I literally yelled at the screen when Malcolm Gladwell asked if a 5% change was enough to really have an effect on the population as a whole. You literally wrote a book called "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference" about this exact thing! That being said, I have respect for both Gladwell and Haidt and it was great watching this discourse.
As the moderator, it's his job to confront the guest with thoughts that challenge their own position in order to create discussion and give them the opportunity to explain their position as well as deconstruct the moderator's argument. What the moderator brings forth doesn't necessarily need to be what he himself thinks to be true.
A year and a half later... It's striking how much this has moved from the university to become a mainstream problem affecting every area of life and business.
Nothing new. My sixth grade teacher Harry Adamian who was teaching us in the gymnasium, lunch room, auditorium got into trouble for teaching us about the Armenian genocide. He opened my eyes at 12!!! 1962 RIP Mr. Adamian
He once asked us if dogs had soles! One boy came away from the discussion believing his teacher had concluded that his dog would not be in heaven!!!! Harry got into trouble again!!!!
50:41 What needs to be distinguished is that life is about a battle between good and evil, NOT a battle between good and evil PEOPLE. When you perceive people as purely good or purely evil, it leads to a culture where you root out individuals instead of the real problem, and people don't have an opportunity to atone for their mistakes.
@@duewhit310 Especially the police. With little training in social science, none in psychology, and 2 weeks in firearm training we expect them to not make mistakes is ludicrous.
many commenter's are complaining about gladwell, but i think he played the role of the advocatus diaboli very well. he's not there to be a moderator, his role is to ask the tough questions.
I would entirely agree, had he actually asked tough questions. I found his questions and observations ranged from bland to incoherent, and even at their best were poorly thought out and argued.
He did a good job of highlighting that the flip side of this wave is a society that cares. All generations might be glad of it when half of them end up driving for Uber.
I didn't get that same impression based on Gladwell's body language, he seemed to be genuinely in opposition to Haidt on several points. But that's fine, it's good to have differening views and to discuss them.
I think Gladwell was PERFECT in this case. I strongly disagree with him on nearly everything, but this plays to Peterson’s oft made point that you pit your ideas against the strongest possible arguments against them and see if they can stand. Gladwell was not giving any free points here and it just made the panelists arguments completely solid.
Gladwell was throwing softball after softball, in order to give the panelists a chance to express their ideas -- which is what the panel was for. It wasn't a debate.
I heard a discussion between Gladwell and a former colleague and neighbor and she mentioned not wanting to disturb him when he was “entertaining” one of his female friends.
I'm not sure that was his intention. He says he looks for a way to find depth in the trend aside from an academic one, but as someone typically solid with his statistics he curiously seems ignorant about this issue. He's pretty far left and is contributing to the insanity. Otherwise his position would make logical sense. Not just versed and vocal about historical angles.i get it, he's bitter about the so- called priveledged. He needs a good dose of current stats. I'd like to see him vs. Heather Mac Donald. I didn't used to see him as such a PC pansy as I do here. Well maybe I did but now it just looks weak and lazy.
You’ve expressed what he should be doing, but can you give an example of an interesting question he asked? Seems like he strongly disagrees with their arguments, not that he’s steel-manning their ideas.
When I was a free range child of the 1940-'s and '50s, I knew that I could go to any adult if I got lost or in trouble. We have become a fear-based society.
What are you talking about? If my mom or dad ran to an adult in the 50s or 60s "if" they were in trouble, the other adult would probably give them a spanking for doing something wrong. Then if one of my parents was stupid enough to tell my grand parents that they were disciplined by another adult, my grands parents would spank then, or ask the kid to pick out a good willow switch.
@@leelahasan3988 I'm so sorry to hear you had that experience. I started walking to school by myself, eight blocks away, when I was eight years old. While I could bore you to tears with my complaints about my parents, I was greatly blessed to have parents who actively promoted the idea that I was supposed to be very independent at as early age as possible.
My wife is a teacher and has to deal with kids that are so cognitively disabled by over parenting that during lock down they lost the ability to create sentences.
@@Tony-Blake9 or 10 I think. They got an average of 3 out of 50 in a maths test. The parents tell them not to listen to the teachers. During a zoom class one student was in bed being spoonfed by his mother. One was literally sitting next to the kid giving answers to maths problems. When called out she denied giving answers and completely failed to understand why her child must do the work and show working out not just clean answers. She also asked several patents to stop their children from forging their parents handwriting.
When I take my walk I pass by an elementary school and the thing that strikes me are the number of parents sitting in their cars, trucks and vans there to pick up their children from school and of course they're all looking at their cell phones while waiting. I grew up in Southern California and rarely did my Mom or anyone pick me up from or drive me to school and if they did I would have them drop me off a block from school so my friends wouldn't make fun of me. I took the city bus or walked to and from school. How times have changed.
It seems like life is about surviving layers and layers of abuse. From our families, religion, schools, police....authoritarian figures abound in this culture. We must discover the real benevolent inner authority that resides in all of us. Be your own compassionate authority.
This is brilliant. Just brilliant. A great exchange about where to draw the lines when taking care of each other while also allowing each other to toughen up. 92Y has long had a great reputation for sinewy discussions that aren't pro forma book tour appearances and marketing events.
Thankfully, my eight year old grandson, gets to roam the neighborhood and adjacent park with his buddies after school, just being a kid who can explore, play and exercise self-judgement.
I was born in 94 and my generations savior was the bicycle! We had the independence but we still came out with problems. There is the opposite problem to be worried about. Self indulged parents.
@@ryanvess6162Vess, IMO, critical thinking is EVERY generation's *savior*. i was born in '54 and roamed far and wide on my bike, but all i REALLY wanted to do was stay home, stretch out on a comfy piece of furniture, and read. the only independence that interested me was -- and still is -- the ability to engage in critical thinking. IMO, the inability to think critically is a disability worse than death. nowadays, i engage, courtesy of social media, in civil discourse and critical thinking to my heart's content.
@@ryanvess6162 IMO, critical thinking is EVERY generation's *savior*. i was born in '54 and roamed far and wide on my bike, but all i REALLY wanted to do was stay home, stretch out on a comfy piece of furniture, and read. the only independence that interested me was -- and still is -- the ability to engage in critical thinking. IMO, the inability to think critically is a disability worse than death. nowadays, i engage, courtesy of social media, in civil discourse and critical thinking to my heart's content.
@@Hollis_has_questions agree...the generation that raised me was always telling me its beautiful out and to get out of the house, while they drank and watched tv... it gave me freedom to explore which in the late 70s early 80s wasnt really a great thing being a young kid walking aimlessly around Times Square and anyplace else a bus pass would get you...
I really like Gladwell, he asks great questions. These guys gave very reasonable responses that should have resolved those for him. I don't think they addressed the question about the "annoying" 8% as thoroughly as they could have though. The advent of social media, and more importantly, media/business usage of social media, really made it easier for that bat shit crazy 8% to have a heavy impact. The "silent majority" isn't half as silent as this 8% is LOUD. Anyway, great video. Great talk. One of the best I've watched and I feel like I got...well, not dumber, watching it. I'm joking, there was a lot of munchies for my brain. Thanks!
It’s amazing to me that Malcolm was clearly so reluctant to acknowledge call out culture as a huge problem. Thank goodness for the three people, with the foresight to see that this was going to be a problem, and cleverly studying it, and teaching the public about the danger before us. As someone born in 1989, I have lived a happy life with good friendships, and great experiences. However, thanks to my peers need for control and call out culture, I lost three of my closest friends overnight. It’s funny because we all are good people… I just have different opinions from them… and they would rather live in an echo chamber. Since I am an adult, happily married with children it doesn’t ruin me. But, I feel for those who grew up inside social media day in day out, and crave the control and sameness. I pray people can see social media for what it is and stay away.
I dunno. I live near Ohio State University for past 20 years and I’ve never seen or experienced this “call out culture”. I have no idea what they’re talking about and I dont fear it in the least.
Excellent debate! Gladwell tests his guests' ideas with incisive questions, allowing for clarification and elaboration. 1:04:56 Re freedom of young people: the ultimate heroine surely is Laura Dekker, who was sailing alone at 11, and at the age of 16 completed a solo circumnavigation of the world in 2012, after defying the Dutch state beforehand. She was eminently qualified, having spent her first five years at sea with her family, and sailing her own boats from the age of six. Surely she is the ultimate proof of anti-fragility! Her slogan now is, "If it doesn't challenge you, it won't change you".
That's great and all but Dutch children are, statistically speaking, some of the most independent kids on Earth. Probably because they are allowed to go outside and explore and bike wherever they want at a young age, whereas American kids for the most part are not allowed to do those things.
@@leelahasan3988 a big part of that is civil engineering. completely different field. but holland cities are planned so that you can bike and tram everywhere, not need a car. it's a big deal in terms of how that enables people and kids, not just some inconsequential city planning decision of different countries having different styles of doing things.
Super late reply, cultural change is a gradual process and takes time. Like Haidt said, it was only around the time of the panel that business leaders were beginning to realize just how bad this phenomenon could be and had no idea how to respond. Couple this with the fact that more people are becoming more skeptical of "expertise" and instead buying into the belief that they can find the truth on Facebook or TikTok, and it becomes little wonder that we aren't seeing many good results yet.
It's funny to read the comments and see people expressing the exact tribal behaviour the panelists mentioned, getting angry at Gladwell for doing his job (i.e. being a critical host, asking questions, probing and testing the arguments being made) or seeing this as Gladwell getting rekt. Chill out people, he didn't kill anybody's dog on that stage. What I found missing was the discussion of the connection between psychological fragility and PC culture on campus. It was just taken for granted, as if there is no other possible reason for the rising numbers of depressed and self-harming people. From what they mentioned it seemed more like culture wars on campus are coinciding with the mental issues and the causal link is tenuous at best.
Yeah they definitely should have discussed the link between psychological fragility and depression. Personally I don’t believe they’re directly related… a majority of the people I know who struggle with depression aren’t at all hypersensitive to words or ideas (and presumably, neither is Greg).
They talk about it (mental fragility) in the Atlantic piece. Trigger warnings and all that. What I didn't like about Gladwells line of questioning is he seem to miss that book is about strangulation of free and critical thinking in places of education (do they even have debate societies nowdays?) and not some universal theory of objective truths that he himself seems to generate from oversimplified anecdotes in his works. Like this out of the blue and misplaced question about Weinstein. I don't think he even read the article, no to mention book.
@Ryan Clone they didn't learn how to look from opposite sides, moreover they object to the whole idea. And if they choose to resolve social issues by means of righteous fury and ostracisation, it's not the fault of Haidt's teaching methods.
What I found missing is the Blatant right wing bias of universities. all U.S. universities are funded mostly by the military . So they can recruit more young adults into their death cult and get the benefits of university research. The result of this is that all universities brainwash people into the right wing pro-war mind-set . They even water down climate change curriculums as to not annoy the universities corporate donors who's bottom line would be impacted by addressing this.
Wow when I saw this panel had Malcolm Gladwell, Lenore Skenazy and Jonathan Haidt I geeked out. I've read atleast one book of each of theirs and love the stuff they have to say. This is going to be a great video.
actually what was cool to see was that he said it in jest and that everyone allowed him to move on. I can see people use that word to get a reaction anywhere on the internet.
I hate when statistics are used and abused out of context for a political purpose. As someone in the field of psychology and pays attention to trends and general consensus on certain topics: the conclusions Haidt draws from his mix of real data, which are often cherrypicked, and carefully selected anecdotal accounts are not supported by most in the field. It's not the particular concepts like "anti-fragile" that are controversial, nor are his discussions of the psychological impacts of social media, but his use of them as stepping stones to his broad conclusion that draws a through-line between them and politically charged events with societal implications. Also, to clarify, I don't mean that the anecdotal "evidence" are inaccurate accounts of what took place; I mean they are not scientifically valid data. That would be fine if identified as such, but they're also _cherrypicked_ and, therefore, deceiving. They're not representative of the vast majority of similar guest speaker events on campuses, or the intellectual environments fostered at most American universities, which deliberately focus on the ability to ask questions and debate. That can easily be quantified by looking at a sample of guest speakers, taking note of the variety of political views (particularly right-wing), and compare them to the frequency at which guest speakers are shouted down, not allowed to speak, or even just protested. Look for yourself, they're essentially a rounding error. Obviously universities have a right to draw the line at individuals that have been shown to submit "research" that deliberately uses poor design, misrepresents data, p-hacks, etc. to produce particular results, as well as non-academic political figures or conspiracy theorists, but that's not really what we're talking about and I don't really think anyone believes there's much academic value in platforming Alex Jones at a university. So situations in which speakers are silenced are rare and are no more common now than they have been every generation since the '60s; they're just recorded more often. Nonetheless, most universities err on the side of allowing a guest speaker when the situation is less clear. It's less a serious issue than a rhetorical device in conservative media circles that have given up trying to argue the actual issues and focus on decorum instead. Most of those complaining about the oppressive intellectual atmosphere of universities have never stepped foot on the grounds of those universities in the first place.
When you combine parents that give in to their child every time they have a hissy fit in a store for something they want & parents that are constantly with their children, acting on their behalf as if their lives are in perpetual danger and their kids are incapable of being resilient, or being responsible for their own actions/behaviours....this is what you get. We're in danger, need to be protected and if we scream long enough - someone will give us what we want.
Having taught in college, I can assure you that some of these kids have NEVER had anyone say "no" to them until they get into a professor's course, don't do the work, and expect an A. It's these little creeps who then turn in the professor for being politically incorrect, when what they're really reacting to is that they're not being coddled and given what they didn't earn.
No. When you combine shitbrain parents who justify their halfassed parenting by blaming society’s woes on other parents who do a better job - excusing their own laziness by pointing fingers - you get cromag posts like yours.
I see this at work. I even started seeing this a few years ago in my hobby of music. Terrible players with no technique and never bother to practice expect to come on without an audition and become enraged when not making the cut. Their emotions seem to go from disengaged (1) then jump to anger(10) with nothing in the middle.
I lost a very hard won job at Greenpeace NYC in 2015, my accolades therefrom, healthcare, a raise and place in progress for quite a while-because of: 1. Things I unequivocally did not say 2. Things I said that were grossly mischaracterized 3. Things that were grammatically and emotionally misunderstood based on misheard and morally judged hearsay outside of work 4. an actual lie Thank you for this.
I would have thought that James Damore might have been a useful mention in this debate, especially in relation to the question about 'but this is just affecting 5% of elite college students'. It's not, because this message is being reinforced in HR policies and in the media constantly. I'm surprised that this is not mentioned by anyone of the panelists.
I agree, he should of come up when they discussed Silicon Valley and how young employees is affecting teamwork and companies. His experiences are a direct example of people going to HR as soon as someone challenges them/says something that "offends" and a company/HR department that acts to enforce that. I expect this is pretty damn common in many tech industries that are at any sort of scale beyond a few people.
That's more of a recent phenomenon. The video was released in 2019, so it's probably just that they had yet to be exposed to it as both college professors and just time frame wise.
A good interviewer does not exclude one third of his panel from the discussion. She has a lot of interesting things to contribute and has obviously done a huge amount of research into the matter of the over-protection of kids, which is largely responsible for the problem this discussion is based on. How often does Gladwell actually bring her into the discussion?
If I'm not mistaken, he's questioning a lot of the points in the book written by the other panel members and thus resulting in him asking them for their defense. He had something concrete to read to know their views. Not sure if he had something equivalent for Lenore to know her claims being made. I also think he was one of the best interviewers in terms questioning the points being made, instead of just agreeing or giving not well thought out rebuttals like most interviewers.
This comment by Ms. Julia Davison proves the point of this discussion. We are too quick to judge someone for their perceived bias against our preferred group member. I really enjoyed listening to Ms. Lenore Skenazy’s views. I don’t think she or anyone else had issues expressing their opinions. Facts/reality be damned, we are ready to protest.
But I didn't hear her trying to make a point and being ignored or shouted down. How come she didn't try to get more voice time herself? Why should it have been up to the men to "invite" her to share her thoughts? She has just as much right to force herself to be heard as the men. I thought she was insightful and witty and would have liked to hear more of what she had to say. But I don't believe the big bad patriarchy was deliberately holding her back because she was a woman, which is what you are really saying.
I knew a 17 year old who wasn’t allowed to ride the subway by themselves when I was in high school. I do think 4th grade is a little too young but I was taking public transport at 12 years old. It actually did wonders for my social anxiety.
49:48 Gladwell is literally catastrophizing in the exact way that Haidt an Lukianoff (and virtually all therapists who recognize the value of CBT) are warning against.
What a great discussion. I will start giving my son more exposure to risk. Too bad there are still sickos out there but Lenora is really on to something.
I’m paraphrasing but Ben Franklin said “those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither.” The girding of certain forms of speech considered deleterious is nonetheless the crackdown on freedom of speech which spells the beginnings of a society that will soon be autocratically bound.
Irrespective of the generational shifts, there is always going to be individuals who desire to control and repress. Only the context and focus changes. That it's so acceptable now is worrisome.
When Lenore screams at 24 mins plus I almost had a heart attack. Gladwell just asking probing questions to create a platform for debate. He's not constantly interrupting etc or trying to be smart - He's just playing devil's advocate.
_"He's just playing devil's advocate."_ Why do people keep saying this in the comments as if they have no idea what a devil's advocate is? For example @39:40 he makes snide comments about how people in "tech" make lots of money, therefore they should just shut-up and ignore the intolerance of the young employees (never mind the fact that the young people also make mad cash yet somehow they are exempt from Gladwell's logic). He contributed absolutely nothing and the topic Haidt raised was immediately dropped because Gladwell ran interference and trivialized his point. That is not what a devil's advocate does.
no he's not. he really believes it. he has a hard time wrapping his head around what the panel is saying. if you can't read his body language and his literal confessions that he can't understand why not X, .... idk what to tell you.
Here I am in 2024 watching this and everything they are saying resonates with me. As I’ve been doing research on why people are so easily offended and triggered by Everything! My road of research led me to discover this coodling movement. Here in 2024 everything they are saying is still happening and is getting worse. Though it’s so sad how things are I’m encouraged to have this content so I can begin to bring awareness to this issue. It’s time for us to grow up! Life is hard, get a helmet!⛑️
These are important conversations to be had, precisely because a man as smart as Malcolm Gladwell is so confused by the data he's hearing. There have been many comments for the past few years as to how the Leftists won't come out from their echo chamber. Kudos to Gladwell to opening himself up to foreign concepts, even if the cognitive dissonance is a little awkward on stage.
... his job is to challenge whatever is being said or asserted. He's not confused by the data, he is asking questions to challenge the data they are presenting so that the audience can be confident it is accurate.
@@fishbuddy663 Exactly. He is completely confused and in total denial. He is not pushing back for the sake of pushing back. He’s pushing back because he thinks they are wrong despite the fact that they are using hard data!
First, thank you for the great content! But as an audio professional, this is almost unlistenable. Levels are all over the place, it's too quiet 80% of the time, then blaring loud when someone laughs or interjects. If you're broadcasting a live mix direct from the board, PLEASE insert a comp/limiter on the 2-bus before broadcast, or use pres with AGC, or if not, add processing or fader automation in post.....something....anything! Again, I appreciate the great content, thank you! But whoever is handling audio is really dropping the ball. If you need help in the future, please send me the audio 2-mix and I'll make it sound top notch. Maybe this amount of dynamic range is acceptable for film, but not for dialouge. Thanks and please keep up with the excellent content!
I have zero experience in audio engineering and even I notice this issue on a ton of videos. Even pre-recorded stuff in predictable environments like a podcast. It’s weird. A lot of balls dropping... that came out wrong. A lot of balls being dropped. ... Not much better. You know what I mean.
Is there any way to damp Lenore completely out of the discussion? Her annoying irrelevant side comments (that she clearly enjoys) are extremely distracting.
It's probably direct feed from mix desk, optimized for audience - not recording. And AGC? I highly doubt they even have one for live events. /listened on IEMs, didn't noticed heavy crimes, except for one hysterical laugh in the middle(probably not particularly skilled engineer without the habit of down-fading non-active speakers). Could've fixed it in post of course.
Having to tread on egg shells all the time, destroys all possibility of having real, stable relationships. The primary blame rests not on the thin skinned, but on those in power who take them seriously. That is how the 5% can exert control on the rest.
That's why its only in those elite schools right now, the behavior is encouraged and nurtured by the administrators. What is frightening, is that they are being trained to exploit aspects within the law, that by wording and presenting their complaints in particular ways, employers are obligated to file reports and conduct investigations. That manufactures statistics which can be used to justify policies, and increases the risks that businesses must manage. Its intended to create pressure to take proactive steps, least one marginal event gets painted as a systemic pattern.
The proper response to anyone speaking about their feelings in a public setting, especially when they are chiseling to get something, with the exception of a highly delimited set of circumstances is to indicate that feelings are not a justiable basis for decision-making (most of the time) and to ask for evidence that whatever is being felt(for instance: fear) is warranted by the facts of reality.
It's a cognitive lacking that these people are dancing around. These millenial kids are stupider then most kids around them but they are more narcissistic and more entitled then anyone on earth. The only way they can have any success is when they attack people and institutions in groups,never alone only in anonymous groups. They choose the target and the transgressions that they think can be remolded into a reasonable scape goat that will justify these millenials being complete failures in many aspects.
GenX growing up in Slovenia. 3rd or 4th grade, (9 or 10y) We had swimming lessons in summer and swimming pool was on the other side of the city. Four of us -schoolmates took a bus everyday for a week. It was not a big deal. It was normal. I was still in kindergarten so I couldn't be more than 5-6y. I was riding a bike, playing on my street alone or with other kids. Parents have set strict parameters how far I can wonder. Few 100m on both sides of my street, the next street on the left and right had more traffic. Those were the lines I was not allowed to cross. Falling from trees and bikes I ran home crying with bloody knees. My mom put on a bandage and I was back on a street. Proudly showing my "battle" scars to other children. We played with bows and arrows and slings...it's pure dumb luck that nobody lost an eye.
This was so much better with Lenore on the panel! Ever since social justice skepticism became more public, arguably mainstream around 2012, I noticed a lot of people new to the phenomenon using it as reason to be anti-youth and criticize youth rights. They should be recognizing that social justice is a result of abusive parenting, which includes the oversheltering trend of the 80s and beyond. When mothers went to work, their lack of control over the home and keeping up with neighbors created a lot of mystery around their kids. The daycare myths fueled these fears- because when people are afraid, they want to concretize. If it isn't believable things are good and the fear is too pervasive, it's comforting to believe things must be bad, instead of simply ambiguous or beyond our control. The unhealthy motherly fear combined with the cycle of abuse took us down a nightmarish path. We now see that oversheltering and lack of father involvement is more toxic for kids than the corporal punishment of the traditional nuclear family.
All previous generations thought the new generation was flawed. This is not news. Most importantly, circumstances (the world today) are different in every generation and we can't expect the same behavior as it was in the 'past'.
censorship bites because algorithms suck at reading what we want to see. For instance, i’m a classical guitarist and really am only interested in nylon string guitar, yet social media and yt think I like electric and steel string guitar and constantly show it to me. Super frustrating!
On my YT reccs 3 months later... and I'm a Malcolm Gladwell fan.. (BTW, I'm living in Japan where 6-yr-olds commute to school on their own on the subway system, and back in the day Japanese mothers were criticised by Americans for telling their children "abunai!" (it's dangerous) constantly... but you don't hear it that much these days. ... the kids all outgrew that phase, and are quite reasonably empowered now..)
Hold on ... there seems to be an underlying premise that all things being the same, these recent generations are coddled, therefore weaker. Can we ask about the nature of the current environment and socio-political currents bearing a different kind of force that parents aren't able to interpret accurately ... perhaps because they are getting faulty information (public education, media, etc.)? Can we ask some questions leading in all directions bearing solutions?
While critiquing the 3 untruths, Malcolm made a massive straw man. The panel were talking about hot dogs and Malcolm pulled out a bun, put a banana in it, and said "yeah, but what about this hot dog?" A straw man, to be sure, but a particularly bad one to boot. The panelists handled it like true scholars, but I would've been a bit less congenial.
thats why we watch them not you. They may not have agreed about everything but both the questions and answers were100% sincere and heartfelt. you I'm not so sure about.
A new requirement of two years at community college should be instituted at four-year colleges to increase maturity and get up to (college level) speed on basic skills.
This cannot be resolved because they are speaking in generalisations, and each person is cherry picking their examples to reinforce their argument. To know who is winning look at who is in power.
I think there was an important point that Malcolm struggled to get through well. While, like Malcolm, I am still uneasy about some aspects of the thesis, I think Heidt and his co-authors did an excellent job explaining their point.
Is this a middle and upper class phenomenon? I have taught 18 years at high schools with students overwhelmingly in poverty, and overwhelmingly the parents are at work or otherwise missing in action, and the kids wander quite freely. Many walk many blocks to school as parents are already at work before school starts. Many kids hang around school at the end of the day, etc. From my impression, there is very little "helicopter parenting" or the like. Plenty of students are failing, getting in trouble, etc., and parental intervention is weak to nonexistent (and like I said, not always their fault as they are working long hours just to keep their heads above water...and often the student is working a job, trying to keep grades up to do a sport, etc., also, to varying degrees of success as there simply are not enough hours in the day).
Best line ever: "Rape is not a micro-aggression." This must be such a frustrating conversation for Haidt, Lukianoff, and Skenazy. It speaks to the very problem they're trying to illuminate. To compare what they're talking about to exposing the likes of Harvey Weinstein is ludicrous and I'm so glad Lukianoff called him out on it. Or the comparison to a black man in the 50's fighting against legalized discrimination sanctioned by the government. These college campuses are the most liberal, open-minded safest places on the planet and this annoying 5% would have us all believe they are war zones. Eventually, people will stop hiring these fools and maybe they'll get the message. I've seen Gladwell in debates before and it seems many of his responses boil down to "Yeah, but my feelings..." And the look on Haidt's face at 53:43 says it all.
@@AJewFR0 hmm. maybe, starting out, but its clear that by the Weinstein comparison, for some reason, he moves from interviewer/explorer/devils advocate to a negative position that's rejecting the three guests work, and does it with a completely unsupportable example of applying their ideas. he was rightfully called on it. Lukianof could have justifiably been a lot less pleasant in his response.
I dont understand, in general, how so many people can seem to enjoy blaming their kids. People in the comments here are getting off on this stuff. “Yeah I also hate the next generation!” People, look in the mirror. The adults are in charge. Not the kids. Blame yourselves, if anyone, for not raising a better generation of kids. Who invented social media? Not the kids
When I was seven, I suddenly said to my Mum that I didn't want her to walk me to school any more. This was back in 1974. Now I don't know whether this worried her or not, but in those days this wasn't that unusual. She let me pootle off and I wasn't abducted or killed or assaulted. Now she'd be accused of "child abuse". By the time I was 15, I was taking the train to London on my own, (it's about 70 miles away). By 17, I took my first flight to Paris and at 18 or 19, I toured France and Italy. AND NOTHING HAPPENED TO ME. Because by that time I'd learned to be self-sufficient. I wasn't continually supervised. I knew my Mum and Dad were there in the background if I got into trouble and they were only a phone call away. About five years ago I saw something in the local newspaper which really depressed me. They were advertising supervised tree-climbing. I was darting up trees, exploring the woods at the back of our house and making dens where I could hide at the age of seven. I did have structured activities as well, music lessons, horse-riding and chess clubs, but these were only a part of my life. I feel so sorry for youngsters who don't get to enjoy these experiences.
Etan Patz: "His disappearance is a story that shocked New York City and to this day haunts law enforcement investigators who have spent decades trying to find him. The disappearance of the young boy is more than a missing person's case. Indeed, it changed the way parents watched over their kids."
I think there needs to be a movement to repopularize summer camps. I used to go to Girl Scout camps for 2 weeks/summer, cheer camp, band camp, church camp... it creates a semi-safe autonomous environment that’s fun.
Was anyone else confused by the clapping at 33:33? Gladwell asks how things would be seen differently if you were a gay, person of colour, and before finishing his thought, he's stopped by what sounds like cheers.
It was a bunch of virtue-signalling SJWs showing how "tolerant" they are by cheering their approval of the words "gay, person of colour," the designation currently at the top tier of the hierarchy of virtuous victims. It didn't really matter what point Gladwell was trying to make, the moment the virtue- signallers heard those words they were in ecstasy.
@@wiseonwords Half of America seems intent on signalling virtue (including ostentatious religious observance, as well as the fluff-head SJW stuff), and the other half on vice (gun racks, Trumpism, bombing abortion clinics). This strikes the same sort of healthy balance as putting one side of your body in the fridge and the other in the fire.
Gottemhimfella- Bombing abortion clinics? Really? Supporting Trump is comparable to bombing an abortion clinic? Equipping a pickup truck for a deer hunting expedition is related to bombing an abortion clinic? I urge you to get out Austin, or San Francisco, or Denver or Portland. and meet some actual people who live rural or small town lives. You might like them. They will be nice to you.
Amazing how society willfully cripples itself, reacting to challenge. It's nice to have intellectuals study this subject, but the consequences of sequestering our kids against any hint of hazard, was always going to be far more deleterious to the consciousness of the individual and the collective.
I'm originally from Cuba and grew up with my mom, my mom took care of me as a free range child I was pretty much allowed to go anywhere as long as I was with a group of friends or told her where I was going. I used to spend time with my dad and he was the opposite he was a helicopter father,(and still is) when I came to the states I was 13 and I came with my dad along, I was pretty much not allowed to go out at all. I went from a kid that played sports 24/7 to a gamer. I'm lucky that I was a boy if I would've been a girl I would've gone into social media and then things could've being much worse for me.
The point about asking people where they are from is so true, since I´m interested in different cultures I often ask people at my school where they are from so I can ask more interesting questions they might know about more than me, only to be met by accusations that I´m a racist for asking, very sad situation.
I get around that by using "Where are your grandparents from?" The question carries just a whiff of flattery with it, a sort of "Your parents made the transition and I have no idea about your background thanks to them..." and gets a straight answer, "They came over from..."
How cool is Lenore Skenazy. My kid got to hang with Izzy way back because while we don't have a subway to ride, we gots rattlers, cacti and 50' cliffs....no problem. Thanks for a great discussion. Lawson di Ransom Canyon
Was at a friends house upstate she had a couple of friends and their kids up. The children probably 7 and 8? Playing outside yelled into the kitchen window, “ but mom and dad you can’t see us”
I'm a manager in a large food pantry. I get quite a few older kids wanting to volunteer...............and Mom does all the talking. Once, even, sitting in on orientation. A lot of these young adults won't finish a job if they don't like it. They get told something like the bathrooms are there, ten minutes later, I'm asked where the bathrooms are. And pigs! I'm always cleaning the break room up. They leave empty and partially drunk water bottles all over the facility instead of putting them in the recycling bin, which gets plenty of trash while plenty of water bottles wind up in the trash. As a friend says, "A total lack of situational awareness."These are the kids who claim to care about the environment and will live their lives with climate change. (I'm old, so not so much for me.) Having vented, I also have many wonderful, hard working mature volunteers. I am grateful for them. Praise Jesus. Ha ha.....
The kids that are conditioned in an “old fashioned”method, by generational standards, assuming they are the positive attributes, will have an advantage over their peers. They will be more resilient but also more open and tolerant.
What makes you think that? I assume you think the "old" ways were methodologically good, but terribly applied at the time given that America in those olden days was increasingly intolerant the further you go back. We are living in the most open and tolerant time. Just 10 years ago, even liberal politicians weren't always openly in support of gay marriage, support for interracial marriage jumped significantly in the 90s, and if you go back to "The Greatest Generation" you find the people who fought tooth and nail against civil rights. Even today interracial friendships are rare among Boomers and older people (with less than half of white Boomers reporting having any). How is it that they turned out to be intolerant despite having their old fashioned methods?
We could also turn it around and say that the authors of the book should "tuffen up" and stop winning about the 5 or 8 % minority that is disturbing their status quo 😈
Speaking from a statistical basis the disrupters of the status quo can only be the few, the rest being the actual status quo. It doesnt matter how small the percentage of dissenters are, but how active they are
It really is all "because of the internet". The idea of cancel culture and canceling a person comes from our expectations of having a self curated information environment. We coddled ourselves
the very early 1980s saw the design and building of The Walkman - handheld cassette players with an incredible stereo sound that drowned out the world all around you. people stopped chatting on buses, at bus stops, diners... then came the videocassette player. People insulated, cocooned - they didn't go out of themselves as much as they used to do. the internet. netbooks, tablets, smartphones. people met fewer and fewer people different from themselves and their ability to get along was not as well-exercised as it was. Every year new tech and gadgets arrived in the marketplace and people eagerly coughed up cash to have it. Did it to ourselves.
@@Scriptorsilentum except that we didn't do it to ourselves, because some of us were children when this happened and we were just doing what we had been taught to do.
@@leelahasan3988 But the people before you were your human ancestors. So, yes, we did it to ourselves. And we continue to do it every day that we isolate and stay in our own little protective bubbles. Humans need to be challenged to develop themselves. Some of the most sophisticated people are those who seek discomfort and challenging circumstances. That's the point of the book these guys are presenting.
Watching this in 2020 just illustrates how correct Gladwell was. I agreed with Haidt and the other guy on a lot of their points, but they didn't seem to think that systematic oppression still exists. I don't think they're bad people, but you just don't know what you don't know. Still. I am glad that there are forums like these where real conversations an happen and not just tweets, yelling and cancellations. We NEED dialogue and I'm glad this is here.
Social media has led to a lot of this-age of disinformation! Most of the people online are not familiar with how to share ideas and have thinking shaped through discourse. People would do rather end friendships and families cut one another off. Rather sad.
Malcolm Gladwell is great! Nice work! Heavy questioning leads to good answers. If people have not realized what these culture has caused I'll give you two names: Trump and Bolsonaro. This culture alienates large portions of society that gets fed up and end up voting in demagogues and populists because the good people were actually debating if a word can or can't be used.
In an environment where violence is often used to solve disputes it is impossible to have freedom of speech. People tend to learn from their government.....if you want to change the people....change the government.
What stands out to me about this panel is how Malcolm Gladwell is actually making Haidt/Lukianoff's point by approaching everything from the persepective of safetyism, a need to try and protect "everyone else" around him, and wanting to take the real monsters of our world and overgeneralize their behavior assigning it and systematizing it, and then accusing an entire industry (Hollywood) of guilt over the actual and absolute horrendous crimes of a few terrible people, as if everyone in Hollywood, and most of America, really knew what was going on and we all just turned a blind eye and a cold shoulder. I'd also say that that this panel is a great opportunity to observe what Thomas Kuhn called "the incommensurability of scientific theories" or what I've also heard referred to as paradigm paralysis - a lack of cognitive flexibliity or adapability. Gladwell simply cannot understand what Haidt/Lukianoff are saying because he sees the world through such a fundamentally different set of assumptions, that to he considers any agreement with the points of Haidt/Lukianoff to be an act of betrayal to his ideological commitments. I believe Kuhn analogizes this as two people playing on the same gameboard, but one of them is playing chess, while the other is playing checkers. They think they are talking about the same things from opposite sides, when in fact they are talking about completely different things, with different rules, moves and pieces.
Just last night, I was hanging out with some friends and two of them were talking about intersectionality. I asked how they defined intersectionality. Without a pause they both rattled off the textbook definition, to which I responded, "Yeah I don't buy that stuff." For the next minute I was unable to get a word in, both people just started telling me they don't care if I believe it, it just is. I was told about lenses, etc., all the bullshit I knew was coming. I stopped the conversation and said, "I don't have to follow your guidelines, to be a good person. I don't need to know that, to not be a racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.. My friend said she could vouch for me. So before knowing anything about someone, assume the worst if they don't share your "lens".
I can’t help but notice a certain myopia among these types of academics… Gladwell’s inquisitive attitude does a lot to counteract it, but he still has it too. It’s like they’ve achieved success within a certain sphere of American society, so they frame everything from that perspective. Clueless to how out of touch it looks to frame our societal health in terms of hirable Yale graduates at tech firms. I guess a more diplomatic thing to say is that I sit to the left of all these speakers ideologically… and even I see that the tactics of shame and self-righteousness employed by the left are counter-productive… but I see it in a whole different context. They’re counter-productive, not because they make CEO’s and elite college professors’ jobs harder, but because they’re the product of a defeated liberation movement that no longer seeks material change / liberation and has lowered its sights to political correctness. If we actually had hope of stopping the military industrial complex / the exploitation of workers… that hope would be so unifying that quibbles over language would start to look as inconsequential as the right loves to point out that they are.
I think Robert Heinlein said it best: “At least once every human should have to run for his life, to teach him that milk does not come from supermarkets, that safety does not come from policemen, that 'news' is not something that happens to other people. He might learn how his ancestors lived and that he himself is no different--in the crunch his life depends on his agility, alertness, and personal resourcefulness.”
I literally yelled at the screen when Malcolm Gladwell asked if a 5% change was enough to really have an effect on the population as a whole. You literally wrote a book called "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference" about this exact thing! That being said, I have respect for both Gladwell and Haidt and it was great watching this discourse.
I felt the same way. I think he was being a devils advocate in order to validate the idea
@@qqq111444 you’re right. Some people don’t understand the goal of a moderator.
As the moderator, it's his job to confront the guest with thoughts that challenge their own position in order to create discussion and give them the opportunity to explain their position as well as deconstruct the moderator's argument. What the moderator brings forth doesn't necessarily need to be what he himself thinks to be true.
Little things can make a big difference but it will take more than 5% in this case, IMO. As this case is one tiny peak on an iceberg.
The remark on the current generation being more tolerant should have included,as long as one agrees with the popular narrative.
A year and a half later... It's striking how much this has moved from the university to become a mainstream problem affecting every area of life and business.
That's right fucker. Stop being racist.
@@bossman6798 you two are way too racist.
@@willzsportscards you wish clown.
pUBLIC SCHOOLZ
@@trollingisasport Public schools are based. Knowledge should not be gate kept behind profit insentives.
Nothing new.
My sixth grade teacher Harry Adamian who was teaching us in the gymnasium, lunch room, auditorium got into trouble for teaching us about the Armenian genocide. He opened my eyes at 12!!! 1962
RIP Mr. Adamian
He once asked us if dogs had soles! One boy came away from the discussion believing his teacher had concluded that his dog would not be in heaven!!!!
Harry got into trouble again!!!!
Malcolm Gladwell could have done a better job at brining in Lenore Skenazy into the main discussion.
Kramer did a good job moderating this.
50:41 What needs to be distinguished is that life is about a battle between good and evil, NOT a battle between good and evil PEOPLE. When you perceive people as purely good or purely evil, it leads to a culture where you root out individuals instead of the real problem, and people don't have an opportunity to atone for their mistakes.
Nope its a battle of brainwash victims with little awareness. Everybody overrates their own abilities.
@@duewhit310 Especially the police. With little training in social science, none in psychology, and 2 weeks in firearm training we expect them to not make mistakes is ludicrous.
@@jackhammer7824 the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to all of us
@@duewhit310 Dunning-Krugger effect *
Learn something new everyday.
Namastia
@@jackhammer7824 Justin Kruger, not Krugger
many commenter's are complaining about gladwell, but i think he played the role of the advocatus diaboli very well. he's not there to be a moderator, his role is to ask the tough questions.
I would entirely agree, had he actually asked tough questions. I found his questions and observations ranged from bland to incoherent, and even at their best were poorly thought out and argued.
He did a good job of highlighting that the flip side of this wave is a society that cares. All generations might be glad of it when half of them end up driving for Uber.
@@nvrselout3678 A society that cares is of limited value if they satisfy themselves with declarations and displays of emotion.
I didn't get that same impression based on Gladwell's body language, he seemed to be genuinely in opposition to Haidt on several points. But that's fine, it's good to have differening views and to discuss them.
Yeah I must say he did really well on this one
I think Gladwell was PERFECT in this case. I strongly disagree with him on nearly everything, but this plays to Peterson’s oft made point that you pit your ideas against the strongest possible arguments against them and see if they can stand. Gladwell was not giving any free points here and it just made the panelists arguments completely solid.
Gladwell was throwing softball after softball, in order to give the panelists a chance to express their ideas -- which is what the panel was for. It wasn't a debate.
Glad you said that Lee because I am surprised at Gladwell's questions. He seems to be going further down the rabbit hole as the conversation goes on.
I heard a discussion between Gladwell and a former colleague and neighbor and she mentioned not wanting to disturb him when he was “entertaining” one of his female friends.
I'm not sure that was his intention. He says he looks for a way to find depth in the trend aside from an academic one, but as someone typically solid with his statistics he curiously seems ignorant about this issue. He's pretty far left and is contributing to the insanity. Otherwise his position would make logical sense. Not just versed and vocal about historical angles.i get it, he's bitter about the so- called priveledged. He needs a good dose of current stats. I'd like to see him vs. Heather Mac Donald. I didn't used to see him as such a PC pansy as I do here. Well maybe I did but now it just looks weak and lazy.
You’ve expressed what he should be doing, but can you give an example of an interesting question he asked? Seems like he strongly disagrees with their arguments, not that he’s steel-manning their ideas.
Great questions posed and the host gives guests the opportunity to speak. Wonderful discussion!
When I was a free range child of the 1940-'s and '50s, I knew that I could go to any adult if I got lost or in trouble. We have become a fear-based society.
What are you talking about? If my mom or dad ran to an adult in the 50s or 60s "if" they were in trouble, the other adult would probably give them a spanking for doing something wrong. Then if one of my parents was stupid enough to tell my grand parents that they were disciplined by another adult, my grands parents would spank then, or ask the kid to pick out a good willow switch.
I couldn't even walk to school without adult supervision, when it is only 2 blocks away and I was 12.
I was a free range child in the 90s. We still existed then but I think they're all gone now.
@@leelahasan3988 I'm so sorry to hear you had that experience. I started walking to school by myself, eight blocks away, when I was eight years old. While I could bore you to tears with my complaints about my parents, I was greatly blessed to have parents who actively promoted the idea that I was supposed to be very independent at as early age as possible.
@@leelahasan3988 I walked to school at that age all the time. 6 blocks away'
It was a great interview Malcolm! *I like the way you disagree - and yet, behave like adults!
Psychiatrists call it "learned helplessness". Unfortunately, hypersensitivity has become more fashionable than maturity and logic.
J Audrey some do some don’t, please don’t over generalize
@@inspectorvoid " The coddling of the American Mind." BY Joanthan Haidt
My wife is a teacher and has to deal with kids that are so cognitively disabled by over parenting that during lock down they lost the ability to create sentences.
@@stephenbrookes7268 Good grief! What age?
@@Tony-Blake9 or 10 I think. They got an average of 3 out of 50 in a maths test. The parents tell them not to listen to the teachers. During a zoom class one student was in bed being spoonfed by his mother. One was literally sitting next to the kid giving answers to maths problems. When called out she denied giving answers and completely failed to understand why her child must do the work and show working out not just clean answers. She also asked several patents to stop their children from forging their parents handwriting.
When I take my walk I pass by an elementary school and the thing that strikes me are the number of parents sitting in their cars, trucks and vans there to pick up their children from school and of course they're all looking at their cell phones while waiting. I grew up in Southern California and rarely did my Mom or anyone pick me up from or drive me to school and if they did I would have them drop me off a block from school so my friends wouldn't make fun of me. I took the city bus or walked to and from school. How times have changed.
It seems like life is about surviving layers and layers of abuse. From our families, religion, schools, police....authoritarian figures abound in this culture. We must discover the real benevolent inner authority that resides in all of us. Be your own compassionate authority.
This is brilliant. Just brilliant. A great exchange about where to draw the lines when taking care of each other while also allowing each other to toughen up. 92Y has long had a great reputation for sinewy discussions that aren't pro forma book tour appearances and marketing events.
Thankfully, my eight year old grandson, gets to roam the neighborhood and adjacent park with his buddies after school, just being a kid who can explore, play and exercise self-judgement.
I was born in 94 and my generations savior was the bicycle! We had the independence but we still came out with problems. There is the opposite problem to be worried about. Self indulged parents.
That's so great to hear! I see it a little bit here in my town too, but not nearly enough considering how unbelievably safe it is.
@@ryanvess6162Vess, IMO, critical thinking is EVERY generation's *savior*. i was born in '54 and roamed far and wide on my bike, but all i REALLY wanted to do was stay home, stretch out on a comfy piece of furniture, and read. the only independence that interested me was -- and still is -- the ability to engage in critical thinking. IMO, the inability to think critically is a disability worse than death. nowadays, i engage, courtesy of social media, in civil discourse and critical thinking to my heart's content.
@@ryanvess6162 IMO, critical thinking is EVERY generation's *savior*. i was born in '54 and roamed far and wide on my bike, but all i REALLY wanted to do was stay home, stretch out on a comfy piece of furniture, and read. the only independence that interested me was -- and still is -- the ability to engage in critical thinking. IMO, the inability to think critically is a disability worse than death. nowadays, i engage, courtesy of social media, in civil discourse and critical thinking to my heart's content.
@@Hollis_has_questions agree...the generation that raised me was always telling me its beautiful out and to get out of the house, while they drank and watched tv... it gave me freedom to explore which in the late 70s early 80s wasnt really a great thing being a young kid walking aimlessly around Times Square and anyplace else a bus pass would get you...
I really like Gladwell, he asks great questions. These guys gave very reasonable responses that should have resolved those for him. I don't think they addressed the question about the "annoying" 8% as thoroughly as they could have though. The advent of social media, and more importantly, media/business usage of social media, really made it easier for that bat shit crazy 8% to have a heavy impact. The "silent majority" isn't half as silent as this 8% is LOUD. Anyway, great video. Great talk. One of the best I've watched and I feel like I got...well, not dumber, watching it. I'm joking, there was a lot of munchies for my brain. Thanks!
It’s amazing to me that Malcolm was clearly so reluctant to acknowledge call out culture as a huge problem. Thank goodness for the three people, with the foresight to see that this was going to be a problem, and cleverly studying it, and teaching the public about the danger before us. As someone born in 1989, I have lived a happy life with good friendships, and great experiences. However, thanks to my peers need for control and call out culture, I lost three of my closest friends overnight. It’s funny because we all are good people… I just have different opinions from them… and they would rather live in an echo chamber. Since I am an adult, happily married with children it doesn’t ruin me. But, I feel for those who grew up inside social media day in day out, and crave the control and sameness. I pray people can see social media for what it is and stay away.
I dunno. I live near Ohio State University for past 20 years and I’ve never seen or experienced this “call out culture”. I have no idea what they’re talking about and I dont fear it in the least.
@@JMBvideo ignorance is bliss
Excellent debate! Gladwell tests his guests' ideas with incisive questions, allowing for clarification and elaboration. 1:04:56 Re freedom of young people: the ultimate heroine surely is Laura Dekker, who was sailing alone at 11, and at the age of 16 completed a solo circumnavigation of the world in 2012, after defying the Dutch state beforehand. She was eminently qualified, having spent her first five years at sea with her family, and sailing her own boats from the age of six. Surely she is the ultimate proof of anti-fragility! Her slogan now is, "If it doesn't challenge you, it won't change you".
That's great and all but Dutch children are, statistically speaking, some of the most independent kids on Earth. Probably because they are allowed to go outside and explore and bike wherever they want at a young age, whereas American kids for the most part are not allowed to do those things.
@Joseph Chambers Oh man I love that channel.
gladwell wasn't just doing devil's advocate. he REALLY believes the other side. it should be obvious to everyone from the way he spoke them.
@@leelahasan3988 a big part of that is civil engineering. completely different field. but holland cities are planned so that you can bike and tram everywhere, not need a car. it's a big deal in terms of how that enables people and kids, not just some inconsequential city planning decision of different countries having different styles of doing things.
Haidt Speech is GREAT SPEECH!!!! love him.
The book came out over a year ago and nothing has changed. Really reinforces the idea that academics live in an ivory tower.
Super late reply, cultural change is a gradual process and takes time. Like Haidt said, it was only around the time of the panel that business leaders were beginning to realize just how bad this phenomenon could be and had no idea how to respond.
Couple this with the fact that more people are becoming more skeptical of "expertise" and instead buying into the belief that they can find the truth on Facebook or TikTok, and it becomes little wonder that we aren't seeing many good results yet.
And infantilization of an entire generation across the entire western world.
Thank you so much for this. Amazing speakers and amazing moderator!
It's funny to read the comments and see people expressing the exact tribal behaviour the panelists mentioned, getting angry at Gladwell for doing his job (i.e. being a critical host, asking questions, probing and testing the arguments being made) or seeing this as Gladwell getting rekt. Chill out people, he didn't kill anybody's dog on that stage.
What I found missing was the discussion of the connection between psychological fragility and PC culture on campus. It was just taken for granted, as if there is no other possible reason for the rising numbers of depressed and self-harming people. From what they mentioned it seemed more like culture wars on campus are coinciding with the mental issues and the causal link is tenuous at best.
Best conversation environment is a challenging one. Most people don’t want this but it’s great when smart, learned participate.
Yeah they definitely should have discussed the link between psychological fragility and depression. Personally I don’t believe they’re directly related… a majority of the people I know who struggle with depression aren’t at all hypersensitive to words or ideas (and presumably, neither is Greg).
They talk about it (mental fragility) in the Atlantic piece. Trigger warnings and all that.
What I didn't like about Gladwells line of questioning is he seem to miss that book is about strangulation of free and critical thinking in places of education (do they even have debate societies nowdays?) and not some universal theory of objective truths that he himself seems to generate from oversimplified anecdotes in his works. Like this out of the blue and misplaced question about Weinstein. I don't think he even read the article, no to mention book.
@Ryan Clone they didn't learn how to look from opposite sides, moreover they object to the whole idea. And if they choose to resolve social issues by means of righteous fury and ostracisation, it's not the fault of Haidt's teaching methods.
What I found missing is the Blatant right wing bias of universities. all U.S. universities are funded mostly by the military . So they can recruit more young adults into their death cult and get the benefits of university research. The result of this is that all universities brainwash people into the right wing pro-war mind-set . They even water down climate change curriculums as to not annoy the universities corporate donors who's bottom line would be impacted by addressing this.
Wow when I saw this panel had Malcolm Gladwell, Lenore Skenazy and Jonathan Haidt I geeked out. I've read atleast one book of each of theirs and love the stuff they have to say. This is going to be a great video.
At 37:49, ‘it triggered you’. That was just too cool to see why JH just is so great!
actually what was cool to see was that he said it in jest and that everyone allowed him to move on. I can see people use that word to get a reaction anywhere on the internet.
I hate when statistics are used and abused out of context for a political purpose. As someone in the field of psychology and pays attention to trends and general consensus on certain topics: the conclusions Haidt draws from his mix of real data, which are often cherrypicked, and carefully selected anecdotal accounts are not supported by most in the field. It's not the particular concepts like "anti-fragile" that are controversial, nor are his discussions of the psychological impacts of social media, but his use of them as stepping stones to his broad conclusion that draws a through-line between them and politically charged events with societal implications.
Also, to clarify, I don't mean that the anecdotal "evidence" are inaccurate accounts of what took place; I mean they are not scientifically valid data. That would be fine if identified as such, but they're also _cherrypicked_ and, therefore, deceiving. They're not representative of the vast majority of similar guest speaker events on campuses, or the intellectual environments fostered at most American universities, which deliberately focus on the ability to ask questions and debate. That can easily be quantified by looking at a sample of guest speakers, taking note of the variety of political views (particularly right-wing), and compare them to the frequency at which guest speakers are shouted down, not allowed to speak, or even just protested. Look for yourself, they're essentially a rounding error. Obviously universities have a right to draw the line at individuals that have been shown to submit "research" that deliberately uses poor design, misrepresents data, p-hacks, etc. to produce particular results, as well as non-academic political figures or conspiracy theorists, but that's not really what we're talking about and I don't really think anyone believes there's much academic value in platforming Alex Jones at a university. So situations in which speakers are silenced are rare and are no more common now than they have been every generation since the '60s; they're just recorded more often. Nonetheless, most universities err on the side of allowing a guest speaker when the situation is less clear. It's less a serious issue than a rhetorical device in conservative media circles that have given up trying to argue the actual issues and focus on decorum instead. Most of those complaining about the oppressive intellectual atmosphere of universities have never stepped foot on the grounds of those universities in the first place.
When you combine parents that give in to their child every time they have a hissy fit in a store for something they want & parents that are constantly with their children, acting on their behalf as if their lives are in perpetual danger and their kids are incapable of being resilient, or being responsible for their own actions/behaviours....this is what you get.
We're in danger, need to be protected and if we scream long enough - someone will give us what we want.
Having taught in college, I can assure you that some of these kids have NEVER had anyone say "no" to them until they get into a professor's course, don't do the work, and expect an A. It's these little creeps who then turn in the professor for being politically incorrect, when what they're really reacting to is that they're not being coddled and given what they didn't earn.
@@JOHN----DOE One of my friends is a teacher. He's said the same.
No. When you combine shitbrain parents who justify their halfassed parenting by blaming society’s woes on other parents who do a better job - excusing their own laziness by pointing fingers - you get cromag posts like yours.
I see this at work. I even started seeing this a few years ago in my hobby of music. Terrible players with no technique and never bother to practice expect to come on without an audition and become enraged when not making the cut. Their emotions seem to go from disengaged (1) then jump to anger(10) with nothing in the middle.
I lost a very hard won job at Greenpeace NYC in 2015, my accolades therefrom, healthcare, a raise and place in progress for quite a while-because of:
1. Things I unequivocally did not say
2. Things I said that were grossly mischaracterized
3. Things that were grammatically and emotionally misunderstood based on misheard and morally judged hearsay outside of work
4. an actual lie
Thank you for this.
Gladwell and Haidt??? Why the hell hasn't youtube recommended this video to me before now?!?!
At 42:49, I was reminded of Professor Stephen Kotkin's definition of modern authoritarianism: "The rule of the few in the name of the many."
I would have thought that James Damore might have been a useful mention in this debate, especially in relation to the question about 'but this is just affecting 5% of elite college students'. It's not, because this message is being reinforced in HR policies and in the media constantly. I'm surprised that this is not mentioned by anyone of the panelists.
I agree, he should of come up when they discussed Silicon Valley and how young employees is affecting teamwork and companies. His experiences are a direct example of people going to HR as soon as someone challenges them/says something that "offends" and a company/HR department that acts to enforce that. I expect this is pretty damn common in many tech industries that are at any sort of scale beyond a few people.
That's more of a recent phenomenon. The video was released in 2019, so it's probably just that they had yet to be exposed to it as both college professors and just time frame wise.
Yea, they already on the working places. Comes to mind recent Netflix walkout due to some remarks by Chappele.
Gladwell suggests they are naive and in so doing better describes how he appears.
A good interviewer does not exclude one third of his panel from the discussion. She has a lot of interesting things to contribute and has obviously done a huge amount of research into the matter of the over-protection of kids, which is largely responsible for the problem this discussion is based on. How often does Gladwell actually bring her into the discussion?
Thanks - was wondering if anyone was going to comment on that!
If I'm not mistaken, he's questioning a lot of the points in the book written by the other panel members and thus resulting in him asking them for their defense. He had something concrete to read to know their views. Not sure if he had something equivalent for Lenore to know her claims being made. I also think he was one of the best interviewers in terms questioning the points being made, instead of just agreeing or giving not well thought out rebuttals like most interviewers.
This comment by Ms. Julia Davison proves the point of this discussion. We are too quick to judge someone for their perceived bias against our preferred group member.
I really enjoyed listening to Ms. Lenore Skenazy’s views. I don’t think she or anyone else had issues expressing their opinions.
Facts/reality be damned, we are ready to protest.
But I didn't hear her trying to make a point and being ignored or shouted down. How come she didn't try to get more voice time herself? Why should it have been up to the men to "invite" her to share her thoughts? She has just as much right to force herself to be heard as the men. I thought she was insightful and witty and would have liked to hear more of what she had to say. But I don't believe the big bad patriarchy was deliberately holding her back because she was a woman, which is what you are really saying.
I knew a 17 year old who wasn’t allowed to ride the subway by themselves when I was in high school. I do think 4th grade is a little too young but I was taking public transport at 12 years old. It actually did wonders for my social anxiety.
I am someone who wasn't allowed to take public transport at 17, and oh boy has that messed with my ability to do anything without on my own.
49:48 Gladwell is literally catastrophizing in the exact way that Haidt an Lukianoff (and virtually all therapists who recognize the value of CBT) are warning against.
@Cheyne Yarrington Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. It's a therapy technique that you can actually do yourself or in combination with seeing a therapist.
Malcolm gladwell and Jonathan haidt. Awesome 😎
What a great discussion. I will start giving my son more exposure to risk. Too bad there are still sickos out there but Lenora is really on to something.
There is the clue, i wouldn't call it risks, i would call it challenges, hills to climb over.
I’m paraphrasing but Ben Franklin said “those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither.” The girding of certain forms of speech considered deleterious is nonetheless the crackdown on freedom of speech which spells the beginnings of a society that will soon be autocratically bound.
Irrespective of the generational shifts, there is always going to be individuals who desire to control and repress. Only the context and focus changes. That it's so acceptable now is worrisome.
it's like a bacterial overbloom
When Lenore screams at 24 mins plus I almost had a heart attack. Gladwell just asking probing questions to create a platform for debate. He's not constantly interrupting etc or trying to be smart - He's just playing devil's advocate.
_"He's just playing devil's advocate."_
Why do people keep saying this in the comments as if they have no idea what a devil's advocate is? For example @39:40 he makes snide comments about how people in "tech" make lots of money, therefore they should just shut-up and ignore the intolerance of the young employees (never mind the fact that the young people also make mad cash yet somehow they are exempt from Gladwell's logic). He contributed absolutely nothing and the topic Haidt raised was immediately dropped because Gladwell ran interference and trivialized his point.
That is not what a devil's advocate does.
Microphone problem possibly. Ouch.
no he's not. he really believes it. he has a hard time wrapping his head around what the panel is saying.
if you can't read his body language and his literal confessions that he can't understand why not X, .... idk what to tell you.
Here I am in 2024 watching this and everything they are saying resonates with me. As I’ve been doing research on why people are so easily offended and triggered by Everything! My road of research led me to discover this coodling movement. Here in 2024 everything they are saying is still happening and is getting worse. Though it’s so sad how things are I’m encouraged to have this content so I can begin to bring awareness to this issue. It’s time for us to grow up! Life is hard, get a helmet!⛑️
The other terrible idea is that "you can do anything you want to do."
yeah...that's such bullshit...And when they realize they can't, they kick and scream.....
These are important conversations to be had, precisely because a man as smart as Malcolm Gladwell is so confused by the data he's hearing. There have been many comments for the past few years as to how the Leftists won't come out from their echo chamber. Kudos to Gladwell to opening himself up to foreign concepts, even if the cognitive dissonance is a little awkward on stage.
... his job is to challenge whatever is being said or asserted. He's not confused by the data, he is asking questions to challenge the data they are presenting so that the audience can be confident it is accurate.
@@leelahasan3988 Nope. He's confused.
@@fishbuddy663 Exactly. He is completely confused and in total denial. He is not pushing back for the sake of pushing back. He’s pushing back because he thinks they are wrong despite the fact that they are using hard data!
@@fishbuddy663 And utterly humorless.
By the time he repeated essentially the same question three or four times, what struck me most was how unprepared he seemed.
First, thank you for the great content! But as an audio professional, this is almost unlistenable. Levels are all over the place, it's too quiet 80% of the time, then blaring loud when someone laughs or interjects. If you're broadcasting a live mix direct from the board, PLEASE insert a comp/limiter on the 2-bus before broadcast, or use pres with AGC, or if not, add processing or fader automation in post.....something....anything! Again, I appreciate the great content, thank you! But whoever is handling audio is really dropping the ball. If you need help in the future, please send me the audio 2-mix and I'll make it sound top notch. Maybe this amount of dynamic range is acceptable for film, but not for dialouge. Thanks and please keep up with the excellent content!
I have zero experience in audio engineering and even I notice this issue on a ton of videos. Even pre-recorded stuff in predictable environments like a podcast. It’s weird. A lot of balls dropping... that came out wrong. A lot of balls being dropped. ... Not much better. You know what I mean.
Evan Kolpack it’s the younger generation. They don’t know their AGC’s from their ADD’s. .
Is there any way to damp Lenore completely out of the discussion? Her annoying irrelevant side comments (that she clearly enjoys) are extremely distracting.
terencelaoshi imagine being married to her! Poor guy.
It's probably direct feed from mix desk, optimized for audience - not recording. And AGC? I highly doubt they even have one for live events.
/listened on IEMs, didn't noticed heavy crimes, except for one hysterical laugh in the middle(probably not particularly skilled engineer without the habit of down-fading non-active speakers). Could've fixed it in post of course.
Having to tread on egg shells all the time, destroys all possibility of having real, stable relationships. The primary blame rests not on the thin skinned, but on those in power who take them seriously. That is how the 5% can exert control on the rest.
Yes. A 1,000 times YES
That's why its only in those elite schools right now, the behavior is encouraged and nurtured by the administrators.
What is frightening, is that they are being trained to exploit aspects within the law, that by wording and presenting their complaints in particular ways, employers are obligated to file reports and conduct investigations.
That manufactures statistics which can be used to justify policies, and increases the risks that businesses must manage.
Its intended to create pressure to take proactive steps, least one marginal event gets painted as a systemic pattern.
Your country. Gross. This litigious bs is awful
The proper response to anyone speaking about their feelings in a public setting, especially when they are chiseling to get something, with the exception of a highly delimited set of circumstances is to indicate that feelings are not a justiable basis for decision-making (most of the time) and to ask for evidence that whatever is being felt(for instance: fear) is warranted by the facts of reality.
Utter crock. What an eleven-year-old comment that is. If you're ten...well done. Still a crock though...
The interviewer's incisive prompts were reasonable up until he mentioned the case of Harvey Weinstein. He said really stupid things at that point.
Agreed! And the responses to his analogy by the others were well stated.
bad volume level. good content.
Malcolm Gladwell is an absolute social genius. I can’t imagine a better moderator for such an important discussion.
I bet the person who started clapping at "gay person of colour in the 1950's" is really fun at parties
If you're using examples from a time that doesn't exist to advocate for policy in a time that does, you're loudly admitting that you're a fraud.
@ > If only those types stayed at parties.
The parties have spread to HR, politics, academia.
The most racist person you would ever meet....
It's a cognitive lacking that these people are dancing around. These millenial kids are stupider then most kids around them but they are more narcissistic and more entitled then anyone on earth. The only way they can have any success is when they attack people and institutions in groups,never alone only in anonymous groups. They choose the target and the transgressions that they think can be remolded into a reasonable scape goat that will justify these millenials being complete failures in many aspects.
@@echt114 Pretty sure the 1950s did exist.
GenX growing up in Slovenia. 3rd or 4th grade, (9 or 10y) We had swimming lessons in summer and swimming pool was on the other side of the city. Four of us -schoolmates took a bus everyday for a week. It was not a big deal. It was normal.
I was still in kindergarten so I couldn't be more than 5-6y. I was riding a bike, playing on my street alone or with other kids. Parents have set strict parameters how far I can wonder. Few 100m on both sides of my street, the next street on the left and right had more traffic. Those were the lines I was not allowed to cross. Falling from trees and bikes I ran home crying with bloody knees. My mom put on a bandage and I was back on a street. Proudly showing my "battle" scars to other children. We played with bows and arrows and slings...it's pure dumb luck that nobody lost an eye.
The generation (s) born after 1995 doesn't know a world without the internet...that might have something to do with it...
I hate the word privileged. I prefer to say blessed or fortunate. Privileged implies that you didn't work hard to achieve success.
This was so much better with Lenore on the panel! Ever since social justice skepticism became more public, arguably mainstream around 2012, I noticed a lot of people new to the phenomenon using it as reason to be anti-youth and criticize youth rights. They should be recognizing that social justice is a result of abusive parenting, which includes the oversheltering trend of the 80s and beyond. When mothers went to work, their lack of control over the home and keeping up with neighbors created a lot of mystery around their kids. The daycare myths fueled these fears- because when people are afraid, they want to concretize. If it isn't believable things are good and the fear is too pervasive, it's comforting to believe things must be bad, instead of simply ambiguous or beyond our control. The unhealthy motherly fear combined with the cycle of abuse took us down a nightmarish path. We now see that oversheltering and lack of father involvement is more toxic for kids than the corporal punishment of the traditional nuclear family.
Now that unhealthy motherly fear has given us the Covid mass-hysteria.
All previous generations thought the new generation was flawed. This is not news. Most importantly, circumstances (the world today) are different in every generation and we can't expect the same behavior as it was in the 'past'.
Why isn't this event more publicized?!? It's popped up in my YT reccs 2 months later...
censorship bites because algorithms suck at reading what we want to see. For instance, i’m a classical guitarist and really am only interested in nylon string guitar, yet social media and yt think I like electric and steel string guitar and constantly show it to me. Super frustrating!
Because it goes against the MSM narrative.
On my YT reccs 3 months later... and I'm a Malcolm Gladwell fan.. (BTW, I'm living in Japan where 6-yr-olds commute to school on their own on the subway system, and back in the day Japanese mothers were criticised by Americans for telling their children "abunai!" (it's dangerous) constantly... but you don't hear it that much these days. ... the kids all outgrew that phase, and are quite reasonably empowered now..)
Lol nothing pops up some phone have a background audio recording , what you type watch others forward to you related subject matter ect
Hold on ... there seems to be an underlying premise that all things being the same, these recent generations are coddled, therefore weaker. Can we ask about the nature of the current environment and socio-political currents bearing a different kind of force that parents aren't able to interpret accurately ... perhaps because they are getting faulty information (public education, media, etc.)? Can we ask some questions leading in all directions bearing solutions?
While critiquing the 3 untruths, Malcolm made a massive straw man. The panel were talking about hot dogs and Malcolm pulled out a bun, put a banana in it, and said "yeah, but what about this hot dog?" A straw man, to be sure, but a particularly bad one to boot. The panelists handled it like true scholars, but I would've been a bit less congenial.
thats why we watch them not you. They may not have agreed about everything but both the questions and answers were100% sincere and heartfelt. you I'm not so sure about.
A new requirement of two years at community college should be instituted at four-year colleges to increase maturity and get up to (college level) speed on basic skills.
Gladwell was both good and terrible at the same time!
This cannot be resolved because they are speaking in generalisations, and each person is cherry picking their examples to reinforce their argument. To know who is winning look at who is in power.
I think there was an important point that Malcolm struggled to get through well. While, like Malcolm, I am still uneasy about some aspects of the thesis, I think Heidt and his co-authors did an excellent job explaining their point.
2 months ago, but I'd be curious what points you are still uneasy about
Is this a middle and upper class phenomenon? I have taught 18 years at high schools with students overwhelmingly in poverty, and overwhelmingly the parents are at work or otherwise missing in action, and the kids wander quite freely. Many walk many blocks to school as parents are already at work before school starts. Many kids hang around school at the end of the day, etc. From my impression, there is very little "helicopter parenting" or the like. Plenty of students are failing, getting in trouble, etc., and parental intervention is weak to nonexistent (and like I said, not always their fault as they are working long hours just to keep their heads above water...and often the student is working a job, trying to keep grades up to do a sport, etc., also, to varying degrees of success as there simply are not enough hours in the day).
Best line ever: "Rape is not a micro-aggression." This must be such a frustrating conversation for Haidt, Lukianoff, and Skenazy. It speaks to the very problem they're trying to illuminate. To compare what they're talking about to exposing the likes of Harvey Weinstein is ludicrous and I'm so glad Lukianoff called him out on it. Or the comparison to a black man in the 50's fighting against legalized discrimination sanctioned by the government. These college campuses are the most liberal, open-minded safest places on the planet and this annoying 5% would have us all believe they are war zones. Eventually, people will stop hiring these fools and maybe they'll get the message.
I've seen Gladwell in debates before and it seems many of his responses boil down to "Yeah, but my feelings..." And the look on Haidt's face at 53:43 says it all.
Derrick Jones pretty sure he’s being devils advocate bud.
Being unable to discern between real danger and emotional offense isn't very safe.
@@AJewFR0 hmm. maybe, starting out, but its clear that by the Weinstein comparison, for some reason, he moves from interviewer/explorer/devils advocate to a negative position that's rejecting the three guests work, and does it with a completely unsupportable example of applying their ideas. he was rightfully called on it. Lukianof could have justifiably been a lot less pleasant in his response.
For the context of "rape is not a micro-aggression" see 48:54 to 53:41.
The oboxious minority is turning campuses into a war zone!! Self-fulfilling prophesy
The whole point is no matter what percent a faction is……. SPEECH itself should not be censored!!!!
I dont understand, in general, how so many people can seem to enjoy blaming their kids. People in the comments here are getting off on this stuff. “Yeah I also hate the next generation!” People, look in the mirror. The adults are in charge. Not the kids. Blame yourselves, if anyone, for not raising a better generation of kids. Who invented social media? Not the kids
When I was seven, I suddenly said to my Mum that I didn't want her to walk me to school any more. This was back in 1974. Now I don't know whether this worried her or not, but in those days this wasn't that unusual. She let me pootle off and I wasn't abducted or killed or assaulted. Now she'd be accused of "child abuse". By the time I was 15, I was taking the train to London on my own, (it's about 70 miles away). By 17, I took my first flight to Paris and at 18 or 19, I toured France and Italy. AND NOTHING HAPPENED TO ME. Because by that time I'd learned to be self-sufficient. I wasn't continually supervised. I knew my Mum and Dad were there in the background if I got into trouble and they were only a phone call away. About five years ago I saw something in the local newspaper which really depressed me. They were advertising supervised tree-climbing. I was darting up trees, exploring the woods at the back of our house and making dens where I could hide at the age of seven. I did have structured activities as well, music lessons, horse-riding and chess clubs, but these were only a part of my life. I feel so sorry for youngsters who don't get to enjoy these experiences.
Etan Patz: "His disappearance is a story that shocked New York City and to this day haunts law enforcement investigators who have spent decades trying to find him. The disappearance of the young boy is more than a missing person's case. Indeed, it changed the way parents watched over their kids."
I think there needs to be a movement to repopularize summer camps. I used to go to Girl Scout camps for 2 weeks/summer, cheer camp, band camp, church camp... it creates a semi-safe autonomous environment that’s fun.
Ha. I went to a church camp that was 9 days of terror in the1970s. Unfortunately not everyone's experience is the same.
Was anyone else confused by the clapping at 33:33? Gladwell asks how things would be seen differently if you were a gay, person of colour, and before finishing his thought, he's stopped by what sounds like cheers.
It was a bunch of virtue-signalling SJWs showing how "tolerant" they are by cheering their approval of the words "gay, person of colour," the designation currently at the top tier of the hierarchy of virtuous victims. It didn't really matter what point Gladwell was trying to make, the moment the virtue- signallers heard those words they were in ecstasy.
@@wiseonwords Half of America seems intent on signalling virtue (including ostentatious religious observance, as well as the fluff-head SJW stuff), and the other half on vice (gun racks, Trumpism, bombing abortion clinics). This strikes the same sort of healthy balance as putting one side of your body in the fridge and the other in the fire.
Gottemhimfella- Bombing abortion clinics? Really? Supporting Trump is comparable to bombing an abortion clinic? Equipping a pickup truck for a deer hunting expedition is related to bombing an abortion clinic?
I urge you to get out Austin, or San Francisco, or Denver or Portland. and meet some actual people who live rural or small town lives. You might like them. They will be nice to you.
We are all depressed and anxious, and without that we never learn to …learn
Amazing how society willfully cripples itself, reacting to challenge. It's nice to have intellectuals study this subject, but the consequences of sequestering our kids against any hint of hazard, was always going to be far more deleterious to the consciousness of the individual and the collective.
They're benching the talent. Great for our enemies... unless there's some bigger plan at work. Who knows?
I'm originally from Cuba and grew up with my mom, my mom took care of me as a free range child I was pretty much allowed to go anywhere as long as I was with a group of friends or told her where I was going. I used to spend time with my dad and he was the opposite he was a helicopter father,(and still is) when I came to the states I was 13 and I came with my dad along, I was pretty much not allowed to go out at all. I went from a kid that played sports 24/7 to a gamer. I'm lucky that I was a boy if I would've been a girl I would've gone into social media and then things could've being much worse for me.
The point about asking people where they are from is so true, since I´m interested in different cultures I often ask people at my school where they are from so I can ask more interesting questions they might know about more than me, only to be met by accusations that I´m a racist for asking, very sad situation.
I get around that by using "Where are your grandparents from?" The question carries just a whiff of flattery with it, a sort of "Your parents made the transition and I have no idea about your background thanks to them..." and gets a straight answer, "They came over from..."
More people need to see this
How cool is Lenore Skenazy. My kid got to hang with Izzy way back because while we don't have a subway to ride, we gots rattlers, cacti and 50' cliffs....no problem. Thanks for a great discussion. Lawson di Ransom Canyon
she's smart and funny, yes -- but she drove me crazy with all her interjections. i found myself yelling *SHUT UP!* at her, but to no avail.
Was at a friends house upstate she had a couple of friends and their kids up. The children probably 7 and 8? Playing outside yelled into the kitchen window, “ but mom and dad you can’t see us”
I'm baffled by Gladwell's inability to grasp the basic concepts here. He normally comes across as so bright and switched on.
I'd say give him a break, it must be difficult to pose challenging questions, when what the alarm being raise over is so obviously dysfunctional.
He grasped concepts all right . Devils advocate is a good thing in debate
I was there that night and while he hit some points I don’t know if he actually read the book that was being discussed all the way through
he is a selfish leftist.
I'm a manager in a large food pantry. I get quite a few older kids wanting to volunteer...............and Mom does all the talking. Once, even, sitting in on orientation.
A lot of these young adults won't finish a job if they don't like it. They get told something like the bathrooms are there, ten minutes later, I'm asked where the bathrooms are. And pigs! I'm always cleaning the break room up. They leave empty and partially drunk water bottles all over the facility instead of putting them in the recycling bin, which gets plenty of trash while plenty of water bottles wind up in the trash. As a friend says, "A total lack of situational awareness."These are the kids who claim to care about the environment and will live their lives with climate change. (I'm old, so not so much for me.)
Having vented, I also have many wonderful, hard working mature volunteers. I am grateful for them. Praise Jesus. Ha ha.....
The kids that are conditioned in an “old fashioned”method, by generational standards, assuming they are the positive attributes, will have an advantage over their peers. They will be more resilient but also more open and tolerant.
What makes you think that? I assume you think the "old" ways were methodologically good, but terribly applied at the time given that America in those olden days was increasingly intolerant the further you go back. We are living in the most open and tolerant time. Just 10 years ago, even liberal politicians weren't always openly in support of gay marriage, support for interracial marriage jumped significantly in the 90s, and if you go back to "The Greatest Generation" you find the people who fought tooth and nail against civil rights. Even today interracial friendships are rare among Boomers and older people (with less than half of white Boomers reporting having any). How is it that they turned out to be intolerant despite having their old fashioned methods?
We could also turn it around and say that the authors of the book should "tuffen up" and stop winning about the 5 or 8 % minority that is disturbing their status quo 😈
Speaking from a statistical basis the disrupters of the status quo can only be the few, the rest being the actual status quo. It doesnt matter how small the percentage of dissenters are, but how active they are
It really is all "because of the internet". The idea of cancel culture and canceling a person comes from our expectations of having a self curated information environment. We coddled ourselves
That and not allowing kids independence. Terrible combination.
the very early 1980s saw the design and building of The Walkman - handheld cassette players with an incredible stereo sound that drowned out the world all around you. people stopped chatting on buses, at bus stops, diners... then came the videocassette player. People insulated, cocooned - they didn't go out of themselves as much as they used to do. the internet. netbooks, tablets, smartphones. people met fewer and fewer people different from themselves and their ability to get along was not as well-exercised as it was.
Every year new tech and gadgets arrived in the marketplace and people eagerly coughed up cash to have it. Did it to ourselves.
@@Scriptorsilentum well said
@@Scriptorsilentum except that we didn't do it to ourselves, because some of us were children when this happened and we were just doing what we had been taught to do.
@@leelahasan3988 But the people before you were your human ancestors. So, yes, we did it to ourselves. And we continue to do it every day that we isolate and stay in our own little protective bubbles. Humans need to be challenged to develop themselves. Some of the most sophisticated people are those who seek discomfort and challenging circumstances. That's the point of the book these guys are presenting.
They seem to be judging the whole generation by college kids. Surely there is still a large working class who don't go to college ?
this is very interesting
please consider making the sound louder next time
but thanks for uploading
I just love Mr. Haidt
I loved this EXCEPT for Gladwell.
I heard some parts of northern Mexico can cure this sense that a classroom can be an insecure place.
Watching this in 2020 just illustrates how correct Gladwell was. I agreed with Haidt and the other guy on a lot of their points, but they didn't seem to think that systematic oppression still exists. I don't think they're bad people, but you just don't know what you don't know. Still. I am glad that there are forums like these where real conversations an happen and not just tweets, yelling and cancellations. We NEED dialogue and I'm glad this is here.
Social media has led to a lot of this-age of disinformation! Most of the people online are not familiar with how to share ideas and have thinking shaped through discourse. People would do rather end friendships and families cut one another off. Rather sad.
Malcolm Gladwell is great! Nice work! Heavy questioning leads to good answers. If people have not realized what these culture has caused I'll give you two names: Trump and Bolsonaro. This culture alienates large portions of society that gets fed up and end up voting in demagogues and populists because the good people were actually debating if a word can or can't be used.
Hmm interesting take, I haven't heard that one before
Seems like the TV show America’s Most Wanted focused the nation’s attention of protecting children.
When they are taking down a statue of Kate Smith from a Hockey Rink you know that something is out of hand. This discussion helps. Thank you Malcolm.
Kate Smith the singer from back in the 50’s and 60’s?
@@woodb51 yes.
@@bobgeorge740 but the same people would probably want to erect a statue of Karl Marx who contributed nothing to humanity but suffering.
In an environment where violence is often used to solve disputes it is impossible to have freedom of speech. People tend to learn from their government.....if you want to change the people....change the government.
The 1 far leftist in the audience clapping at 33.40 is hilarious.
What stands out to me about this panel is how Malcolm Gladwell is actually making Haidt/Lukianoff's point by approaching everything from the persepective of safetyism, a need to try and protect "everyone else" around him, and wanting to take the real monsters of our world and overgeneralize their behavior assigning it and systematizing it, and then accusing an entire industry (Hollywood) of guilt over the actual and absolute horrendous crimes of a few terrible people, as if everyone in Hollywood, and most of America, really knew what was going on and we all just turned a blind eye and a cold shoulder.
I'd also say that that this panel is a great opportunity to observe what Thomas Kuhn called "the incommensurability of scientific theories" or what I've also heard referred to as paradigm paralysis - a lack of cognitive flexibliity or adapability. Gladwell simply cannot understand what Haidt/Lukianoff are saying because he sees the world through such a fundamentally different set of assumptions, that to he considers any agreement with the points of Haidt/Lukianoff to be an act of betrayal to his ideological commitments. I believe Kuhn analogizes this as two people playing on the same gameboard, but one of them is playing chess, while the other is playing checkers. They think they are talking about the same things from opposite sides, when in fact they are talking about completely different things, with different rules, moves and pieces.
Just last night, I was hanging out with some friends and two of them were talking about intersectionality. I asked how they defined intersectionality. Without a pause they both rattled off the textbook definition, to which I responded, "Yeah I don't buy that stuff." For the next minute I was unable to get a word in, both people just started telling me they don't care if I believe it, it just is. I was told about lenses, etc., all the bullshit I knew was coming. I stopped the conversation and said, "I don't have to follow your guidelines, to be a good person. I don't need to know that, to not be a racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.. My friend said she could vouch for me. So before knowing anything about someone, assume the worst if they don't share your "lens".
This is a really great discussion with great considerations.
I can’t help but notice a certain myopia among these types of academics… Gladwell’s inquisitive attitude does a lot to counteract it, but he still has it too.
It’s like they’ve achieved success within a certain sphere of American society, so they frame everything from that perspective. Clueless to how out of touch it looks to frame our societal health in terms of hirable Yale graduates at tech firms.
I guess a more diplomatic thing to say is that I sit to the left of all these speakers ideologically… and even I see that the tactics of shame and self-righteousness employed by the left are counter-productive… but I see it in a whole different context.
They’re counter-productive, not because they make CEO’s and elite college professors’ jobs harder, but because they’re the product of a defeated liberation movement that no longer seeks material change / liberation and has lowered its sights to political correctness. If we actually had hope of stopping the military industrial complex / the exploitation of workers… that hope would be so unifying that quibbles over language would start to look as inconsequential as the right loves to point out that they are.
I think Robert Heinlein said it best: “At least once every human should have to run for his life, to teach him that milk does not come from supermarkets, that safety does not come from policemen, that 'news' is not something that happens to other people. He might learn how his ancestors lived and that he himself is no different--in the crunch his life depends on his agility, alertness, and personal resourcefulness.”