people say women "should" go into tech, they're most likely saying in the sense that "just as much as men 'should'". Granted, some people would really think that perhaps more women really should be in those fields and less men, so things approach 50% in everything, but in general it's probably "should if they want to", "should seek careers wherever there are good opportunities regardless of stereotypes" and so on.
Facebook came out in 2004; not 2006 like Haidt said at around 8:55
Still shaking my head at how intellectually bankrupt Shermer is.
1) Only people with "credentials" should be invited on campus.
That, and "baiting the left," is why Milo shouldn't be invited according to Shermer. That's pretty rich since his standard would eliminate Bill Gates and Steve Jobs (neither graduated) as well as many protest groups (unless they had degrees) and almost all celebrities & artists (Steven Spielberg could still speak at Yale since he has his BA but Sean Combs should have never spoken to Howard since he doesn't).
2) Steve Bannon shouldn't be invited
Because, and you'll notice a trend, Shermer thinks Bannon is beyond the pale and "baits" the left. Amusingly, Haidt shuts Shermer down by reminding him the Bannon helped run a presidential campaign. And, as I see it, a maverick presidential campaign to successfully elect a non-politician with vastly different views from his predecessor.
3) IQ and race: Shermer doesn't know "why you would want to speak about it or write about it"
Are you kidding me?!?! If we're talking about experiments on humans or building a backyard nuclear bomb, i.e. research that would threaten measurable physical harm, I could understand a ban on research. But if you side with Shermer, exactly which areas of study should be off-limits to research? Or that can be studied but can't publish results? Following Shermer's crap logic, creationist profs can nix research on evolution. Feminists can nix research debunking the wage gap. You get the point.
I wasn't aware of Shermer before - he seemed reasonable on Rubin - but I now know what a complete intellectual partisan he truly is.
Read up on how Shermer treated David Cole to know what a charlatan he is.
Yep. Spot on. Two big Snowflakes back pedaling like crazy - it wasn't us that did it. I know nothin!"
To be fair, Haidt shot Shermer down each time he tried to label someone on the right or some topic beyond the pale. Haidt's described himself as center left ("always voting for Democrats"). Shermer claims to be objective and a centrist, but interviews like this demonstrate how Shermer is unquestionably far left.
You are not alone in your observations.
Your bias is showing. If you think Milo has the same "credentials" as Gates or Jobs you're do far Alt Right there's no reasoning with you.
Wonderful conversation. When you don't have REAL issues, you keep inventing problems and start worrying about your made-up issues.
These dudes are intelligent, thoughtful and they are baby boomer, straight, white guys with fairly like minded baby boomer or Gen X spouses and this sort of thing extends in to how they interpret the information that they gather. Many people still believe that stats are all that’s needed to find answers to sociological issues but it isn’t enough to get to truth.
Did he really just use an anecdotal example of how his four year old nephews used dinosaur toys to fight while the niece was all “Im your mommy and I’m never gonna leave you”? Did he really say that to make a point? 🤯
Interview David Banatar..."world's most "famous" rational pessimist"
I appreciate Jonathan's analysis of riding adolescent mental health issues . I also know however that there are a couple of powerful cultural factors you haven't included .
Re girls in particular , the experience of extremely violent female degrading porn typically now being part of children's formative introduction to sexuality is devastating to girl's sense of their place in the world , and to their experience of puberty and emergent sexual feelings. ( It's pretty aweful for boys in many ways too).
Secondly there is the factor of deliberate mega- funded propaganda , including the suicide sell of trans ideology now sold directly in schools, and bin UK and Australia , even in preschools and early child care centers. Kids ( especially already vulnerable kids) are sold enticing narratives of mysterious cloaked "specialness ", that rapidly transform ( in a classic grooming pattern ) to add paranoia of danger and threat from the supposedly " rejecting " outside world . And then the revelation that their developing bodies are supposedly an existential threat. They are also literally sold a dependence on explicit , ideology and identity label affirming external validation for their very sense of self .
These guys have been part of this. They are back pedaling. Fancy thinking we would fall for the narrative that this started in 1995, it came out of the universities years ago and they have been in with it all along yet they pretend - "I know nothing!"
They are deflecting but also planning the next set of modifications on their failure with the "Snowflakes", now they must be hardened up.
Step between them and protect your kids. The Left and Big Gov. always causes crises which then must be "fixed" at great expense and over a long period of large pay for them and loads of respect for those "fixing" the problem that they caused in the first place. Standard behaviour. Watch this video again without the rose-coloured glasses. Good luck with your children's safety and happiness.
36:38 Not necessarily. A lot of non-black people - perhaps most - use "nigger" not as a label for someone of a black race, but as a label for someone with a particular anti-social culture. It's perhaps best explained in the Chris Rock bit where he talks about who he's looking for over his shoulder at the ATM.
Context always matters.
Welcome to Ted Talk Saloon
The standard comments about this being an interesting and well-informed talk apply. But I shall show my respect for the piece in the form of *criticism*.
1:11:00 On Cbt
:/ I have my misgiving about CBT... of course I have no evidence but maybe you should ignore me, but I'll say what I think anyway.
So my misgivings are:
* A good framing of the world must be true - not just encourage responsibility
* A good framing of the world should maximize your ability to act (subject to the constraints of truth)
* The "distortions" listed in CBT are not intrinsically untrue - rather they just suggest that you *might* be wrong and that you *might* have to think about something else.
I would maintain, rather arrogantly, that CBT is useful insofar as as it ensures your framing of the world is more true, empowers you more (subject to the constraints of truth) and makes your thinking more complete and correct as *guided* by the idea of distortions - gives you a fuller more complete view of the world.
The thing about CBT is if you take someone who has been genuinely abused and throw CBT at the them it can act as a form of gaslighting... at the effects of this mightn't be pretty and I feel as if the framing you used here risk denying that anything can be wrong with the world, or that any one could have done anything wrong that might have negative effects on people's lives.
Appreciating how external factors might have played into unfortunate experiences in your life is not to the same as not understanding how you might exert more control over your life, and a model of the world is not more healthy by virtue of finding fault in yourself if this is not true.
Haidt likes to talk about concepts of social justice being valued above truth, I might counter that he risks leaning the other way and valuing the idea of "instilling virtue / character" as being more important than correctly understanding the world. Understandable given some of the attitudes that exist.
As a born-again Christian (who has a degree in Psychology and have seen my share of hard times in life), I have found this book interesting, but there are points where Mr. Haidt's liberal leanings break through. One place is on Pages 61-62. Here the author's one-sided understanding leaks through on the the particular subject of "gay marriage" and how the "...enonobling common-humanity approach played a major role in the movement that won marriage equality to the gay people in several statewide elections in 2012, paving the way for the Supreme Court to rule that gay marriage would become the law of the land." Just because the liberal social media and those who used "techniques" to "humanize" gays, does not mean that their "behavior" that is not compatible with the majority of the World's major religions is good or appropriate.
We can show people respect, but to use techniques that manipulate people who are not that educated or knowledgeable about the religion they claim they follow (example: wordly nominal Christians), is not a "win" as Mr. Haidt claims. Using manipulation techniques that are "...appealing to powerful moral principles....." and "This is the way to win hearts, mins, and votes..." is just that, manipulation. How is Mr. Haidt defining "powerful moral principles? What about the powerful moral principles on the other side of the issue that says that certain behaviors are not appropriate nor compatible to their religion?
According to Mr. Haidt, the "liberal and progressive" moral principles are the ONLY ones to listen to and follow. If he looked at recent studies, he would learn that EVERY church denomination that has allowed "liberal and progressive" teachings to enter into their churches, are DYING. The churches that are growing yearly are the traditional, orthodox, conservative leaning churches.
To be conservative, traditional and orthodox does not mean hateful, disrespectful, racist or promoting any other form of bad behavior. But Christian scripture is full of teachings that teach that we are not to go down certain paths, or we will have many serious problems. Scripture teaches how to set healthy firm boundaries - preferably in a loving but again firm way.
Mr. Haidt needs to do more research in certain areas. He has a lot of good information from what research he has done, but he misses the mark big time in the field of faith. The University of Michigan just came out with a study that showed that God helps lonely and depressed people survive, and to feel they have purpose - even though they have no friends. Religion/true faith has a place in our lives, and one big reason that many in Generation Z are depressed and turning to suicide, is because they have "anomie" [as Mr. Haidt says in another of his video interviews] - defined as: a "condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals". It is the breakdown of social bonds between an individual and the community, e.g., under unruly scenarios resulting in fragmentation of social identity and rejection of self-regulatory values."
This book does show the symptoms of Generation Z's behavior, but at times it misses the mark on how to correct or redirect this maladaptive behavior to a more productive and mentally healthy form of thinking and believing. Mr. Haidt misses the mark when he attempts to speak of faith issues - particularly in regards to true Christian faith. Otherwise, this book is a good read.
The problem is, you have no coherent, moral argument to counter homosexuality. You say it’s wrong simply because the Bible says it’s wrong which only appeals to those who share the same beliefs as you. Homosexual marriage won out at the end of the day because those who opposed it offered no compelling moral argument against it.
Bought it!
While the civilization-killing problem of political correctness replacing truth is most pronounced in the top 100 schools, it is also found in other colleges. Looks at Evergreen State.
Free range , diverse ,advocacy-efforts in politics can be legitimate, even sometimes with a relevant focus on identity . But that is not identity politics.
Identity politics is an entirely different beast , and one that is absolutely instrumental in powerful interests using identity puppetry to radically undermine representative democracy , transparency and accountability. Identity politics is used as a term for that game by people on both sides, and it's a reasonably clearly understood term. I think it's not helpful at all to neutralise or diffuse criticism of the identity politics systems and ideology by re-purposing that term for universal human rights framed advocacy like that of Martin Luther King , or principled resistance efforts like Ghandi.
Jonathan repeatedly mentions procedural fairness . One of the defining characteristics of Identity Politics is that it rejects procedural consistency and an objective.
What if banning the "n word" isn't even rooted in good intentions? What if its purely about submission to ideology?
That thumbnail is the creepiest thing I've seen in a while. Great talk, however.
There is some points where we can't understand say a black female person living in place X,Y or Z. Yeah kinda, in the same sense you can't truly understand how it is to be another person, be it as someone as close as your mother. Also, it goes both ways. Can someone non white understand how it is to be a white person, or can a female understand how it is to be a male. With this in mind, I cannot see any other option than a ugly tribal mentality/power game based in immutabile properties like skin colour growing out of it. This is why I think such arguements should be mocked at every turn.
Mandela? You don't really know much about him do you.
Yes. I was surprised at their ignorance of Mandela and his awful wife Winnie. Vicious people and it's all coming out.
Robinson Sharon Lee Robert Hernandez Brian
Haidt, you are not just being polite, you tend to err on the disingenuous side. It may be expedient, it does not serve truth. I think you can talk about differences in other traits than skin, we are no tabula rasa.
Haidt Should probably meet Peterson too. You Guys have a lot in common and Peterson could learn a thing or two about other causes than the marxist revolutionaries did It!
Gerard Mulder th-cam.com/video/4IBegL_V6AA/w-d-xo.html
👍
You won't uncover how completely brutal censorship can be at your institution until you do something like advocate open conversation about the evidence base for ( or against ) child transition , or even a rights of the child analysis of the same.
How about this for a reason for a rise in girl suicide
Now they have to have the looks, the home, the family AND the highly demanding job that pays a living wage.
And how ya gonna do all that if your relationship falls apart (as you're lead to believe it stands a good chance of doing)
On top of this (for both guys and girls) you have to be taking great care of yourself inside and out, both physically and mentally
No pressure!
Dr. Nicki Crick presents her research on Relational Aggression: th-cam.com/video/uL5FwcxfD0w/w-d-xo.htmlm30s
Watch the film "8th Grade"
lol. And ancient creative artists will tell you that the key for creativity is leisure (otium) and the lack of a stressful environment which allow you to attend to your imagination. Both Ovid and Horace make this point.
So, Jonathon, we can cherry pick ancient wisdom that contradicts your cherry picked ancient wisdom.
Oh geez...isn't this just Spengler's prediction coming to fruition? The decadence of The West?
Jon Haidt, I do believe you are becoming more libertarian !
What do you call it when you are publicly threatened with physical violence in a classroom at a top 10 university, and the professor does nothing, because you asked "how was it demonstrated that men and women pursue status in the same way?" It's not "technically a moral panic?" Neither of these people want to face the backlash attendant to taking this problem seriously, both say relatively outrageous things about right wingers in an effort to maintain leftist credibility. Peter Boghossian is being brought up on human rights violations, because hoaxing grievance studies journals amounts to "conducting tests on human subjects." Your cowardice enables this Shermer! I thought you were better than this Haidt!
What about the culture of elementary school education training for men? I'm sick of the one way perception of these issues from the hyperagreeable types like Haidt. I love his work. But the self-abnegating sweetness of his personality type is just. Well. Par for the course. And that says something. That's as tough as you you can be in the academic world if your world view doesn't fit the mold. Any disagreeableness. Aka, balls. And you're just intolerable.
He is a lefty monster - complicit as all hell in what has been happening for years and years. Does he really think we will believe his narrative that this only started in 1995 and so on.
They messed up the Snowflakes and now they are planning to "harden them up" - nice one guys. Creeps. Social engineers. Not sweet, not innocent, complicit. Deflecting.
Go take your meds Judith
We let our 6 year old son fly in a plane on his own.
Cute
First :)
Sloppy reasoning on the strength of innate sexual psychological differences. Parents who think of themselves as egalitarians are already cultivating different tendencies in babies, without realizing, even interpreting the same exact expression/behavior in stereotypical patterns depending on the gender that's assigned to a baby. Preferences to things like astronomy are not biologically gendered, it's not something that universally attracts males, but specifically some kinds of nerds, even most males wouldn't go on doing astronomical trips.
In more egalitarian and developed countries even males will also be proportionately more employed in less masculine/more feminine professions (office work rather than dangerous physical labor), it's more common for people to prefer to avoid most strenuous and dangerous work. I'm not saying that hormones wouldn't do anything, but you can't discount the fact that even learning juggling or being a taxi driver produces changes in your brain, that can be distinguished from non-jugglers or non-taxi drivers in informed comparisons.
A life of different, "gendered" experiences also ought to cultivate differences. In different cultures you can have changes in such patterns or even flips. In Brazil, males throw balls like girls, because baseball isn't really a thing, and football is proper football, not using hands; there are also one or another "matriarchal" culture were women play certain psychological experiment "games" displaying more competitiveness than men.