Since you like Haldt, I think you might find find Chris Hedges and possibly Richard D. Wolff also interesting. While Haldt focus is on sociology and root of morality as the driving principal I our political affiliation and believes, Hedges speaks about how socio-economic forces like crony capitalism that lead to social decay and fascism, and Wolff focus full on economy and inequality as a source of social unrest.
@@checklostandfound I just perused the Wikipedia articles on Wolff and Hedges. They don't seem to be like Yang and Haidt. They seem to be part of the crazy that we need less of. Also, after Yang dropped out of the presidential race, I started considering my engagement with politics as a waste of time. My resolution for 2021 is to focus more on math and computer science.
What a great, wholesome conversation. Everyone should listen to this. Jonathan coaching Yang was my personal highlight. Hope to see them again in 2024.
Johnny Kamala won’t be president think too many ppl making that assumption. I don’t dislike her the way most progressives seem to but she is not close to popular enough to get the nomination in four years unless nobody challenges her
@@Rowsy91 IF they take the nomination from her, it will have to be a woman or a person of color. Could you imagine the outrage if a female person of color was removed for an "old white guy"?
That NYT article on Yang really got people mad on Twitter but nothing is said about the brilliant things he says on this podcast with intelligent minds.
Being someone on the right, Yang was one of the absolute best democratic candidates this election cycle who had new ideas and had a more realistic understanding of the other side than any other candidate. i have to wonder about his "vaccine proof identifcation" tweet, that's some gestapo stuff and doesn't seem like what he'd normally get behind but, i have respect for yang over all the other candidates and its too bad that the establishments in both parties completely protect their power structures over listening to their constituents. we watched bernie get shafted twice, even if we disagreed with bernie we still watched the democratic establishment screw him over. twice. understand that the same thing happened on the right for two election cycles in a row, and that's where Trump came from, and that's why as they said in this video the Republican establishment feared going against the president. enough of the Republican voter base is behind Trump regardless of what the news says, regardless of whether or not you think its wrong, it is what it is and it neutered the cocaine mitch's and the linsday grahams in congress for years and they came out swinging after the capitol was stormed. they cowered in fear while they politicized the burning and looting of cities around our country all summer long that ended in the deaths of over 20 people, and most of the damage was done to average people just trying to make a living in their hometowns, i sat and listened to the police radio frequency in my hometown and listened to the same thing happen in real time peaceful protestors went home, a bunch of jerks went burning and looting elsewhere in the city I feel like this election cycle should've taught both the right and the left how the odds are stacked against them both but we're both just pocketed into our little social media corners only hearing what we want to hear from people who agree with us, we've all been dooped into hating each other while our country burns down around us by morons on both sides
@braddo pitto no no no no an app in the phone for verification of what? so i can go to the store? so i can go to the movies or a ball game? You're assuming i should be ok with that because google and huawei have stolen more data from me and i'm ok with that? i'm ok with neither, and the fact that so many people are just getting behind the technocratic equivalent of gestapo "papers please" is alarming and i dont care what side of the political spectrum you fall on. There's a major difference between stealing my financial data and metadata, and requiring that i can verify my vaccination status for a disease with a 99% survival rate among most age demographics so that i can freely move about my homeland. we have rights and it doesnt matter what the reason to curb them is. democrats hated the crap out of the patriot act, you think this crap is any different than that? its the patriot act on steroids. a vaccine that was developed in less than a year for a disease unknown until a year and a half ago when the average vaccine takes years to produce. simple google will already show you its killed people and doctors are saying that you still have to social distance and it could still allow you to spread the disease. so i ask this as respectfully as one can: WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT no thanks edit: here's his tweet in case you wanna reread "Tough to have mass gatherings like concerts or ballgames without either mass adoption of the vaccine or a means of signaling." twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1339987988718206976?s=20
That idea is not really far fetched, in Australia you have to prove your kid is vaccinated before they can attend childcare or school, it's an ideology in a moderate progress democracy, nothing excessive.
@@Yyxqq123 This isn't australia, we have to do that here too, if vaccines work, then give it to your kid take it yourself, and quit worrying about everyone else "but but but you're endangering everyone else" i reiterate: if they work, then why worry?
Jonathan Haidt is amazing! I've followed his work for years and recommend his books to everyone! If there's one thing his work has taught me, it's to be willing to understand other people's points of view, even when you disagree! The problem is when we assume everyone thinks exactly the same way we do (they don't)! 😁
Not sure the main problem is when we assume everyone thinks exactly the same as us .... but more to the point, that if you don't think exactly like 'I' then you are wrong, misguided, not informed, ignorant and thus it is necessary to censor, ignore, destroy, silence. Tribalism. Are people really shocked or surprised, not aware that others don't necessarily share 100% of our beliefs?
Haidt's theory per se has significant problems. The basic point that people think differently is quite true. But you should read John Gibbs' Moral Development and Reality to see where his five-point model is wrong.
@@Sinleqeunnini Admit I have not read that work. Reading an abstract of the work, it states, By comparing, contrasting, and going beyond the key theories of preeminent thinkers Lawrence Kohlberg, Martin Hoffman, and Jonathan Haidt, author John C. Gibbs tackles vital questions Would you be able to briefly offer upon what the author finds Haidt's work is wrong and why?
Yang is the only politician who isn’t overly partisan doesn’t bash others and uses data. He’ll have my vote every time. This is the example of how all politics should be. NY, Be smart. Vote him in as mayor.
Hey Sound Guy! I love and need Yang and his guest's messages. I want to support by listening to the sponsors. But the (huge) volume jump for the advertisement vs Hiadt's or Yang's voice makes me want to skip the ads. It makes my ears hurt and really puts me off. If you want money for a correctly mixed version, I will pay. Can we work this out?
I've been excited about this podcast. Johnathan Haidt's work and voice are, imo, vital to helping us all process what's been happening over the past decade or two and helping us move forward in a smarter way. I wish more politically engaged folks understood that ideological fundamentalism is hurting us more than helping us. It blinds us into a fanatical and extreme state of mind - which many never get out of. This weakness of humans has been a major part of what's plagued humanity throughout our history. This along with Katherine Gehl's work and propositions for moving forward could dramatically improve our way of life, our sanity, and our democratic process. All we have to do is unplug from the insanity and noise long enough to hear them out.
You're so right! Maybe now that the "changeover" is immanent people can start to relax and withdraw from mainstream media and take time to listen/read. I know I have. I've been listening to this class of podcast/video for 3 days now. Very good for hope in my other fellow Americans after watching what happened in D.C. all day on Wednesday the 6th!! My faith in our nation's future is starting to be restored. Andrew is great! I love his podcasts. Thanks Andrew!
I have this distinct feeling that half of the Podcast is the guest's Interview of Andrew Yang and vice versa. They are very much in point on their observation and assessment. This episode might as well be called the "Science of our current politics."
This conversation shows how important is that we acknowledge and try to understand each other. It makes what has happened lately even more brutal and completely on the wrong track. I'm not a fan of Trump by any means, but we must try to understand his supporters instead of persecuting them across social media...
I'm in a midwestern defacto sanctuary city. There's a lot of refugees in my apartment complex. Their kids are out running around all the time. They're probably going to be more well adjusted than the affluent suburban kids I know.
Great Stuff Here! Hopefully New York City Mayor campaigning will give our favorite Andrew a real and tangible sense of how to consistently put the Elephant first, then get to the Rider, when talking about any subject of importance. Finally a chance to talk in a way that Everyone can hear--not just hear, but take the time to actually LISTEN. I really hope he wins Big in the upcoming primaries and general later this year.
Very uplifting to see a presidential candidate invite a guest who’s comfortable offering objective criticism. Yang takes it with humility and confidence then Haidt expresses a genuine and spontaneous interest in interviewing Yang for his next book. Almost everyone in the public eye could learn so much from these two gentlemen. Thanks for the inspiration!
I do have a concern that UBI could have unintended consequences, one that it could allow people to stay in an unmotivated state, being unfulfilled, the other is that with the additional income real estate cost could inflate in the same way that government loans for college facilitated the ridiculous college tuitions.
People are motivated by much more than survival. Humans inherently look for meaning-and that can take many forms, especially if they weren’t perpetually worried about starvation. They might start a business. They might write a novel. Etc. How many beautiful and amazing things is this world missing out on because most people are too worn down to take risks or experiment or think critically. They are too busy working three jobs to survive. Society loses. Humanity regresses.
It's about time we see a conversation between Andrew Yang and Steven Kenneth Bonnell II. Especially after the work he's done with the help of the Math Movement in Georgia.
Overall this was an excellent conversation (as always- thank you Yang Speaks!! :)), but I am a tad bit skeptical of the plausibility of a strong heritable component to "political leanings" in particular. If anything, there may be a heritable component to differences in emotionality, anxiety/risk aversion, etc., which could in turn lead individuals to affiliate with groups that espouse certain values. But political ideologies themselves are complex societal constructs that vary widely across cultures, and I would be curious to read the source literature to determine whether the authors controlled for covariance of other factors such as anxiety, disgust reflex etc. in their assessment of heritability and political views. I say this also as someone who identifies as having radically changed both my religious and political stances over time (from moderate-right Catholic as a child to very left-leaning, progressive, and atheist/agnostic as an adult), and from which I attribute my changes in position significantly to becoming more educated, meeting new people, traveling the world etc. (all ecological/environmental factors). (Also side note: Kudos to Dr. Haidt for mentioning the WEIRD issue in psychological science! Very important to consider)
I can't wait for this one. Most people don't understand the perspective of others with a different mindset. The two political parties were formed from our inherent mindsets (more liberal or more conservative), due to the predominant influence of either our cortexes (liberal minded) or limbic systems (conservative). Neuroscientists can accurately predict people's political persuasions with a brain scan, to see which area is most dominant (lights up). Yang is always on top of which topics need to be discussed. It's so much easier to have a little compassion for people with different views, when you know where they are coming from (their perspective).
Yang, do the right thing. Call out ALL of those in the public and private sectors who are using the actions and principles of tyranny to silence those that they disagree with. Even if it makes you enemies. That is a TRUE American.
Free speech is not an absolute right. There should be consequences for inciting violence. That's not tyranny at all. Mob justice is more traditionally the tool of tyranny.
@@jepkofficial Mob justice is the tool of tyranny when a tyrant loses control of a weak state apparatus. Trump was using a mob, things got out of control, and the mob did what mobs do. Trump should be held accountable to the full extent of the law. Part of me feels for him and his family for the shitstorm that is about to utterly destroy them, but the law is the law. Where AOC seems more concerned with the _consequences_ of not prosecuting for future demagogues, my personal concern is respect for the law and what it is there to do - to let Americans know that their democracy is safe and they are safe.
I was under the impression that all of the objections were tossed out of court due to procedural or lack of standing or no relief. Can anyone provide any sources?
Jonathan!! YOU were the moderator in the Ezra Clein/Sam Harris conversation? You would have been the perfect guy for that! Supremely wise and caring and prescient understanding of both; innocently-motivated interlocutors. Love your work. And yours, Mr Yang!
Great interview! I was drawn in by the subject. Two comments: First, we should never underestimate the importance of emotional content in communication. Most of the information in a conversation is almost always non-verbal. Yes. Your first goal is to get people to like you. Sorry about that. We will never succeed with any campaign for social change using only words. So the first job of interpersonal persuasion is always to win the affection of the other. And we do that primarily by listening to them. Note: This principle applies less to public figures who communicate on video, or primarily through verbal communication. If that is the case, however, you should seek to gather a staff that is very good at nonverbal skills. Grassroots persuasion happens primarily while listening. Second: There are many approaches to increasing equality in a society. A GUI is one. Another one is to provide a vital human service, such as health care. It may be easier to convince more conservative people to support universal single-payer health care than to convince them that the government should send out a monthly check to everyone. I love the GUI idea, but why not do both? Just a couple of thoughts.
There also are very few American History classes and Civics classes. People don't understand the difference between different types of government. Or even what the different branches and checks and balances do...
Makes you someone I should be friends with! I am probably as liberal as they come according to other people… And I’m very organized and I keep the calendar and I run a business, so there with the generalizations… Or I’m just exceptional and we should be friends! Yay for organized people
I'm so happy I found you! I would have voted for you had, you been on the ballot! UBI is necessary for everybody! And I believe that the pandemic will have that conversation going faster than ever now. Love Jonathan Haidt, always have.. I've taken classes at the University of Maryland and Yale and which he is mentioned quite often, as he should be. So I liked and subscribed and I can't wait to listen to future episodes! Thank you thank you thank you!!
As someone who has read 3 of Haidt's books, and clicks on every interview he's in that get suggested, this interview is the first time that I'm disappointed. Even with all his research, he still does not understand Conservatives. To say that the authoritarians have taken over and the Never Trumpers are the "true" social conservatives...this is insulting and a gross mischaracterization of what is going on.
@@CH-ze6by a populist movement. Just like the bernie sanders left is. The trump base is not at all Republicans. They hate Republicans. The Never Trumpers are the establishment Republicans. That's why some of them are even switching to democrat bc it's all part of the same swamp. They have loyalty to the crony establishment system, not to party. Both the trump base and the bernie base have been demonized in the press bc they are both anti-establishment. Same with Yang actually. It's about the elites maintaining their power within the elite system (politicians, bureaucrats, mainstream media, wealthy people who make decisions for this country who we never elected). The trump voters (like bernie and yang voters) voted him in to disrupt that system. I was part of the populist left (supported bernie) in 2016, but in 2020 i voted for Trump. I left the populist left pretty much bc I think the authoritarians on the left have taken over their party. I hate cancel culture, censorship and "wokeness." I'm very comfortable on the populist right now, and I prefer it here for many reasons, but I did very much like Tulsi, Yang and Marianne Williamson, even though I disagreed with them on some policy issues. I would have voted for any of them over an establishment republican.
@@CH-ze6by also I went to actually hear Haidt speak and met him personally once. This was in 2019 and he was asked who he supported politically. He said that he didn't really like to say but that he was interested in Pete Buttigieg. Talk about a sleazy swamp creature! So I don't think that Haidt actually does see things as establishment vs populist. And although I think his research is incredibly important in this moment, he is missing this key perspective when he talks about politics.
Tara, thank you for taking your time, it's appreciated. I was also supportive of Bernie, would have loved to see Yang or Williamson, too. However, I can't make the leap to Trump, I appreciate your honesty and it helps me to understand how some of my previously D friends were able to vote for Trump as a disrupter, I can understand that. It does seem the price might have been to high. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Biden either after watching the DNC and MSM, push the best candidates out, just voted down ballot 2020
@@CH-ze6by hopefully we'll have a better disrupter in 2024...someone who actually does hit all the populist boxes that both sides of the spectrum agree on!
I really appreciate people like this. Even if I were to disagree with their views or policies, they've been able to present their view and support their reasoning for it so that I can't help but respect them as honestly trying to solve problems. Politicians like this are able to work together and try to come up with a plan we'll move forward with rather than the stupid bait bargaining they do now.
People aren't polarized because of different opinions, they're polarized because of different facts. If you use misleading facts to get your way, you're not a good person.
To be intelligent is based on the ability to discriminate. No, not that kind of discriminate, the other kind. Rise above and see the similarities, not the differences.
Andrew, for $300. you can get a green screen, lighting, tripod and triple your perception as being presidential. It's a service to all of us since we want you to win.
"Speak to the elephant first." Very basic but I've never thought of that so much. I guess that with me it's a bit the opposite, I generally tend to be dismissive most emotional approaches to anything, doesn't matter if it's a left- or right-wing elephant appeal
I'm always skeptical of the ruling class establishment. Dems are now firmly the ruling class party and the establishment thats why I have been voting Republican.
I can't believe someone like Jonathan Haidt even exists in 2021. He's extremely rational, sees multiple perspectives, and isn't a partisan parrot. Andrew Yang was a breath of fresh air during the primaries but unfortunately the party made their choice.
Great conversation. However, limiting the views to "liberal/conservative", "left/right" eliminates fundamentally crucial nuance that would allow all sorts of groups and individuals to identify specific differences as well as overlap that could lead to significant positive change.
The term “progressive” is misused. I think the highlight of that term was 10 years ago, when progressive meant trying to progres to something better. Now it feels like people that label themselves progressive are more concerned with “change” versus “progress”, which is bad, because there is a difference.... I think we need to reevaluate the way we label ourselves, left, right, progressive, conservative, all are antiquated terms that we need to move away from
"There is a very low correlation between one's policy viewpoints and one's identification" ^^ THIS. I grew up conservative, and though I now am open to a lot of progressive policies, I still do not identify as a "progressive" because I don't like that team/identity. This is because I hate seeing them mock my former conservative tribe, and because I don't like some of their excesses. I understand why people identify as progressive, I just don't think that "team" and identity is for me. We need to separate the way we talk about policy and identity. I think Andrew Yang does that very well. He doesn't tie his rhetoric around policy to a particular party identity like so many other pundits and politicians do. This could allow us to move forward as a country. Trouble is politicians are playing a completely different game and use policy talking points as a way to bash the other side and bolster their own, instead of a way to actually solve problems.
I know this is a political-minded podcast hosted by a former (and possible, future) presidential candidate, but I didn’t come here to hear his political ideologies (as much as I agree with them) but to hear about the topic title. I wish there had been more from this fascinating guest.
what are the other books that you push them to? I'd say " bad news" by batya ungar sargon, " hate inc " by taibbi , " unstoppable" by nader, and " listen liberal " by Frank
Andrew, if you or your team read this...This was one of the best conversations on Yang Speaks. It did leave our one fact I'm sure you don't want to say outloud; most of the voters you are trying to win cannot come close to having as deep of a conversation like this. Have to keep messaging simple. Trump won with 3 word chants. Keep away from language like "one standard deviation" (most don't know what that means). Yes the donor class can deal with the fancy big word but the masses cannot...as you said, mostly a high school educated population and Trump spoke at a high school level. Keep it smart, but simple smart 🤓 🧢👍
@@Photik that doesn't mean that it's productive to speak down to people that you assume is stupid. People are perfectly capable of asking what something means if they need clarification on something.
I disagree. Yang's focus on problem solving through rational thinking with data is why I like him. It is what distinguished him from the other candidates.
I know conservatives who over the years followed a lot of liberal news outlets like CNN, Time the whole range, yet I can't think of one liberal who ever followed FOX and any other conservative news outlet.....
I have raised my kids in Japan and my daughter came down with Crohn’s disease she wants to go live in America right about now but she wanted to go live in America and the pre-existing health condition is a big problem in the current med systems
When it comes to M4A, is it really how it is communicated or is it how will it affect the rest of people lives. I am not sold the rich will pay for it and even if we do tax them more, in the case of a Bezos, what keeps him from passing that cost on to the consumer, which in the end we are still paying for it. I have looked at the Nordic model and the whole of the tax base seems to be paying for everything. So if you plan to raise income tax, sales tax and put a 180% duty on automobiles how do you expect middle and lower income families to afford this? There are a lot of things about the Scandinavian countries that looks really good but the US must have a holistic approach and I think a lot of people are afraid you are going to break some people to fix others.
in some scandinavian countries everybody pays. This is not a literal example but let's say that means every tax payer would pay 10% of their income for m4a. If it's a system that is universal you can't ask the rich to pay for the majority of it. (The 1% already pays 40% of total taxes, we have a spending problem not a tax problem)
Jonathan Haidt is a voice of sanity and reason in our modern society that seems to get crazier every year.
Since you like Haldt, I think you might find find Chris Hedges and possibly Richard D. Wolff also interesting. While Haldt focus is on sociology and root of morality as the driving principal I our political affiliation and believes, Hedges speaks about how socio-economic forces like crony capitalism that lead to social decay and fascism, and Wolff focus full on economy and inequality as a source of social unrest.
@@checklostandfound I just perused the Wikipedia articles on Wolff and Hedges. They don't seem to be like Yang and Haidt. They seem to be part of the crazy that we need less of. Also, after Yang dropped out of the presidential race, I started considering my engagement with politics as a waste of time. My resolution for 2021 is to focus more on math and computer science.
@@mikeg9b I love it...
I'd love to see Wolff and Yang team up. Social Markets + Human Capitalism
Wolff/Yang 2024
he's the best!!
Yang's podcast reaching new Haidts
Underrated comment.
@mark carey 👏👏
Low five material. Well done⬇️ 🙌⬇️
best dad joke I've seen in a long while 🤣🤣
🤦🏼♂️
What a great, wholesome conversation. Everyone should listen to this.
Jonathan coaching Yang was my personal highlight. Hope to see them again in 2024.
2024? Kamala has that spot on lockdown
Johnny Kamala won’t be president think too many ppl making that assumption. I don’t dislike her the way most progressives seem to but she is not close to popular enough to get the nomination in four years unless nobody challenges her
@@Rowsy91 IF they take the nomination from her, it will have to be a woman or a person of color. Could you imagine the outrage if a female person of color was removed for an "old white guy"?
No it was two democrats failing to understand trump's support
@@John-wf5if she will have shown her colors by then.
That NYT article on Yang really got people mad on Twitter but nothing is said about the brilliant things he says on this podcast with intelligent minds.
Being someone on the right, Yang was one of the absolute best democratic candidates this election cycle who had new ideas and had a more realistic understanding of the other side than any other candidate. i have to wonder about his "vaccine proof identifcation" tweet, that's some gestapo stuff and doesn't seem like what he'd normally get behind but, i have respect for yang over all the other candidates and its too bad that the establishments in both parties completely protect their power structures over listening to their constituents. we watched bernie get shafted twice, even if we disagreed with bernie we still watched the democratic establishment screw him over. twice. understand that the same thing happened on the right for two election cycles in a row, and that's where Trump came from, and that's why as they said in this video the Republican establishment feared going against the president. enough of the Republican voter base is behind Trump regardless of what the news says, regardless of whether or not you think its wrong, it is what it is and it neutered the cocaine mitch's and the linsday grahams in congress for years and they came out swinging after the capitol was stormed. they cowered in fear while they politicized the burning and looting of cities around our country all summer long that ended in the deaths of over 20 people, and most of the damage was done to average people just trying to make a living in their hometowns, i sat and listened to the police radio frequency in my hometown and listened to the same thing happen in real time peaceful protestors went home, a bunch of jerks went burning and looting elsewhere in the city
I feel like this election cycle should've taught both the right and the left how the odds are stacked against them both but we're both just pocketed into our little social media corners only hearing what we want to hear from people who agree with us, we've all been dooped into hating each other while our country burns down around us by morons on both sides
@braddo pitto especially people on twitter
@braddo pitto no no no no an app in the phone for verification of what? so i can go to the store? so i can go to the movies or a ball game?
You're assuming i should be ok with that because google and huawei have stolen more data from me and i'm ok with that?
i'm ok with neither, and the fact that so many people are just getting behind the technocratic equivalent of gestapo "papers please" is alarming and i dont care what side of the political spectrum you fall on. There's a major difference between stealing my financial data and metadata, and requiring that i can verify my vaccination status for a disease with a 99% survival rate among most age demographics so that i can freely move about my homeland. we have rights and it doesnt matter what the reason to curb them is. democrats hated the crap out of the patriot act, you think this crap is any different than that? its the patriot act on steroids.
a vaccine that was developed in less than a year for a disease unknown until a year and a half ago when the average vaccine takes years to produce. simple google will already show you its killed people and doctors are saying that you still have to social distance and it could still allow you to spread the disease. so i ask this as respectfully as one can: WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT
no thanks
edit: here's his tweet in case you wanna reread
"Tough to have mass gatherings like concerts or ballgames without either mass adoption of the vaccine or a means of signaling."
twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1339987988718206976?s=20
That idea is not really far fetched, in Australia you have to prove your kid is vaccinated before they can attend childcare or school, it's an ideology in a moderate progress democracy, nothing excessive.
@@Yyxqq123 This isn't australia, we have to do that here too, if vaccines work, then give it to your kid take it yourself, and quit worrying about everyone else
"but but but you're endangering everyone else"
i reiterate: if they work, then why worry?
This is easily the best episode of Yang Speaks! Love Haidt, his books are fantastic. Truly "forward" in this one.
Great that Jonathan is getting to do what he set out to do all those years ago. His advice will help Andrew (who's already in the right track).
Jonathan Haidt is amazing! I've followed his work for years and recommend his books to everyone! If there's one thing his work has taught me, it's to be willing to understand other people's points of view, even when you disagree! The problem is when we assume everyone thinks exactly the same way we do (they don't)! 😁
Not sure the main problem is when we assume everyone thinks exactly the same as us .... but more to the point, that if you don't think exactly like 'I' then you are wrong, misguided, not informed, ignorant and thus it is necessary to censor, ignore, destroy, silence. Tribalism.
Are people really shocked or surprised, not aware that others don't necessarily share 100% of our beliefs?
Haidt's theory per se has significant problems. The basic point that people think differently is quite true. But you should read John Gibbs' Moral Development and Reality to see where his five-point model is wrong.
@@Sinleqeunnini Admit I have not read that work. Reading an abstract of the work, it states, By comparing, contrasting, and going beyond the key theories of preeminent thinkers Lawrence Kohlberg, Martin Hoffman, and Jonathan Haidt, author John C. Gibbs tackles vital questions
Would you be able to briefly offer upon what the author finds Haidt's work is wrong and why?
This was, in my opinion, the best episode of Yang Speaks yet
Haidt is bar none my favorite modern day thinker. Stoked to see him on the show today.
Yang is the only politician who isn’t overly partisan doesn’t bash others and uses data. He’ll have my vote every time. This is the example of how all politics should be. NY, Be smart. Vote him in as mayor.
He certainly is partisan, but not overly
I think you could say this about Tulsi Gabbard too although Yang is more data driven.
@@JediTony81 agreed. They are the only two candidates in either party I actually likes
I get too much schadenfreude out of watching NYC fall apart to want them to have good leadership.
Very glad Andrew did not take a cabinet position for he is able to offer so much more.
Jonathan Haidt giving Yang coaching.
Absolutely e.g. he rightly pointed out framing or Rhetoric although super important is no substitute for material conditions or substance.
@@kd6613 rather frame it to get the elephant to listen but provide the substance and evidence that speaks to the rider.
This is the kind of education America needs right now.
Hey Sound Guy! I love and need Yang and his guest's messages. I want to support by listening to the sponsors. But the (huge) volume jump for the advertisement vs Hiadt's or Yang's voice makes me want to skip the ads. It makes my ears hurt and really puts me off. If you want money for a correctly mixed version, I will pay. Can we work this out?
This is gonna be a must watch! Reading Righteous Mind and having mind blown.
I've been excited about this podcast. Johnathan Haidt's work and voice are, imo, vital to helping us all process what's been happening over the past decade or two and helping us move forward in a smarter way.
I wish more politically engaged folks understood that ideological fundamentalism is hurting us more than helping us. It blinds us into a fanatical and extreme state of mind - which many never get out of. This weakness of humans has been a major part of what's plagued humanity throughout our history.
This along with Katherine Gehl's work and propositions for moving forward could dramatically improve our way of life, our sanity, and our democratic process. All we have to do is unplug from the insanity and noise long enough to hear them out.
You're so right! Maybe now
that the "changeover" is
immanent people can start
to relax and withdraw from
mainstream media and take
time to listen/read. I know
I have. I've been listening to
this class of podcast/video
for 3 days now. Very good
for hope in my other fellow
Americans after watching
what happened in D.C. all
day on Wednesday the 6th!!
My faith in our nation's
future is starting to be
restored. Andrew is great!
I love his podcasts. Thanks
Andrew!
I hope Andrew takes the evaluation to heart, he can win in the future if he talks more like a politician, he has to do what works.
How refreshing....
I have this distinct feeling that half of the Podcast is the guest's Interview of Andrew Yang and vice versa. They are very much in point on their observation and assessment. This episode might as well be called the "Science of our current politics."
Spot on. I love Jonathan's tips for reaching across the aisle. I hope Andrew takes these on board
It’s refreshing to hear a thought provoking conversation instead of emotionally charged buzzwords and npc scripts.
This is probably the best Yang Speaks yet. I've been looking at how someone could primary Joe Manchin. This is a very useful video.
This conversation shows how important is that we acknowledge and try to understand each other. It makes what has happened lately even more brutal and completely on the wrong track. I'm not a fan of Trump by any means, but we must try to understand his supporters instead of persecuting them across social media...
It’d be nice to get the interviewees name in the title. I almost missed this one.
I'm in a midwestern defacto sanctuary city. There's a lot of refugees in my apartment complex. Their kids are out running around all the time. They're probably going to be more well adjusted than the affluent suburban kids I know.
Great Stuff Here! Hopefully New York City Mayor campaigning will give our favorite Andrew a real and tangible sense of how to consistently put the Elephant first, then get to the Rider, when talking about any subject of importance. Finally a chance to talk in a way that Everyone can hear--not just hear, but take the time to actually LISTEN. I really hope he wins Big in the upcoming primaries and general later this year.
Been hoping they could connect in conversation for a long time! Very happy to see this!
Haidt and Yang together! Two of my very favourite American intellectuals.
What a crossover!!! I have admired these two immensely it’s so awesome that they’re on the same podcast.
So glad Jonathan's eyebrows are retaining their swarthy youth.
You got ... 1500 on SATs didn't you. ;)
Yong Brows! He got the youngest eyebrows in the game!
Could it be that such an intelligent being is also vain enough to dye his...eyebrows? Wtf
@@skonther0ck He has his priorities right. That or he shares a few genes with Martin Scorsese.
@@coldwynn not quite, but I like to bloviate :)
Mr. Yang, you are the president your country needed, and still does.
This might just be my favorite meeting of minds in history. Incredible stuff.
Heterodox Academy has the tools to get us through this
I think so too. I joined them as soon as they started accepting PhD students
Very uplifting to see a presidential candidate invite a guest who’s comfortable offering objective criticism. Yang takes it with humility and confidence then Haidt expresses a genuine and spontaneous interest in interviewing Yang for his next book. Almost everyone in the public eye could learn so much from these two gentlemen. Thanks for the inspiration!
I do have a concern that UBI could have unintended consequences, one that it could allow people to stay in an unmotivated state, being unfulfilled, the other is that with the additional income real estate cost could inflate in the same way that government loans for college facilitated the ridiculous college tuitions.
People are motivated by much more than survival. Humans inherently look for meaning-and that can take many forms, especially if they weren’t perpetually worried about starvation. They might start a business. They might write a novel. Etc. How many beautiful and amazing things is this world missing out on because most people are too worn down to take risks or experiment or think critically. They are too busy working three jobs to survive. Society loses. Humanity regresses.
I wish we had the option to give this 5 stars because I would give it 10.
Tuning in again, thanks for the wonderful content.
Yes! Two of my favorite public figures.
It's about time we see a conversation between Andrew Yang and Steven Kenneth Bonnell II. Especially after the work he's done with the help of the Math Movement in Georgia.
I'd love to see that, right in my feeeed.
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."
Thanks Andrew for bringing on someone who knows morality and is Antifragile!!!
Overall this was an excellent conversation (as always- thank you Yang Speaks!! :)), but I am a tad bit skeptical of the plausibility of a strong heritable component to "political leanings" in particular. If anything, there may be a heritable component to differences in emotionality, anxiety/risk aversion, etc., which could in turn lead individuals to affiliate with groups that espouse certain values. But political ideologies themselves are complex societal constructs that vary widely across cultures, and I would be curious to read the source literature to determine whether the authors controlled for covariance of other factors such as anxiety, disgust reflex etc. in their assessment of heritability and political views. I say this also as someone who identifies as having radically changed both my religious and political stances over time (from moderate-right Catholic as a child to very left-leaning, progressive, and atheist/agnostic as an adult), and from which I attribute my changes in position significantly to becoming more educated, meeting new people, traveling the world etc. (all ecological/environmental factors).
(Also side note: Kudos to Dr. Haidt for mentioning the WEIRD issue in psychological science! Very important to consider)
Very engaging and thoughtful podcast. Saved it so I can listen a second time down the road.
Yang for president 2024 with VP Haidt! How cool would that be!
Ive regularly wondered why nobody big in the politics game hasn’t picked him up as an advisor or cabinet member. Haha. Would love to see him as vp
I’d be on board, but for which party? Many, many left-leaning Democrats in academia are strongly opposed to Dr Haidt.
@@TischNew43 Why's that?? Because he focuses on a fair diagnosis and understanding of their politics? smh..
51st min Dr Haidt is talking about direct response sales letter writing 101. Emotion first, then data to back it up.
Was already a big fan of you both but this was a crossover I didn't know I needed! Humility, reason, and self awareness. Loved this.
I can't wait for this one. Most people don't understand the perspective of others with a different mindset. The two political parties were formed from our inherent mindsets (more liberal or more conservative), due to the predominant influence of either our cortexes (liberal minded) or limbic systems (conservative). Neuroscientists can accurately predict people's political persuasions with a brain scan, to see which area is most dominant (lights up). Yang is always on top of which topics need to be discussed. It's so much easier to have a little compassion for people with different views, when you know where they are coming from (their perspective).
Wow i really appreciate this guest. I am puzzled, fascinated, & horrified over the same questions of ideology, party, identity, etc. love it!
Yang, do the right thing. Call out ALL of those in the public and private sectors who are using the actions and principles of tyranny to silence those that they disagree with. Even if it makes you enemies.
That is a TRUE American.
Free speech is not an absolute right. There should be consequences for inciting violence. That's not tyranny at all. Mob justice is more traditionally the tool of tyranny.
@@SR-lh4rm Mob justice is not the tool of tyranny and you know it.
@@SR-lh4rm And yes, free speech is an absolute right. Its the very first amendment. The second says to use guns when they try to take the first.
@@SR-lh4rm You are a sucker for NAZIsm. Maybe read about the Reichstag fire to understand staged political events.
@@jepkofficial Mob justice is the tool of tyranny when a tyrant loses control of a weak state apparatus. Trump was using a mob, things got out of control, and the mob did what mobs do. Trump should be held accountable to the full extent of the law. Part of me feels for him and his family for the shitstorm that is about to utterly destroy them, but the law is the law. Where AOC seems more concerned with the _consequences_ of not prosecuting for future demagogues, my personal concern is respect for the law and what it is there to do - to let Americans know that their democracy is safe and they are safe.
I was under the impression that all of the objections were tossed out of court due to procedural or lack of standing or no relief. Can anyone provide any sources?
This ad format is really obnoxious. Had to switch from my smart phone to my pc so I could skip them more easily.
This podcast is perfectly timed
Jonathan!! YOU were the moderator in the Ezra Clein/Sam Harris conversation?
You would have been the perfect guy for that!
Supremely wise and caring and prescient understanding of both; innocently-motivated interlocutors.
Love your work. And yours, Mr Yang!
"Mess of a party that sure ain't conservative" you ain't kidding sir.
Great thought provoking show Andrew. Keep up the good work and as always be well sir!
I don’t enjoy a ton of your podcasts, but this is THE one I've been hoping you'd do. Such a fan of Haidt
So informative and enlightening! Thank you
So much of the comments seem like they were fans of hadit before this episode, I think I'm going to look into this guy more now. ☺
i saw few things from him, didn't like it.. to me he seems like someone scared of new stuff
Jonathan Haidt should also interview Prof Richard Wolff. Please have economist Richard Wolff on your podcast. He understand capitalism.
All of Haidts books are great, but the righteous mind is one of the few books I can think of that legitimately changed the way I view things.
Now we just need someone who can synthesize the material foundation, the moral principle and the ideological superstructure into a plan of change.
Why is it that if most in academics believe in liberal values and access to education, that they have made college education so unaffordable?
Great interview! I was drawn in by the subject. Two comments: First, we should never underestimate the importance of emotional content in communication. Most of the information in a conversation is almost always non-verbal. Yes. Your first goal is to get people to like you. Sorry about that. We will never succeed with any campaign for social change using only words. So the first job of interpersonal persuasion is always to win the affection of the other. And we do that primarily by listening to them.
Note: This principle applies less to public figures who communicate on video, or primarily through verbal communication. If that is the case, however, you should seek to gather a staff that is very good at nonverbal skills. Grassroots persuasion happens primarily while listening.
Second: There are many approaches to increasing equality in a society. A GUI is one. Another one is to provide a vital human service, such as health care. It may be easier to convince more conservative people to support universal single-payer health care than to convince them that the government should send out a monthly check to everyone. I love the GUI idea, but why not do both?
Just a couple of thoughts.
There also are very few American History classes and Civics classes. People don't understand the difference between different types of government. Or even what the different branches and checks and balances do...
I have a new love for Andrew Yang. I love reasonable conversations.
You rock, Yang!
Great guest and conversation! Thank you 🙏 ❤️
Oh my god yes, two of my favorite people!
I keep a calendar, take pride in being well organized, and enjoy trying different cuisines. What does that make me?
Makes you someone I should be friends with! I am probably as liberal as they come according to other people… And I’m very organized and I keep the calendar and I run a business, so there with the generalizations… Or I’m just exceptional and we should be friends! Yay for organized people
It means you are W E I R D
I wouldn’t deny that. Proud of it
Weirder than weird!
For guy who was quick to dress someone down for framing, he sure was careful to frame his POV.
I'm so happy I found you! I would have voted for you had, you been on the ballot! UBI is necessary for everybody! And I believe that the pandemic will have that conversation going faster than ever now. Love Jonathan Haidt, always have.. I've taken classes at the University of Maryland and Yale and which he is mentioned quite often, as he should be. So I liked and subscribed and I can't wait to listen to future episodes! Thank you thank you thank you!!
As someone who has read 3 of Haidt's books, and clicks on every interview he's in that get suggested, this interview is the first time that I'm disappointed. Even with all his research, he still does not understand Conservatives. To say that the authoritarians have taken over and the Never Trumpers are the "true" social conservatives...this is insulting and a gross mischaracterization of what is going on.
So what's really going on?
@@CH-ze6by a populist movement. Just like the bernie sanders left is. The trump base is not at all Republicans. They hate Republicans. The Never Trumpers are the establishment Republicans. That's why some of them are even switching to democrat bc it's all part of the same swamp. They have loyalty to the crony establishment system, not to party. Both the trump base and the bernie base have been demonized in the press bc they are both anti-establishment. Same with Yang actually. It's about the elites maintaining their power within the elite system (politicians, bureaucrats, mainstream media, wealthy people who make decisions for this country who we never elected). The trump voters (like bernie and yang voters) voted him in to disrupt that system.
I was part of the populist left (supported bernie) in 2016, but in 2020 i voted for Trump. I left the populist left pretty much bc I think the authoritarians on the left have taken over their party. I hate cancel culture, censorship and "wokeness." I'm very comfortable on the populist right now, and I prefer it here for many reasons, but I did very much like Tulsi, Yang and Marianne Williamson, even though I disagreed with them on some policy issues. I would have voted for any of them over an establishment republican.
@@CH-ze6by also I went to actually hear Haidt speak and met him personally once. This was in 2019 and he was asked who he supported politically. He said that he didn't really like to say but that he was interested in Pete Buttigieg. Talk about a sleazy swamp creature! So I don't think that Haidt actually does see things as establishment vs populist. And although I think his research is incredibly important in this moment, he is missing this key perspective when he talks about politics.
Tara, thank you for taking your time, it's appreciated. I was also supportive of Bernie, would have loved to see Yang or Williamson, too. However, I can't make the leap to Trump, I appreciate your honesty and it helps me to understand how some of my previously D friends were able to vote for Trump as a disrupter, I can understand that. It does seem the price might have been to high. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Biden either after watching the DNC and MSM, push the best candidates out, just voted down ballot 2020
@@CH-ze6by hopefully we'll have a better disrupter in 2024...someone who actually does hit all the populist boxes that both sides of the spectrum agree on!
Love Andrew Yang. Love Jonathan Haidt. They should run on a presidential ticket together.
Wow!! I so much enjoyed that!! I need to listen to it again!!
I personally would respect Yang even more if he were an Independent and not a Democrat.
I really appreciate people like this. Even if I were to disagree with their views or policies, they've been able to present their view and support their reasoning for it so that I can't help but respect them as honestly trying to solve problems. Politicians like this are able to work together and try to come up with a plan we'll move forward with rather than the stupid bait bargaining they do now.
Thank you for your content. More of this.
People aren't polarized because of different opinions, they're polarized because of different facts. If you use misleading facts to get your way, you're not a good person.
To be intelligent is based on the ability to discriminate. No, not that kind of discriminate, the other kind.
Rise above and see the similarities, not the differences.
Andrew, for $300. you can get a green screen, lighting, tripod and triple your perception as being presidential. It's a service to all of us since we want you to win.
"Speak to the elephant first." Very basic but I've never thought of that so much. I guess that with me it's a bit the opposite, I generally tend to be dismissive most emotional approaches to anything, doesn't matter if it's a left- or right-wing elephant appeal
I'm always skeptical of the ruling class establishment. Dems are now firmly the ruling class party and the establishment thats why I have been voting Republican.
It's been like that for too long.
@@sunburnfm yeah but some dems still really fight like they’re the underdog when it’s the exact opposite
I didn't know Haidt has become a pilot!?
how did i not know about this podcast??? i voted for yang in the primaries, i hope some of his ideas make their way into policy. great show!
"Human centered capitalism" Love the phrase. I use Human Centered Design in my work. Interested in the parallels.
I can't believe someone like Jonathan Haidt even exists in 2021. He's extremely rational, sees multiple perspectives, and isn't a partisan parrot. Andrew Yang was a breath of fresh air during the primaries but unfortunately the party made their choice.
Great conversation. However, limiting the views to "liberal/conservative", "left/right" eliminates fundamentally crucial nuance that would allow all sorts of groups and individuals to identify specific differences as well as overlap that could lead to significant positive change.
I'm enjoying this so far, but I'm at the 44 minute mark and have hit the third ad? Really irritating
The term “progressive” is misused. I think the highlight of that term was 10 years ago, when progressive meant trying to progres to something better. Now it feels like people that label themselves progressive are more concerned with “change” versus “progress”, which is bad, because there is a difference.... I think we need to reevaluate the way we label ourselves, left, right, progressive, conservative, all are antiquated terms that we need to move away from
"There is a very low correlation between one's policy viewpoints and one's identification"
^^ THIS. I grew up conservative, and though I now am open to a lot of progressive policies, I still do not identify as a "progressive" because I don't like that team/identity. This is because I hate seeing them mock my former conservative tribe, and because I don't like some of their excesses. I understand why people identify as progressive, I just don't think that "team" and identity is for me. We need to separate the way we talk about policy and identity. I think Andrew Yang does that very well. He doesn't tie his rhetoric around policy to a particular party identity like so many other pundits and politicians do. This could allow us to move forward as a country. Trouble is politicians are playing a completely different game and use policy talking points as a way to bash the other side and bolster their own, instead of a way to actually solve problems.
"Why We Are Polarized" by Ezra Klein, found on the bookshelf right beside "The Joys of Alternative Cuisine" by Hannibal Lecter.
I know this is a political-minded podcast hosted by a former (and possible, future) presidential candidate, but I didn’t come here to hear his political ideologies (as much as I agree with them) but to hear about the topic title. I wish there had been more from this fascinating guest.
Excellent chat. Thanks!
#YangGang2024!
what are the other books that you push them to?
I'd say " bad news" by batya ungar sargon,
" hate inc " by taibbi , " unstoppable" by nader, and " listen liberal " by Frank
Andrew, if you or your team read this...This was one of the best conversations on Yang Speaks. It did leave our one fact I'm sure you don't want to say outloud; most of the voters you are trying to win cannot come close to having as deep of a conversation like this. Have to keep messaging simple. Trump won with 3 word chants. Keep away from language like "one standard deviation" (most don't know what that means). Yes the donor class can deal with the fancy big word but the masses cannot...as you said, mostly a high school educated population and Trump spoke at a high school level. Keep it smart, but simple smart 🤓 🧢👍
Wtf, just because we don't speak the way the snobby upperclass do, doesn't mean that we don't understand it.
Average American vocabulary is at the 5th grade level
@@Photik that doesn't mean that it's productive to speak down to people that you assume is stupid. People are perfectly capable of asking what something means if they need clarification on something.
I disagree. Yang's focus on problem solving through rational thinking with data is why I like him. It is what distinguished him from the other candidates.
@@mikeg9b is your response directed at my comment?
Yang for president in 2024 with Haidt as his campaign manager!
I LOVE JONATHAN HAIDT!
I really want to see Yang speak with Jordan Peterson
I know conservatives who over the years followed a lot of liberal news outlets like CNN, Time the whole range, yet I can't think of one liberal who ever followed FOX and any other conservative news outlet.....
I have raised my kids in Japan and my daughter came down with Crohn’s disease she wants to go live in America right about now but she wanted to go live in America and the pre-existing health condition is a big problem in the current med systems
A couple of my favorite people. Can't wait!!!
When it comes to M4A, is it really how it is communicated or is it how will it affect the rest of people lives. I am not sold the rich will pay for it and even if we do tax them more, in the case of a Bezos, what keeps him from passing that cost on to the consumer, which in the end we are still paying for it. I have looked at the Nordic model and the whole of the tax base seems to be paying for everything. So if you plan to raise income tax, sales tax and put a 180% duty on automobiles how do you expect middle and lower income families to afford this? There are a lot of things about the Scandinavian countries that looks really good but the US must have a holistic approach and I think a lot of people are afraid you are going to break some people to fix others.
in some scandinavian countries everybody pays. This is not a literal example but let's say that means every tax payer would pay 10% of their income for m4a. If it's a system that is universal you can't ask the rich to pay for the majority of it. (The 1% already pays 40% of total taxes, we have a spending problem not a tax problem)