This was a thoughtful and well-structured video, and I agree with much of what was presented, especially the role of moral intuitions and psychology in shaping political beliefs. I've long believed that genetics and innate traits play a major role in determining political orientation, creating a spectrum where roughly 30% lean strongly left, 30% strongly right, and 40% fall somewhere in between. However, I think the video glosses over a critical limitation: the personality traits that align with authoritarianism-often found in the right-make genuine dialogue and collaboration nearly impossible. When one side prioritizes plurality and open discourse while the other clings to blind obedience to authority and sanctity of tradition, meaningful debate becomes unattainable. The right's frequent bad-faith arguments further exacerbate this divide, undermining the very premise of constructive conversation. Additionally, the use of Kamala Harris at 14:09 to represent "the left" felt misleading. Both major political parties in the US are right-leaning, neoliberal entities. While Democrats may wear the veneer of social democracy, they ultimately serve the same capitalist interests as Republicans. A more appropriate representation of the left would have been an anarchist leader or a grassroots commune, as they align more closely with the values of care, fairness, and egalitarianism highlighted in the video. That said, I appreciate the call for humility, compassion, and a willingness to learn from opposing perspectives. Those are vital values, even if the practical challenges of engaging with the right make achieving them difficult.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment! I appreciate your critiques and kind words. In the interest trying my best to not emphasize left/right perspectives (or their hindrances), I did not focus on further specifics. My primary goal was to try and highlight how both perspective are necessary for political/moral progress. It's a hard balance to stike! I agree with you're analysis of Kamala being neoliberal. Perhaps Bernie Sander would have been better, in the interest of showing an easily recognizable individual that is more aligned with true left-leaning concerns. I'm planning to make a video examining neoliberalism! Specifically how it had been instituted for decades regardless of which party was in power, and how it has led to a lot of the nationalism/populism we are seeing today. Again, thank you for commenting 🙏 I love the feedback. I'm glad you resonated with the final message of humility, compassion, and the willingness to learn.
I like how you point out that each side of a person's political sensibilities are not void of the other aspects that make up an opposing perspective. Hardly anybody is 100% party lines or doctrine. Just like no two religious people in the same place of worship will have the same views. We are all a blend of everything it's just to what percentage that is. I personally have always been "in the middle" of many subjects. Trying to balance the objective and subjective.
I am glad someone is discussing values in conjunction with politics. I also really appreceate how you discuss the different frameworks without bias, it's very refreshing!
What is at the top of your value hierarchy is an extrapolation of your worldview. You can explain to people how light affects color perception and you can inquire about the material beliefs underlying the prioritisation of authority over fairness and engage in a discussion not about the facts that are conclusionsof your values but the facts from which you conclude your values.
A lot conservative care and fairness ethics or expressed through Christianity, and a lot of Liberal Sanctity and Authority ethics are expressed in their relationship to Academia --- or have utilitarianism or science-aligned rationalizations. New age religion and pseudo-religious devotion to popular culture and the arts should be taken into account as well. “He who does not work, shall not eat.” “Believe science.”
Cannot agree with "believe science." It's "expect that which has been thoroughly demonstrated to occur." I don't "believe" in the laws of thermodynamics. I expect that the world will keep behaving in a way that is consistent with what has been demonstrated repeatedly as described by those laws.
This was a thoughtful and well-structured video, and I agree with much of what was presented, especially the role of moral intuitions and psychology in shaping political beliefs. I've long believed that genetics and innate traits play a major role in determining political orientation, creating a spectrum where roughly 30% lean strongly left, 30% strongly right, and 40% fall somewhere in between.
However, I think the video glosses over a critical limitation: the personality traits that align with authoritarianism-often found in the right-make genuine dialogue and collaboration nearly impossible. When one side prioritizes plurality and open discourse while the other clings to blind obedience to authority and sanctity of tradition, meaningful debate becomes unattainable. The right's frequent bad-faith arguments further exacerbate this divide, undermining the very premise of constructive conversation.
Additionally, the use of Kamala Harris at 14:09 to represent "the left" felt misleading. Both major political parties in the US are right-leaning, neoliberal entities. While Democrats may wear the veneer of social democracy, they ultimately serve the same capitalist interests as Republicans. A more appropriate representation of the left would have been an anarchist leader or a grassroots commune, as they align more closely with the values of care, fairness, and egalitarianism highlighted in the video.
That said, I appreciate the call for humility, compassion, and a willingness to learn from opposing perspectives. Those are vital values, even if the practical challenges of engaging with the right make achieving them difficult.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment! I appreciate your critiques and kind words.
In the interest trying my best to not emphasize left/right perspectives (or their hindrances), I did not focus on further specifics. My primary goal was to try and highlight how both perspective are necessary for political/moral progress. It's a hard balance to stike!
I agree with you're analysis of Kamala being neoliberal. Perhaps Bernie Sander would have been better, in the interest of showing an easily recognizable individual that is more aligned with true left-leaning concerns.
I'm planning to make a video examining neoliberalism! Specifically how it had been instituted for decades regardless of which party was in power, and how it has led to a lot of the nationalism/populism we are seeing today.
Again, thank you for commenting 🙏 I love the feedback. I'm glad you resonated with the final message of humility, compassion, and the willingness to learn.
I like how you point out that each side of a person's political sensibilities are not void of the other aspects that make up an opposing perspective. Hardly anybody is 100% party lines or doctrine. Just like no two religious people in the same place of worship will have the same views. We are all a blend of everything it's just to what percentage that is. I personally have always been "in the middle" of many subjects. Trying to balance the objective and subjective.
I have a mental illness where I assume that others will automatically change their minds when I present them the correct information.
😂 if only
@ 😛😅
Awesome video - looks great and very informative! Thanks!
You're welcome, I'm glad you liked it. Thank you for the feedback!
Another great video
Thanks man! 😁
This is amazing. I hope more people see this. Thank you man!
Thanks bro!
Quality content ❤ subbed😊
Thank you 🙏 glad you liked it!
I am glad someone is discussing values in conjunction with politics. I also really appreceate how you discuss the different frameworks without bias, it's very refreshing!
Thank you Kate 😁
What is at the top of your value hierarchy is an extrapolation of your worldview. You can explain to people how light affects color perception and you can inquire about the material beliefs underlying the prioritisation of authority over fairness and engage in a discussion not about the facts that are conclusionsof your values but the facts from which you conclude your values.
If you always think you're in the right, you'll never see when you're wrong.
Some of the coolest ideas I’ve ever heard explained in a video. 👍👍👍
Thank you 🙏 I really appreciate the kind words
Sub 42 baby!
Hell yeah!
Move over School of Life.
😂
Politics?
…
I’ll rather just play Minecraft as, after all, I’ll probably make more progress there. 🙃
😂😅 facts..
A lot conservative care and fairness ethics or expressed through Christianity, and a lot of Liberal Sanctity and Authority ethics are expressed in their relationship to Academia --- or have utilitarianism or science-aligned rationalizations. New age religion and pseudo-religious devotion to popular culture and the arts should be taken into account as well.
“He who does not work, shall not eat.”
“Believe science.”
Yes, I agreed. Good insights! Both have ideas or institutions that they pledge allegiance to.
Cannot agree with "believe science." It's "expect that which has been thoroughly demonstrated to occur." I don't "believe" in the laws of thermodynamics. I expect that the world will keep behaving in a way that is consistent with what has been demonstrated repeatedly as described by those laws.