This guy hits the nail on the head for a lot of points. I think extremism has a louder voice with social media, which reminds me of Plato saying, "Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something."
"The wise old owl sat in the oak. The more he heard, the less he spoke. The less he spoke, the more he heard. Why can't we be like that old bird?" - my grandfather said that often.
This guy said that previously a certain sort of talk would have had you excluded from polite society and then in the next breath said people are now afraid to speak out. He doesn’t seem to be able to realize that people like him are seen as the problem by people who are not like him.
It has absolutely *boggled* my mind how uncannily close our government has resembled that movie lately. People always say '1984 was satire not a manual' but it turns out these people checked out Idiocracy by mistake and used *that* as their guideline.
David you're among the best channels on UA-cam. You bring intelligent, intellectual curiosity to the conversation especially with people who study politics, political science, political discourse and policy. Thank you.
@@douchkanikoliic6182 Hey. I just came across DP in the past 3 years. I’m curious about the small doses comment. To me, another’s input can make me more aware of things I’d normally not notice. Thanks!
When I was first married my husband and I would argue every 4 years. Me Democrat him republican, then I told him to watch the RNC convention to see what their platform was. After he watched it he never voter republican again. He thought the Republican platform was the same as it was in the 50s and 60s. We never argued about politics again after thst.
@@openb103 Thank you for the recommendation! I did check out some more interviews he did. The Joe Rogan interview should be a requirement for parents deciding on their child’s social media use.
It's also interesting to think about how in *real life* social situations, you can't just walk up & insert yourself into conversations with people you don't know. But ONLINE you can engage with anyone/insert your opinion into any conversation. The social norms are different & the usual social graces/manners/fears eliminated
Ironically social media or rather internet chat is one of the best places you COULD have a debate/discussion. IRL you cannot just spontaneously provide proof for your arguments but online you can IF willing and prepared back up your stuff with facts. The biggest problem is that people think they dont have to back up wild claims and simply dont understand the burden of proof lies with them. I suspect its because most of USA are not taught about debating at all. If you shout it loud enough its the truth I guess
While I have admired Johathan Haidt for a long time, and even have some of his books, I have always felt he could not or would not regonize the asymetry between the left and the right, and this really disturbed me. Finally, I can see him openly acknowledging that asymetry. Thanks.
Still pretty weak sauce. The right has gone so far he has to acknowledge the "asymmetry" but his centrist shuffle is still predicated on a false equivalency between left and right.
Haidt's ideas for modifying sites like Twitter with both verification AND most importantly categories for people's content with a users ability to modify so that they do not see the extremists and ranters and hate posters is absolutely brilliant. David thanks for posting!
Amazing that you would post this right now, I’ve been ruminating on this all week. At this point, I think that the CEO who poisons the water supply to increase profit margins just a little bit due to capitalisms goal of permanent growth, is less dangerous than the millions of Americans that would hear this and their response is ‘so you’re a socialist!? Or a communist!? Love it or leave it, whichever it is!’
@@francoisfrancois7353 ..It makes perfect sense. Think of it like this - Who is worse, Mr Trump or the people who support him. If you allow evil to flourish, then you are worse than the evil itself. Morality has become a bad thing under these last few generations of uneducated breeders.
I do understand the right, I vehemently disagree with everything they are for, and I've been terrified of them since the age of reason because while they are wrong, they are organized . they are the most dangerous population in the US
A problem that I've always found with Haidt's analysis, although certainly well articulated and reasoned enough, is that he's a victim of "horse-shoe theory enlightened centrism". The problem with "enlightened centrism" is that they only operate on a narrow Overton Window and don't actually explore or understand leftism, so their "moderate" stance is basically a golden mean fallacy between liberalism and conservatism, between the center-right and far right, which only ends up ultimately serving the right wing.
@@ajiththomas2465 Absolutely spot on and very well said. This guy is a regular on Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Megan Kelly etc. I saw him a few years back being interviewed by an Australian Conservative politician and he sounded no different than any Rightwing reactionary moaning about Cancel Culture, LGBT agenda, Woke ideology. The guy is just a well spoken, civil Steven Crowder.
Given free reign they will destroy everything they seek to preserve. Time and the laws of physics and history are not under their control as much as they would like to imagine it is. The first thing an authoritarian government will do is "Take Their Guns".
His "asshole filter" concept seems brilliant, at least on first glance. I really hope social media management folks hear this and actually consider it. It doesn't help their immediate bottom line, of course, but it might help them avoid being abandoned all together or regulated into oblivion. Also, it would be nice if one or two of them gave a flying fuck about destroying public discourse and society as a whole, but that's probably asking for too much.
I admire Haidt in that he has really been learning and his thinking on these topics has become much more nuanced than it was even two years ago. He's absolutely right that we're in an epistemological crisis in no small part related to our tech communication systems, and desperately need to bring back, or actually bring about a new form of, civil discourse if we hope to turn around the unhealthy social climate in this country. I'd love to see David talk with some others who have been deeply pondering and trying to find solutions to these issues, like Cory Doctorow.
What is fails to be noted is that prior to 2014, everyone didnt have smartphones and laptops so there was more real social interaction, less keyboard courage. More social graces..less vitriole.
I agree I feel like the internet specifically social media has let the stupid rise to the top...the stupid now have a platform and because no one seems to be capable of feeling any personal shame they let rip every stupid thought that passes through their brains...
DEMOCRACY IS BURNING ! ! ! ! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 VOTE DEMOCRAT NOVEMBER 8th 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 VOTE EARLY, REGISTER NEIGHBOR SAVE DEMOCRACY FROM THE DEATH CULT OF HATE, GREED AND IGNORANCE
Maybe Haidt’s article accounts for this, but we can’t overlook the effects of worsening material circumstances from 2007 to now for so many folks. The shrinking middle class, income inequality, climate change + doomerism, more mass shootings, more student loan debt, housing costs, worsening mental health, etc. I know some of this can be tied to social media, per Haidt’s work, but much of it is economic, which leaves the door open for extremism, populism, cults, etc. for people on both left and right
Because sadly money got involved. And money got involved because the net got more eyeballs thanks to the iphone. When I think of early internet I think of dial-up. Not a lot of people had it, and unless you were rich there was a time limit; a) no one could call you (land line), and b) the longer you were on the higher your phone bill. It was also very slow. Then with the iphone dumping at&t it gave more people access to the net on the cheap 24/7. With more eyeballs the tech companies could make more money so, the net became corp run and bad.
@@DrVVVinK I'm older than you, I think. When I think of early internet, I didn't know anyone who had it privately at home: it was available only through our university. Eventually, richer people started getting it as a dial-up at home. But even back then, there were chat groups and message boards, and there things could get shitty, but it was such a small number of participants, things didn't get as out-of-hand as they do now.
@@curtism.revisseubert2512 So, to give you some idea of how old I am, I was a second-year college student in 06 when Facebook opened up to everyone. I remember thinking at the time "this is not a good idea. Facebook should be used by college/university students and companies, as a way of staying in touch and networking. I wasn't even happy about high schoolers joining. They had MySpace.". Once that happened combined with more people having internet access the floodgates were hot open.
Great show. I have always thought we need to register to be able to post. I very much agree with what Jonathan says on this. He takes it further and brings up a social scale for how aggressive someone is. Love it! I would go back to social media if some of this came true.
He's incredibly right. New technology has had a biblical impact on how modern society has developed over the last 20 or abit more years. I started on dialup and IRC was the first time I noticed how you can be instantly removed from an arguement no matter how civil if your view was not the regular vox populi. By the way, Coddling Of the American Mind is a badass book we all need to read.
Usenet Newsgroups (NNTP) started in the 80's. It's pretty much the same shit for the last 40 years, only on steroids now. Humans don't change that much or at least not anywhere near as fast as technology. It was fun for a while....
@@jonp4846 the internet is the issue because it allows people to be as big of an asshole as they want without having to say it to someone’s face. It made people a lot more emboldened about whatever extremist opinion they may have lurking in the back of their mind.
Great interview. It feels like he glossed over one of the major factors and neglected another. Russian agents are a really big part of the sudden ramping up of extreme posts. I did a lot of research around 2008 on the white nationalist movement and had to spend time reading through various far right web pages. The classic Fascist pillars of Irrationalism and Emotionalism used to sunder polite debates was part of the strategy then. I agree that the changes in social media propelled these break downs but let's not take our eyes off the deliberate actions of foreign and domestic enemies.
@Robert Douglas I agree with you. The "small fringe" claim is highly underestimated. I'm as socially Conservative as they come and there are many right wingers like me just like there are many hard core left wingers in blue enclaves.
Great show. To add, certain negative psychological processes have blossomed in recent years that add to the polarization or splitting: denial, blame, projection, for starters.
This man is such a help for us to see what is actually happening. We become easily distracted by social media. We really need a clear and concise dialogue. Thanks so much!!
In that context, more of you will come to realise your biggest threat is the business model operated by Newscorp/Fox. It's the central force of agitation.
I haven't finished watching this yet, but some things surprise me. Jonathan always tries to play the ultimate centrist and it seems like he's tailoring what he says for this interview and being agreeable. Usually, he's drawing false equivalencies between the right and left and I'm pretty sure he does this in his article. He tries to get the most amount of people to agree with him while alienating the fringes. In fact, I've heard him say as much in other interviews. It's been a long time since I read anything else by him, but I'm pretty sure he does this same thing in previous presentations and books. His conclusion is one that everyone can agree on. It's not difficult to find both the left and right talking about how stupid social media is. It's an easy answer and something tangible to blame. Just pick the answer off the internet, find evidence that supports it, and write an article about it. It accomplishes his goal of getting people to agree on something. Except they already agreed before writing that article. He says a lot of other things I take issue with, including the whole premise of this being unique to the last 12 years and social media being to blame. Social media might have been a catalyst, but it's one of many and was headed in that direction long before then. It was on forums and message boards, late night TV, commercials, radio, at church, at home, at the local pub, in politics. We've always had snake oil salesmen and they've been steadily improving in what they do. Who doesn't remember their crazy uncle telling you something that sounds so insane that you believe it. Then you tell your friends. Years later you realize you're an idiot.
A problem that I've always found with Haidt's analysis, although certainly well articulated and reasoned enough, is that he's a victim of "horse-shoe theory enlightened centrism". The problem with "enlightened centrism" is that they only operate on a narrow Overton Window and don't actually explore or understand leftism, so their "moderate" stance is basically a golden mean fallacy between liberalism and conservatism, between the center-right and far right, which only ends up ultimately serving the right wing.
You’re not half as well researched as Haidt. You sound like a Trumper “climate change isnt real, because my dad says his town was hotter this year than last year”. Anecdotes will get you nowhere. The facts are, social media is having objectively damaging effects on society. This is not “conservativism” and its not mere “luddites”. Its just facts.
i was about to send david this guys link because i think he is such a great person to listen to and he makes so many great points, arguments, etc. so i checked david's youtube and boom! Here he is! this is awesome!!!
Very interesting ideas, however, his talk about rating aggressive communication on a 1 to 5 scale brings us back to the question of "who decides." It's all well and good to consider having it automated and decided by an A.I., but someone has to input the parameters for the A.I. to follow. It goes as far back as the Romans: "Who watches the watcher?"
What’s cool about Jonathan Haidt is that he’s able to talk with the extremists on both side of the political isle and make them feel like he sides with them against the other side. You can see his diplomacy in action if you watch him on opposing political venues.
Not a fan of Pakman but think he did an excellent job with this interview. Long time supporter of Haidt and glad his well reasoned perspective is being shared here. Highly recommend all of his books, they are both interesting and informative in a way that provides utility to ones life.
Don't you think the platforms algorithms already are grading you on many different scales including a-holeness. Of course they are. Yes, we should be able to individually choose a filter based on that without having to sit through every loony tune. Just one of the solutions that are much needed and I appreciate your airing them.
Johnathan Heidt has some fascinating points of view. I listen to him so closely when he speaks because it feels SO spot on. It really feels like he's got his finger on the pulse of social/ political discourse.
Here's what needs to happen: 1) Full public transparency of social media algorithms. 2) Fact-checking and downranking of falsehoods. 3) Stringent accountability for information war attacks, from both inside and outside of the US, and social media controls as a major component of national security. Why won't these things happen? Because the anti-democracy forces already have too much power, and they have no intention of giving up the advantage they've gained. It's pure, and it's simple. Until the forces of truth and democracy fight the spoiler's power with equal power, we're doomed to further fragmentation and loss of national social cohesion--just as our enemies have planned. There's no trust without accountability. And we're drifting further and further away from even having the *capacity* to impose accountability on our besieged public square.
A problem that I've always found with Haidt's analysis, although certainly well articulated and reasoned enough, is that he's a victim of "horse-shoe theory enlightened centrism". The problem with "enlightened centrism" is that they only operate on a narrow Overton Window and don't actually explore or understand leftism, so their "moderate" stance is basically a golden mean fallacy between liberalism and conservatism, between the center-right and far right, which only ends up ultimately serving the right wing.
Yahoo is already filtering comments. And they kind of are doing that in real time. They give you ability to fixit. They even underline the offending word
I live in Canada, where politics have been more polite and centered than in the US for quite a long time. I always thought that Social Media have had a hugely negative impact on our capacity to "live together". Social Media in Canada are quite close to US in their evolution, but it does seem that their effect is somehow less detrimental. Why is it? I think that some political tools are making a difference, like limiting the capacity of the rich to literally buying themselves an army of docile politicians and this army has all the tools it needs (filibuster, gerrymandering, non democratic Senate, etc) to wreck the governing machine. In the US it's how things are, whereas in Canada, this is much more complicated. Second factor is the huge and growing inequality problem and the stalled socioeconomic elevator in the US. Last but not least, the immense political impact of religion on politics. The religious right has become such a political force that they managed to take total control a one of the two political parties. I think these factors create a hugely fertile ground for an immense political and social divide and this has the potential to make the US implode. Sad! It's even more sad when I see the US virus getting traction here in Canada with the likes of Pierre Poilièvre, candidate to the position of Conservative party leader, who is inspired by US far right tactics. Wish us luck...
Very good post. I also think the fact that Canada has more than 2 political parties makes it easier to pass legislation. The Liberals and NDP can agree to join together so that they have enough votes to enact policy, which is what they are going to do. In the US it's just one party against the other, and there very rarely is any compromise largely because of this.
I don’t get why he thinks the centre is any less vocal. They not only have the main stream channels but they also have some extremities. Politically central doesn’t mean neutral, placid or polite. You can be a huge voice for the centre just like you can be a huge voice for left or right. You can be polite and far left or right and an obnoxious moderate.
I agree that the US is in decline. I believe it started in the time of Reagan and Gingrich. Democracy relies on the consensus that the winners will consider the desires and needs of both sides. Failed democracies on the other hand all start with the premise that the winner takes all and screw the other side. Gingrich started this and now see where it has gone. The US is finished, there will be no redemption, the situation is irredeemable already.
Failed democracies on the other hand all start with the premise that the winner takes all and screw the other side. - Probably derived from having a weak fptp system
I'm old enough to remember when Gingrich (what an appropriate name for a freak!) announced that "we (the republicans) are not going to talk to the other side anymore". Before this idiot proclamation, government worked when all sides sat down and civilly discussed their differences to hammer out a compromise. Progress was made. No more! We hate each other! This was the first step starting the collapse of the American Empire, from within, and Trump knew how to take advantage of it, more dissension, more hatred, by attracting young, white, uneducated, racist, misogynist white males who ger their news only from Trump and Fox.
@Hereandthere andnowinyourface "other countries have the internet" No one says the internet is the cause of America's mass shootings. The conversation was regarding political discourse.
@Hereandthere andnowinyourface Other countries don't run it wide open for personal gain as does the US. I don't know what the rules are in the EU. In China its big brother is watching.
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts, when they aren't argue for free speech, when it isn't argue for feelings and tone, and when it doesn't work change the subject and make up facts, never confront a problem or lose an argument.
Well, well, well, So David is FINALLY platforming Jonathan Haidt. This man is and has been well familiar and respected by the "alt right" for many years now. I find it facinating that many of the comments refer to DR. haidt as "this guy", indicating they are not familiar with his work. Dr. Haidt is also a great friend and supporter of Jordan Peterson.
Thank you. I kept looking at him and wondering why I remember not liking him from previous appearances here and there, but I couldn't get a handle on any distinct memory. Your comment rings a bell.
Unfortunately, if one starts thoughtful conversations in UA-cam comments sections one will find themselves shadowbanned by UA-cam. UA-cam doesn't like large interesting comment sections because the more time people spend in such conversations the less time they spend watching other videos and it's there where UA-cam gets advertising revenue.
I just yesterday watched a video about a UA-camr harassing another UA-camr, & part of the story was that the harasser was posting anonymously on a site or page that allows everyone to be anonymous & post about drama, there are some rules to keep it safe & peaceful, but you can post without identifying yourself. But when the mods learned that someone was using their posts as a method of harassment, they tracked the person's activity online to prove their case & took away their anonymity. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I have noticed a rather stunning limit to the literacy of the average American English speaker since text and social media took over what used to be conversations. The reading and writing levels of adults, on the whole, have proven to be functionally low. While one can have a spoken conversation with another and adjust your "ear" to figure out how they use certain words, in text it's all just right there. No body language. The writing level of your correspondent is all you have to work with. And, as previously stated, the average writing competency is very low. It gets frustrating. Frustration makes people mad. Shall I go on? The Babel analogy is spot on.
I think it is a good idea and that it might help the problem to some extent. But what about the non-aggressive stupids/dishonest actors? You know, those people with whom you try to have a logical discussion and they keep defaulting to their unsubstantiated, unprovable, and illogical beliefs about society and the world? You may have a method of turning down the volume of the arguments, but you can still have people pushing nonsense in a very measured way and there are always those who want to feed at the trough of confirmation bias. I mean, look at the success of Tucker Carlson.
its not an idea. they are already doing this but only for specific conspiracy content. he just wants it to be explicit and open so everyone can decide based around other factors. it will never happen bcs it would mean that twitter loses the monopoly on who they can shadow ban.
This was good. I absolutely loved his Ted talk about the moral roots of liberals and conservatives. When he started to heavily criticize universities and students and cozying up to people like Jordan Peterson, I was very disappointed. This discussion has somewhat restored my image of him. But I think it took David's prompting to get out that the (obviously) the right is worse than the left. It has been very frustrating how little this is actually acknowledged.
Though most of your guests arguments are persuasive and correct, where they fall apart is when he succumbs to the idea of the linear left right spectrum with degrees of each. The truth is that the various issues and strengths of views form a many dimensional space. Progressives are not ‘extreme” liberals. They share some beliefs with liberals. On many issues they differ greatly from “liberals”. But even there we have definitional problems. “Liberals” are not a monolithic block either. The so-called “moderate” “liberals” of today share little in common with the moderate liberals of 40 years ago. Today’s leadership moderate liberals are neoliberals. Their dominant philosophies are certain economic presumptions that have far more in common with neoconservatism than anything related to “liberal -ness”. Similarly, the right is fractured as well. Eisenhower Republican views have almost nothing in common with Reaganite republican views. Libertarians are in at least two very different camps that have little in common with one another. And neither has anything in common with Reagan or Eisenhower Republicanism. And none of those have much of anything in common with Trumpism. The oft cited and used “left right spectrum” is a fictitious scale that has almost nothing to do with reality. Please stop using it.
True. A problem that I've always found with Haidt's analysis, although certainly well articulated and reasoned enough, is that he's a victim of "horse-shoe theory enlightened centrism". The problem with "enlightened centrism" is that they only operate on a narrow Overton Window and don't actually explore or understand leftism, so their "moderate" stance is basically a golden mean fallacy between liberalism and conservatism, between the center-right and far right, which only ends up ultimately serving the right wing.
@@TheAlibabatree Who is the "you" you are replying to or commenting to? If it was me. I relied on no definitions or semantics. If it was Ajith, the definitions and semantics you refer to are classic ones that say little more than the same thing I said, though in other words. As you note, it is the ideas that are important. We each of us evaluate the world on dozens or hundreds of measures of things. Some of these are linked, though often not in the same way or to the same degree, or about the same things. Commonly people aggregate tribally around certain sets of ideas or philosophies. Which groupings vary over time. The extremely simple minded left-right spectrum is one of the most overly simple versions of that. And it wholly obscures all sorts of differences and agreements. Other versions use a two dimensional scale with two axes. There are several of those. And they do not rely on the same chosen sets of scales. Just to make things more complex the various choices of what to group and what weight to given them each form numbers that are properly title a Multifunction Weighted Attribute Analysis. That most often assigns equal weights to all of the questions or attributes. In doing that highly disparate and different ideas and values get lumped together. These blur the distinctions and confuse more than they reveal, just as the 'left-right' spectrum does. There are other approaches that work vastly better. Our society chooses not to use these approaches. We choose instead to divide into two factions and to have those two compete. We see that in politics, in teams, and many other fields of human endeavor. The Quakers use a very different approach. It comes close to a system that weighs every person equally, and that seeks common ground. Other approaches are similar and allow for a large supermajority to override a small minority, but that otherwise strives to develop the greatest common ground possible on any issue. This is in strong contrast to the way our Congress works. In the Congress horse trading happens and votes are for sale trading this for that and seeking a solution in a wholly different way. It works at best very badly. You are right that it is the ideas that matter. But which ideas? And do we compare and contrast all potential ideas? Or do we once again resort to tribes that fight for dominance with most people being thrown under the bus in the process? Do we choose to let some minority have huge advantages and influence, essentially buying the votes. That is what is happening now. And though that has always been the case, it has bene made vastly worse, exponentially worse by a Supreme Court that equate money with speech. Even the structure of the Congress itself creates a milder though still serious imbalance in a similar way. That is the US Senate. It gives enormous weight to a minority of citizens in smaller States. The Founding fathers did that for good reasons as an experiment. They were wrong. And we have suffered the consequence. Over the course of American history one party has sought to exaggerate that advantage by choosing what areas become States, and which do not. North and South Dakota for example should be at most one State. Given their populations, they should be merged along with Montana or Nebraska or both. I more balanced and stable system would result if States had nearly equal populations based on differing areas. Other criteria would also be needed. But that is not the system we have. Largely unreported in the United States, Australia just held an election using a new proportional voting system. It is a wholly different way to resolve this same sort of problem by using a voting system that obviates the need for any sort of definition of beliefs or values, or a left-right or any other spectrum. And they took a stab at resolving a similar problem with disproportionality with their upper body. There are other solutions. But if we are actually caught in a tribal society that chooses pitting people against each other, that disenfranchises people and groups, and that gives excess power to others based on things like money, then we have the system we deserve. And the consequences will be ours as well as we descend into authoritarianism, racism, misogyny, classism and other -isms that ultimately cause America to fail. We already have a third world health system based on maximizing profits to people who are not served by the system (the drug and insurance companies - and the profiteers). And many other structural problems that will in the end cause the collapse of the nation or its division into a new uncivil war.
Wow! Absolutely brilliant solutions to serious issues plaguing America. If any conservative leaning persons are on here is this something you could get behind? It filters out jerks of whatever stripe and incentivizes not abusing others. So what do you say, is attacking, belittling and insulting someone more important or should we reduce the amount of this and try to bring the temperature down on social media? I’m genuinely concerned about this and would really appreciate your input.
I'm very tired of the free speech debate. Until there's an agreed upon understanding of what that really is and means it's just a discussion in futility.
The “extreme” on the left is not the same as the EXTREME in the right….to try to claim so is intellectually dishonest and all but ignores the Overton window
Dems running Hillary in 2016 was a disaster. If out of the 330 million people in usa the democratic party could have found a person worth voting for then the country would be in much better shape.
Hillary got more votes than trump and given how right she was about the threat of the MAGAt Deplorables I think in hindsight she was a fine candidate and you’ve fallen for the Republican/Russian propaganda.
That filter idea is amazing. Not sure how the AI could implement it, but really's smart in letting people choose the range of what they'll have to deal with
I have a lot of respect for Jonathan Haidt, which I cannot say for most people on the right. The Righteous Mind has HELPED me relate to people on the right. Some are just unreasonable. Others can just be just a difference of opinion and ideals.
@@doneestoner9945 I read it. Love it. The interview Haidt did with Robert Wright about this article on blogging heads TV is interesting. Robert Wright challenges some of Haidt's ideas and it's a fruitful discussion (is free on youtube).
Complete and total eye off the ball on what is truly in the way of progress. It's not social media. It's not hyper-partisanship. Hyper-partisanship has always existed. If you want to know why the radical right can exist in government when the radical left does not (and really can't), look at and analyze the institutions instead of trying to preserve them.
This guy hits the nail on the head for a lot of points. I think extremism has a louder voice with social media, which reminds me of Plato saying, "Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something."
"The wise old owl sat in the oak. The more he heard, the less he spoke. The less he spoke, the more he heard. Why can't we be like that old bird?" - my grandfather said that often.
Haidt has been around for a long time. I’m glad that someone as partisan as Pakman is finally expanding his horizons a bit.
@@TheAlibabatree.. You're right. David is very much a leftist.
This guy said that previously a certain sort of talk would have had you excluded from polite society and then in the next breath said people are now afraid to speak out. He doesn’t seem to be able to realize that people like him are seen as the problem by people who are not like him.
Social media is 90% trolls.
It's like the movie "Idiocracy" with way more guns.
Its got electrolytes!😉
It has absolutely *boggled* my mind how uncannily close our government has resembled that movie lately. People always say '1984 was satire not a manual' but it turns out these people checked out Idiocracy by mistake and used *that* as their guideline.
And it took 10 years, rather than 500..
And Pakman thinks the Idiocracy is only coming from the right.
I've been saying for years that the movie has transitioned from comedy to documentary...
David you're among the best channels on UA-cam. You bring intelligent, intellectual curiosity to the conversation especially with people who study politics, political science, political discourse and policy. Thank you.
I view him as a lefty Tucker Carlson. He only caters to his base. He only tells half truths. He hides things that don't support his views.
This is certainly a lot better than the stuff he’s been doing for the past 5 years or so.
Yes, I agree but unfortunately he can be very negative as well and I can take him in small doses.
@@douchkanikoliic6182 Hey. I just came across DP in the past 3 years. I’m curious about the small doses comment. To me, another’s input can make me more aware of things I’d normally not notice. Thanks!
Jonathan Haidt is great. He's not a partisan hack like David Pakman.
Excellent interview. Thanks for the intelligent conversation
When I was first married my husband and I would argue every 4 years. Me Democrat him republican, then I told him to watch the RNC convention to see what their platform was. After he watched it he never voter republican again. He thought the Republican platform was the same as it was in the 50s and 60s. We never argued about politics again after thst.
Wow! This is so insightful. This gentleman is remarkable and has my attention.
Thank you DP
Yes. He is. Pls read his book "righteous mind"
Haidt is remarkable. I highly recommend “the coddling of the American mind”
@@openb103 Thank you for the recommendation! I did check out some more interviews he did. The Joe Rogan interview should be a requirement for parents deciding on their child’s social media use.
@@pathologicaldoubt thank you!
@Hereandthere andnowinyourface lol
what a good way to illustrate Haidt's entire point, you clever girl
It's also interesting to think about how in *real life* social situations, you can't just walk up & insert yourself into conversations with people you don't know. But ONLINE you can engage with anyone/insert your opinion into any conversation. The social norms are different & the usual social graces/manners/fears eliminated
ua-cam.com/video/YgMZQ3US3Tg/v-deo.html is finally here
Lol. I just wrote that and then noticed your comment.
) 00}
There is zero fear of retribution. You also don't have to live with the person on the internet.
Ironically social media or rather internet chat is one of the best places you COULD have a debate/discussion. IRL you cannot just spontaneously provide proof for your arguments but online you can IF willing and prepared back up your stuff with facts. The biggest problem is that people think they dont have to back up wild claims and simply dont understand the burden of proof lies with them. I suspect its because most of USA are not taught about debating at all. If you shout it loud enough its the truth I guess
While I have admired Johathan Haidt for a long time, and even have some of his books, I have always felt he could not or would not regonize the asymetry between the left and the right, and this really disturbed me. Finally, I can see him openly acknowledging that asymetry. Thanks.
That the left has most of the power?
Still pretty weak sauce. The right has gone so far he has to acknowledge the "asymmetry" but his centrist shuffle is still predicated on a false equivalency between left and right.
not really....he ends up comparing the disagreements as those of a "couple"...
Haidt's ideas for modifying sites like Twitter with both verification AND most importantly categories for people's content with a users ability to modify so that they do not see the extremists and ranters and hate posters is absolutely brilliant. David thanks for posting!
So that means it will never happen. We are in serious trouble
It’s a awful idea
“The world is in more peril from those who tolerate evil or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.” -Dr. Albert Einstein, 1953
Thats doesnt make sense
@@francoisfrancois7353 Are you too ignorant to understand it? Republican failed "no child left behind" education?
ua-cam.com/video/YgMZQ3US3Tg/v-deo.html is finally here
Amazing that you would post this right now, I’ve been ruminating on this all week.
At this point, I think that the CEO who poisons the water supply to increase profit margins just a little bit due to capitalisms goal of permanent growth, is less dangerous than the millions of Americans that would hear this and their response is ‘so you’re a socialist!? Or a communist!? Love it or leave it, whichever it is!’
@@francoisfrancois7353 ..It makes perfect sense. Think of it like this - Who is worse, Mr Trump or the people who support him. If you allow evil to flourish, then you are worse than the evil itself. Morality has become a bad thing under these last few generations of uneducated breeders.
I do understand the right, I vehemently disagree with everything they are for, and I've been terrified of them since the age of reason because while they are wrong, they are organized . they are the most dangerous population in the US
A problem that I've always found with Haidt's analysis, although certainly well articulated and reasoned enough, is that he's a victim of "horse-shoe theory enlightened centrism". The problem with "enlightened centrism" is that they only operate on a narrow Overton Window and don't actually explore or understand leftism, so their "moderate" stance is basically a golden mean fallacy between liberalism and conservatism, between the center-right and far right, which only ends up ultimately serving the right wing.
@@ajiththomas2465
Absolutely spot on and very well said. This guy is a regular on Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Megan Kelly etc.
I saw him a few years back being interviewed by an Australian Conservative politician and he sounded no different than any Rightwing reactionary moaning about Cancel Culture, LGBT agenda, Woke ideology.
The guy is just a well spoken, civil Steven Crowder.
@@ajiththomas2465 could you provide a resource that elaborates on the overton window and enlightened centrism.
Given free reign they will destroy everything they seek to preserve. Time and the laws of physics and history are not under their control as much as they would like to imagine it is. The first thing an authoritarian government will do is "Take Their Guns".
@@ajiththomas2465 The failure of American Capitalism will impoverish both left and right. The left knows it the right seeks to ignore it.
His "asshole filter" concept seems brilliant, at least on first glance. I really hope social media management folks hear this and actually consider it. It doesn't help their immediate bottom line, of course, but it might help them avoid being abandoned all together or regulated into oblivion. Also, it would be nice if one or two of them gave a flying fuck about destroying public discourse and society as a whole, but that's probably asking for too much.
they are already doing this. just for specific conspiracy content.
this guy just wants it to be broader.
I admire Haidt in that he has really been learning and his thinking on these topics has become much more nuanced than it was even two years ago. He's absolutely right that we're in an epistemological crisis in no small part related to our tech communication systems, and desperately need to bring back, or actually bring about a new form of, civil discourse if we hope to turn around the unhealthy social climate in this country. I'd love to see David talk with some others who have been deeply pondering and trying to find solutions to these issues, like Cory Doctorow.
Epistemological!!! Some one ELSE knows that word and its dynamic. Congratulations, brilliant soul!!! Gregg Oreo long Beach Ca
What is fails to be noted is that prior to 2014, everyone didnt have smartphones and laptops so there was more real social interaction, less keyboard courage. More social graces..less vitriole.
I agree I feel like the internet specifically social media has let the stupid rise to the top...the stupid now have a platform and because no one seems to be capable of feeling any personal shame they let rip every stupid thought that passes through their brains...
you're right the combination of cellphones and social media make it easier to react emotionally in the moment.
Is this happening in other countries, or is it just the U.S. that is hypnotized by phones?
@@Groucho_Marxist_ASMR basically everywhere
Great interview! That guy is spot on.
Brilliant guy...great questions. Well done. An excellent 17 minutes.
Best interview that I will hear for a long time to come!🥰🥰
The article in The Atlantic was great !
Thank you for bringing on such great guests.
It feels as though we are devolving..
We are Devo.
@@prime8nate are we not men?
@@SixteenJacobsCreams We must repeat. D-E-V-O.
Well, No shit sherlock.
It's called The Behavioral Sink. Look into the NIMH rat experiment if you wanna go down a sad and scary rabbit hole
DEMOCRACY IS BURNING ! ! ! !
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
VOTE DEMOCRAT NOVEMBER 8th
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
VOTE EARLY, REGISTER NEIGHBOR
SAVE DEMOCRACY FROM THE DEATH CULT OF HATE, GREED AND IGNORANCE
Vote OUT the disgusting Rethuglicans.
This is one of the best interviews I've seen in a long time. A crucial topic with excellent points.
Have loved this guys work and ideas for a while. Thanks for giving him some airtime.
Great guest!
Maybe Haidt’s article accounts for this, but we can’t overlook the effects of worsening material circumstances from 2007 to now for so many folks. The shrinking middle class, income inequality, climate change + doomerism, more mass shootings, more student loan debt, housing costs, worsening mental health, etc. I know some of this can be tied to social media, per Haidt’s work, but much of it is economic, which leaves the door open for extremism, populism, cults, etc. for people on both left and right
"worsening material circumstances". In the last 15 years? In the West? You should become a standup comedian.
The early Internet WAS a magical place, so we didn't bother ensuring it worked better.
Because sadly money got involved. And money got involved because the net got more eyeballs thanks to the iphone. When I think of early internet I think of dial-up. Not a lot of people had it, and unless you were rich there was a time limit; a) no one could call you (land line), and b) the longer you were on the higher your phone bill. It was also very slow. Then with the iphone dumping at&t it gave more people access to the net on the cheap 24/7. With more eyeballs the tech companies could make more money so, the net became corp run and bad.
@@DrVVVinK I'm older than you, I think. When I think of early internet, I didn't know anyone who had it privately at home: it was available only through our university. Eventually, richer people started getting it as a dial-up at home. But even back then, there were chat groups and message boards, and there things could get shitty, but it was such a small number of participants, things didn't get as out-of-hand as they do now.
@@curtism.revisseubert2512 I was a kid in one of those rich families in the 90s that had it through message boards and chat rooms
@@curtism.revisseubert2512 So, to give you some idea of how old I am, I was a second-year college student in 06 when Facebook opened up to everyone. I remember thinking at the time "this is not a good idea. Facebook should be used by college/university students and companies, as a way of staying in touch and networking. I wasn't even happy about high schoolers joining. They had MySpace.". Once that happened combined with more people having internet access the floodgates were hot open.
@@DrVVVinK I was a second-year college student when, basically, the Internet started to spread, back in 1991. :)
Fantastic interview. More of this!
Absolutely amazing interview! 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Thank you so much for this interview. Refreshing to hear an intelligent, unbiased , conversation.
Great show. I have always thought we need to register to be able to post. I very much agree with what Jonathan says on this. He takes it further and brings up a social scale for how aggressive someone is. Love it! I would go back to social media if some of this came true.
Very good interview. Thanks!
Thanks for this interview David. I went and read his essay and thought it was well worth the read.
Solid interview & convo, cheers!
He's incredibly right. New technology has had a biblical impact on how modern society has developed over the last 20 or abit more years. I started on dialup and IRC was the first time I noticed how you can be instantly removed from an arguement no matter how civil if your view was not the regular vox populi. By the way, Coddling Of the American Mind is a badass book we all need to read.
Usenet Newsgroups (NNTP) started in the 80's. It's pretty much the same shit for the last 40 years, only on steroids now. Humans don't change that much or at least not anywhere near as fast as technology.
It was fun for a while....
@@nadlax5920 The internet, in and of itself, isn't the issue. It's the use of it that's fucked up. As a society, it doesn't scale well.
@@jonp4846 the internet is the issue because it allows people to be as big of an asshole as they want without having to say it to someone’s face. It made people a lot more emboldened about whatever extremist opinion they may have lurking in the back of their mind.
Great interview. It feels like he glossed over one of the major factors and neglected another. Russian agents are a really big part of the sudden ramping up of extreme posts.
I did a lot of research around 2008 on the white nationalist movement and had to spend time reading through various far right web pages. The classic Fascist pillars of Irrationalism and Emotionalism used to sunder polite debates was part of the strategy then.
I agree that the changes in social media propelled these break downs but let's not take our eyes off the deliberate actions of foreign and domestic enemies.
Hah! Blame Russia, sounds about right smh
Yes, Russian agents, QAnon and pedophile rings are spreading disinformation and destroying our democracy.
@Robert Douglas I agree with you. The "small fringe" claim is highly underestimated. I'm as socially Conservative as they come and there are many right wingers like me just like there are many hard core left wingers in blue enclaves.
I REALLY LIKE THIS. Thank you Yukari. "Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something."
Such a fantastic guest. Thx
Thanks for that content david.
Great show. To add, certain negative psychological processes have blossomed in recent years that add to the polarization or splitting: denial, blame, projection, for starters.
This man is such a help for us to see what is actually happening. We become easily distracted by social media. We really need a clear and concise dialogue. Thanks so much!!
For myself it's was " getting weird" with the cops, and has gone down hill from that. I voted for Bernie.
Sept.11th and all the conspiracies from that day I think was the precursor to what's been going on in the psyche of Americans today.
Me too.
He gets my vote too.
Feel the Bern 💙
Excellent segment David.
In that context, more of you will come to realise your biggest threat is the business model operated by Newscorp/Fox. It's the central force of agitation.
I wonder if he's figured out it's not progressives he has to worry about, yet.
No, he knows to acknowledge false equivalency in so many words, but false equivalency is his centrist bread 'n butter.
Oh he realizes that many progressives are directly behind much of the insanity we see today.
I haven't finished watching this yet, but some things surprise me. Jonathan always tries to play the ultimate centrist and it seems like he's tailoring what he says for this interview and being agreeable. Usually, he's drawing false equivalencies between the right and left and I'm pretty sure he does this in his article. He tries to get the most amount of people to agree with him while alienating the fringes. In fact, I've heard him say as much in other interviews. It's been a long time since I read anything else by him, but I'm pretty sure he does this same thing in previous presentations and books.
His conclusion is one that everyone can agree on. It's not difficult to find both the left and right talking about how stupid social media is. It's an easy answer and something tangible to blame. Just pick the answer off the internet, find evidence that supports it, and write an article about it. It accomplishes his goal of getting people to agree on something. Except they already agreed before writing that article.
He says a lot of other things I take issue with, including the whole premise of this being unique to the last 12 years and social media being to blame. Social media might have been a catalyst, but it's one of many and was headed in that direction long before then. It was on forums and message boards, late night TV, commercials, radio, at church, at home, at the local pub, in politics. We've always had snake oil salesmen and they've been steadily improving in what they do. Who doesn't remember their crazy uncle telling you something that sounds so insane that you believe it. Then you tell your friends. Years later you realize you're an idiot.
A problem that I've always found with Haidt's analysis, although certainly well articulated and reasoned enough, is that he's a victim of "horse-shoe theory enlightened centrism". The problem with "enlightened centrism" is that they only operate on a narrow Overton Window and don't actually explore or understand leftism, so their "moderate" stance is basically a golden mean fallacy between liberalism and conservatism, between the center-right and far right, which only ends up ultimately serving the right wing.
@@ajiththomas2465 I was going to add something about him pushing people to the right! I always walk away with that feeling.
One of the other people who commented recommended I read your comments. I'm glad I did. Very interesting.
@@No23Name23 Did you do your own research?
You’re not half as well researched as Haidt.
You sound like a Trumper “climate change isnt real, because my dad says his town was hotter this year than last year”.
Anecdotes will get you nowhere. The facts are, social media is having objectively damaging effects on society. This is not “conservativism” and its not mere “luddites”.
Its just facts.
i was about to send david this guys link because i think he is such a great person to listen to and he makes so many great points, arguments, etc. so i checked david's youtube and boom! Here he is! this is awesome!!!
Wow. Brilliant ideas from Jonathan. Very informative discussion. Thank you David
The squeaky wheel gets the oil. So often, the noiciest and most obnoxious pricks get all the attention. Nothing new, but now it's amplified.
News media ratings.
News media ratings.
Very interesting ideas, however, his talk about rating aggressive communication on a 1 to 5 scale brings us back to the question of "who decides." It's all well and good to consider having it automated and decided by an A.I., but someone has to input the parameters for the A.I. to follow. It goes as far back as the Romans: "Who watches the watcher?"
Really great solutions for these issues
Great interview!
What’s cool about Jonathan Haidt is that he’s able to talk with the extremists on both side of the political isle and make them feel like he sides with them against the other side. You can see his diplomacy in action if you watch him on opposing political venues.
I love you David. Keep up the good work👍
Not a fan of Pakman but think he did an excellent job with this interview. Long time supporter of Haidt and glad his well reasoned perspective is being shared here. Highly recommend all of his books, they are both interesting and informative in a way that provides utility to ones life.
It’s just amazing how the quote in your title describes Jonathan Haidt so perfectly
Don't you think the platforms algorithms already are grading you on many different scales including a-holeness. Of course they are. Yes, we should be able to individually choose a filter based on that without having to sit through every loony tune.
Just one of the solutions that are much needed and I appreciate your airing them.
Johnathan Heidt has some fascinating points of view. I listen to him so closely when he speaks because it feels SO spot on. It really feels like he's got his finger on the pulse of social/ political discourse.
An excellent, informed and reasonable interview. Much to think about…
Here's what needs to happen:
1) Full public transparency of social media algorithms.
2) Fact-checking and downranking of falsehoods.
3) Stringent accountability for information war attacks, from both inside and outside of the US, and social media controls as a major component of national security.
Why won't these things happen? Because the anti-democracy forces already have too much power, and they have no intention of giving up the advantage they've gained. It's pure, and it's simple. Until the forces of truth and democracy fight the spoiler's power with equal power, we're doomed to further fragmentation and loss of national social cohesion--just as our enemies have planned.
There's no trust without accountability. And we're drifting further and further away from even having the *capacity* to impose accountability on our besieged public square.
They’re right about how saying outlandish things used to be frowned upon but now it’s normalized
I’m diggin what Mr. Haidt has to say. I’ll have to check out his page.
Thanks, Mr. Pakman.
His article in The Atlantic was very good.
A problem that I've always found with Haidt's analysis, although certainly well articulated and reasoned enough, is that he's a victim of "horse-shoe theory enlightened centrism". The problem with "enlightened centrism" is that they only operate on a narrow Overton Window and don't actually explore or understand leftism, so their "moderate" stance is basically a golden mean fallacy between liberalism and conservatism, between the center-right and far right, which only ends up ultimately serving the right wing.
Yahoo is already filtering comments. And they kind of are doing that in real time. They give you ability to fixit. They even underline the offending word
I live in Canada, where politics have been more polite and centered than in the US for quite a long time. I always thought that Social Media have had a hugely negative impact on our capacity to "live together". Social Media in Canada are quite close to US in their evolution, but it does seem that their effect is somehow less detrimental. Why is it? I think that some political tools are making a difference, like limiting the capacity of the rich to literally buying themselves an army of docile politicians and this army has all the tools it needs (filibuster, gerrymandering, non democratic Senate, etc) to wreck the governing machine. In the US it's how things are, whereas in Canada, this is much more complicated. Second factor is the huge and growing inequality problem and the stalled socioeconomic elevator in the US. Last but not least, the immense political impact of religion on politics. The religious right has become such a political force that they managed to take total control a one of the two political parties. I think these factors create a hugely fertile ground for an immense political and social divide and this has the potential to make the US implode. Sad! It's even more sad when I see the US virus getting traction here in Canada with the likes of Pierre Poilièvre, candidate to the position of Conservative party leader, who is inspired by US far right tactics. Wish us luck...
Its Malthusian. Look it up. Death of the American Dream what ever that was. Boss man renaging on his promises to the stupid suckers.
Very good post. I also think the fact that Canada has more than 2 political parties makes it easier to pass legislation. The Liberals and NDP can agree to join together so that they have enough votes to enact policy, which is what they are going to do. In the US it's just one party against the other, and there very rarely is any compromise largely because of this.
Great and very important work David.
Thank you.
Would love to see more of Haidt on the show 🙌
Wow, what a great guest, I love that he has a bunch of resources and data on his site as well
Brilliant!
What a refreshing approach. I currently avoid social media. If it was structured as he recommends, that could certainly change.
I don’t get why he thinks the centre is any less vocal. They not only have the main stream channels but they also have some extremities. Politically central doesn’t mean neutral, placid or polite. You can be a huge voice for the centre just like you can be a huge voice for left or right. You can be polite and far left or right and an obnoxious moderate.
I agree that the US is in decline. I believe it started in the time of Reagan and Gingrich. Democracy relies on the consensus that the winners will consider the desires and needs of both sides. Failed democracies on the other hand all start with the premise that the winner takes all and screw the other side. Gingrich started this and now see where it has gone. The US is finished, there will be no redemption, the situation is irredeemable already.
And Gringrich has a doctorate in history too!
Failed democracies on the other hand all start with the premise that the winner takes all and screw the other side. - Probably derived from having a weak fptp system
I'm old enough to remember when Gingrich (what an appropriate name for a freak!) announced that "we (the republicans) are not going to talk to the other side anymore". Before this idiot proclamation, government worked when all sides sat down and civilly discussed their differences to hammer out a compromise. Progress was made. No more! We hate each other! This was the first step starting the collapse of the American Empire, from within, and Trump knew how to take advantage of it, more dissension, more hatred, by attracting young, white, uneducated, racist, misogynist white males who ger their news only from Trump and Fox.
Good interview. This is the type of show Pakman should stick with.
Great ideas Jonathan. Thanks David.
i like this interview, jonathan is a sharp guy trying to help.
A very interesting discussion. I can’t help but feel that the issue of content moderation and aggression filtering is simply academic semantics.
He is correct, cut down on the number of views. YT already does it for financial reasons.
@Hereandthere andnowinyourface "other countries have the internet"
No one says the internet is the cause of America's mass shootings. The conversation was regarding political discourse.
@Hereandthere andnowinyourface Other countries don't run it wide open for personal gain as does the US. I don't know what the rules are in the EU. In China its big brother is watching.
Excellent interview and perspectivp
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts, when they aren't argue for free speech, when it isn't argue for feelings and tone, and when it doesn't work change the subject and make up facts, never confront a problem or lose an argument.
That's the gop!
David is so smart rational and a true Patriot.
I couldn't agree with this dude any more!!! So many grata and nuances and honest points.
Well, well, well, So David is FINALLY platforming Jonathan Haidt. This man is and has been well familiar and respected by the "alt right" for many years now. I find it facinating that many of the comments refer to DR. haidt as "this guy", indicating they are not familiar with his work. Dr. Haidt is also a great friend and supporter of Jordan Peterson.
Thank you. I kept looking at him and wondering why I remember not liking him from previous appearances here and there, but I couldn't get a handle on any distinct memory. Your comment rings a bell.
Exactly. This guy is a Conservative and his ‘both sides’-isms and false equivalency is so transparent once you know this.
This guy is on the left, and doesn't support jordan!!!!!
@@thenoseknows9391 ua-cam.com/video/4tAQM5uU8uk/v-deo.html here you go
@@thenoseknows9391 ua-cam.com/video/4IBegL_V6AA/v-deo.html Here's another
Unfortunately, if one starts thoughtful conversations in UA-cam comments sections one will find themselves shadowbanned by UA-cam. UA-cam doesn't like large interesting comment sections because the more time people spend in such conversations the less time they spend watching other videos and it's there where UA-cam gets advertising revenue.
Hopefully my original comment will be the approximately 1 in 25 that isn't shadowbanned.
This is interesting and depressing
The tower of babel story in the Bible says nothing about hubris. What the story actually says is that God is threatened by human cooperation.
Agreed.
refreshing intelligence.. thanks David.
I think the wisest thing I can do now and on all forums in future is say "no comment"
I just saw Jonathan speak here in a Miami last week and he was amazing
I just yesterday watched a video about a UA-camr harassing another UA-camr, & part of the story was that the harasser was posting anonymously on a site or page that allows everyone to be anonymous & post about drama, there are some rules to keep it safe & peaceful, but you can post without identifying yourself. But when the mods learned that someone was using their posts as a method of harassment, they tracked the person's activity online to prove their case & took away their anonymity. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I actually like the idea of an aggression score quite a bit. It is a simple, straightforward way to assess a person's content.
Currently YT censors me every time I use the word dickh--d. With that being a 3rd grade word what is the aggression scale going to look like?
@@rogersmith7396 It would need to differentiate between simply using a word and using it to be hostile.
I have noticed a rather stunning limit to the literacy of the average American English speaker since text and social media took over what used to be conversations. The reading and writing levels of adults, on the whole, have proven to be functionally low. While one can have a spoken conversation with another and adjust your "ear" to figure out how they use certain words, in text it's all just right there. No body language. The writing level of your correspondent is all you have to work with. And, as previously stated, the average writing competency is very low. It gets frustrating. Frustration makes people mad. Shall I go on? The Babel analogy is spot on.
Obviously where the phrase babbling originated.
His idea about filtering users by their level of aggression is very interesting.
I think it is a good idea and that it might help the problem to some extent. But what about the non-aggressive stupids/dishonest actors? You know, those people with whom you try to have a logical discussion and they keep defaulting to their unsubstantiated, unprovable, and illogical beliefs about society and the world? You may have a method of turning down the volume of the arguments, but you can still have people pushing nonsense in a very measured way and there are always those who want to feed at the trough of confirmation bias. I mean, look at the success of Tucker Carlson.
its not an idea. they are already doing this but only for specific conspiracy content. he just wants it to be explicit and open so everyone can decide based around other factors. it will never happen bcs it would mean that twitter loses the monopoly on who they can shadow ban.
This was good.
I absolutely loved his Ted talk about the moral roots of liberals and conservatives.
When he started to heavily criticize universities and students and cozying up to people like Jordan Peterson, I was very disappointed.
This discussion has somewhat restored my image of him. But I think it took David's prompting to get out that the (obviously) the right is worse than the left.
It has been very frustrating how little this is actually acknowledged.
When all this internet stuff began, I had to shutter, as it was liking opening PANDORAS BOX.
Though most of your guests arguments are persuasive and correct, where they fall apart is when he succumbs to the idea of the linear left right spectrum with degrees of each. The truth is that the various issues and strengths of views form a many dimensional space. Progressives are not ‘extreme” liberals. They share some beliefs with liberals. On many issues they differ greatly from “liberals”. But even there we have definitional problems. “Liberals” are not a monolithic block either. The so-called “moderate” “liberals” of today share little in common with the moderate liberals of 40 years ago. Today’s leadership moderate liberals are neoliberals. Their dominant philosophies are certain economic presumptions that have far more in common with neoconservatism than anything related to “liberal -ness”.
Similarly, the right is fractured as well. Eisenhower Republican views have almost nothing in common with Reaganite republican views. Libertarians are in at least two very different camps that have little in common with one another. And neither has anything in common with Reagan or Eisenhower Republicanism. And none of those have much of anything in common with Trumpism.
The oft cited and used “left right spectrum” is a fictitious scale that has almost nothing to do with reality.
Please stop using it.
True.
A problem that I've always found with Haidt's analysis, although certainly well articulated and reasoned enough, is that he's a victim of "horse-shoe theory enlightened centrism". The problem with "enlightened centrism" is that they only operate on a narrow Overton Window and don't actually explore or understand leftism, so their "moderate" stance is basically a golden mean fallacy between liberalism and conservatism, between the center-right and far right, which only ends up ultimately serving the right wing.
Appreciate this comment
Reality? Putting together a bunch of meaningless words is reality?
You seem overly obsessed with semantics and definitions. Its the ideas that really matter.
@@TheAlibabatree Who is the "you" you are replying to or commenting to? If it was me. I relied on no definitions or semantics. If it was Ajith, the definitions and semantics you refer to are classic ones that say little more than the same thing I said, though in other words. As you note, it is the ideas that are important.
We each of us evaluate the world on dozens or hundreds of measures of things. Some of these are linked, though often not in the same way or to the same degree, or about the same things. Commonly people aggregate tribally around certain sets of ideas or philosophies. Which groupings vary over time.
The extremely simple minded left-right spectrum is one of the most overly simple versions of that. And it wholly obscures all sorts of differences and agreements. Other versions use a two dimensional scale with two axes. There are several of those. And they do not rely on the same chosen sets of scales.
Just to make things more complex the various choices of what to group and what weight to given them each form numbers that are properly title a Multifunction Weighted Attribute Analysis. That most often assigns equal weights to all of the questions or attributes. In doing that highly disparate and different ideas and values get lumped together. These blur the distinctions and confuse more than they reveal, just as the 'left-right' spectrum does.
There are other approaches that work vastly better. Our society chooses not to use these approaches. We choose instead to divide into two factions and to have those two compete. We see that in politics, in teams, and many other fields of human endeavor.
The Quakers use a very different approach. It comes close to a system that weighs every person equally, and that seeks common ground.
Other approaches are similar and allow for a large supermajority to override a small minority, but that otherwise strives to develop the greatest common ground possible on any issue. This is in strong contrast to the way our Congress works. In the Congress horse trading happens and votes are for sale trading this for that and seeking a solution in a wholly different way. It works at best very badly.
You are right that it is the ideas that matter. But which ideas? And do we compare and contrast all potential ideas? Or do we once again resort to tribes that fight for dominance with most people being thrown under the bus in the process?
Do we choose to let some minority have huge advantages and influence, essentially buying the votes. That is what is happening now. And though that has always been the case, it has bene made vastly worse, exponentially worse by a Supreme Court that equate money with speech.
Even the structure of the Congress itself creates a milder though still serious imbalance in a similar way. That is the US Senate. It gives enormous weight to a minority of citizens in smaller States. The Founding fathers did that for good reasons as an experiment. They were wrong. And we have suffered the consequence. Over the course of American history one party has sought to exaggerate that advantage by choosing what areas become States, and which do not. North and South Dakota for example should be at most one State. Given their populations, they should be merged along with Montana or Nebraska or both. I more balanced and stable system would result if States had nearly equal populations based on differing areas. Other criteria would also be needed. But that is not the system we have.
Largely unreported in the United States, Australia just held an election using a new proportional voting system. It is a wholly different way to resolve this same sort of problem by using a voting system that obviates the need for any sort of definition of beliefs or values, or a left-right or any other spectrum. And they took a stab at resolving a similar problem with disproportionality with their upper body. There are other solutions.
But if we are actually caught in a tribal society that chooses pitting people against each other, that disenfranchises people and groups, and that gives excess power to others based on things like money, then we have the system we deserve. And the consequences will be ours as well as we descend into authoritarianism, racism, misogyny, classism and other -isms that ultimately cause America to fail. We already have a third world health system based on maximizing profits to people who are not served by the system (the drug and insurance companies - and the profiteers). And many other structural problems that will in the end cause the collapse of the nation or its division into a new uncivil war.
Wow! Absolutely brilliant solutions to serious issues plaguing America. If any conservative leaning persons are on here is this something you could get behind? It filters out jerks of whatever stripe and incentivizes not abusing others. So what do you say, is attacking, belittling and insulting someone more important or should we reduce the amount of this and try to bring the temperature down on social media?
I’m genuinely concerned about this and would really appreciate your input.
I'm very tired of the free speech debate. Until there's an agreed upon understanding of what that really is and means it's just a discussion in futility.
It doesn’t really exist.. even if someone’s allowed to talk it doesn’t mean there isn’t consequences to whatever is said
The “extreme” on the left is not the same as the EXTREME in the right….to try to claim so is intellectually dishonest and all but ignores the Overton window
i agree comrade. let the streets run red with landlord blood!
I agree. The extremes on the left are by far worse.
@@Lerian_V tick tock traitor !
We need thousands more Babbits in the ground where traitors belong!
Dems running Hillary in 2016 was a disaster. If out of the 330 million people in usa the democratic party could have found a person worth voting for then the country would be in much better shape.
Hillary got more votes than trump and given how right she was about the threat of the MAGAt Deplorables I think in hindsight she was a fine candidate and you’ve fallen for the Republican/Russian propaganda.
@@zachariahwade8482 whatever helps you sleep at night.
@@xeftones just the sort of juvenile reply I’d expect from a MAGAt
That filter idea is amazing. Not sure how the AI could implement it, but really's smart in letting people choose the range of what they'll have to deal with
I have a lot of respect for Jonathan Haidt, which I cannot say for most people on the right. The Righteous Mind has HELPED me relate to people on the right. Some are just unreasonable. Others can just be just a difference of opinion and ideals.
I think Haidt is right. Didn't see that article. I'll read it.
I highly recommend reading the article in The Atlantic.
@@doneestoner9945 I read it. Love it. The interview Haidt did with Robert Wright about this article on blogging heads TV is interesting. Robert Wright challenges some of Haidt's ideas and it's a fruitful discussion (is free on youtube).
Complete and total eye off the ball on what is truly in the way of progress. It's not social media. It's not hyper-partisanship. Hyper-partisanship has always existed. If you want to know why the radical right can exist in government when the radical left does not (and really can't), look at and analyze the institutions instead of trying to preserve them.
Though the idea of some scale may sound interesting, when it comes to application it is practically and physically impossible.
He's brilliant, great ideas!