For American society to hold together, the citizens need to treat the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as the "bible" of our country, as reflecting the bedrock shared value. And we need to understand the history of how and why these documents came into being - American and world history - so that we don't need a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to remind us of the benefits of these values.
I think that is one possible approach. However, I also believe there are a lot of systems built into our Constitution which were political concessions made so that all of the States would sign. My concern is that holding up the Constitution as a holy document can make it seem as though changing it is heresy, despite the fact that Article V provides the very framework for doing so (a framework which makes it almost impossible to make meaningful changes, but at least it is a framework).
For example, we haven’t even been able to codify women’s right to full citizenship into the Constitution. An argument I have heard against the need for the ERA is that OF COURSE women are full citizens, and it is offensive to even imply that it could possibly be otherwise. And yet, we felt the need to specify that citizenship shall not be limited by race or religion. 🤷♂️
@@jakelilevjen9766 Doesn’t matter what the law says if citizens do not appreciate the benefits and follow it including the mechanism for changing it. Countries that follow the rule of law do best. Otherwise you end up with tyranny of the currently most popular faction. Read Federalist Papers 9 and 10 about the benefits of a republic with limited central government in preserving individual freedom.
The one of the primary sources of extremism that is spread through social media is the political primary system which is controlled by the motivated extreme wings of the parties. Somehow, we need to get centrists more involved.
I fear that passing the extremes of each party is just a consequence of the way the system is constructed. We would have a better chance of getting moderates if we reimagined the process to incentivize more moderate views.
@@dogeared100 Don’t tell the Right that. I was talking to a guy a while back about the extremes of our political parties, and I asked him to define what he thinks is far left. He thinks LGBTQ is far left. I find that strange, seeing as the LGBTQ movement is at its heart a fight for individual rights. I tried to explain to him that the true far left do not have much of a showing in government. I can’t think of many Socialists, let alone any outright Communists, who have made it into positions of national power. And the Anarchists don’t participate in government, as far as I know.
The other relevant myth besides Babel is Icarus. His father (not he) devised superior technology (wings) to escape servitude in Crete, but Icarus ignored his father's warnings, flew too close to the sun, and the wax melted from the wings, plunging him into the Mediterranean. SOME people have always known that improved technology also enables hubris, and humans being what they are, the hubris makes the technology an agent of destruction.
Want some "awe"? Learn to understand and appreciate the arts--literature, music, graphic arts. THAT's where the awe is shared. In pre-20thc art, anyway. Since then it's mostly sharing chaos. Want to know why university presidents caved in? Real basic. Universities are now corporations. Students are customers. Can't offend the customer.
Pretty much. Could you point me to a popular thinker who presents themselves as someone who could be wrong? I am far more familiar with this behavior in the scientific community.
@@gonx9906 Social sciences also have a really hard time running experiments to verify their hypotheses. The things you would have to do in order to get consistent sampling is protested when done on mice. Imagine trying to do it with humans. 😳
28:24 dart gun metaphor
For American society to hold together, the citizens need to treat the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as the "bible" of our country, as reflecting the bedrock shared value. And we need to understand the history of how and why these documents came into being - American and world history - so that we don't need a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to remind us of the benefits of these values.
I think that is one possible approach. However, I also believe there are a lot of systems built into our Constitution which were political concessions made so that all of the States would sign. My concern is that holding up the Constitution as a holy document can make it seem as though changing it is heresy, despite the fact that Article V provides the very framework for doing so (a framework which makes it almost impossible to make meaningful changes, but at least it is a framework).
For example, we haven’t even been able to codify women’s right to full citizenship into the Constitution. An argument I have heard against the need for the ERA is that OF COURSE women are full citizens, and it is offensive to even imply that it could possibly be otherwise. And yet, we felt the need to specify that citizenship shall not be limited by race or religion. 🤷♂️
@@jakelilevjen9766 Doesn’t matter what the law says if citizens do not appreciate the benefits and follow it including the mechanism for changing it. Countries that follow the rule of law do best. Otherwise you end up with tyranny of the currently most popular faction. Read Federalist Papers 9 and 10 about the benefits of a republic with limited central government in preserving individual freedom.
The ERA passing should be a priority.
@@Thinking_Fast_And_Slow Why worry about tyranny of the majority when you can have tyranny of the minority?
As a society, I think.we are reinforcing the "wrong behavior". I often reflect on the tale of the two wolves.
The one of the primary sources of extremism that is spread through social media is the political primary system which is controlled by the motivated extreme wings of the parties. Somehow, we need to get centrists more involved.
I fear that passing the extremes of each party is just a consequence of the way the system is constructed. We would have a better chance of getting moderates if we reimagined the process to incentivize more moderate views.
I disagree there are 2 extremes. I don't get what the Dems are but they aren't the left
@@dogeared100 Don’t tell the Right that. I was talking to a guy a while back about the extremes of our political parties, and I asked him to define what he thinks is far left. He thinks LGBTQ is far left. I find that strange, seeing as the LGBTQ movement is at its heart a fight for individual rights. I tried to explain to him that the true far left do not have much of a showing in government. I can’t think of many Socialists, let alone any outright Communists, who have made it into positions of national power. And the Anarchists don’t participate in government, as far as I know.
The other relevant myth besides Babel is Icarus. His father (not he) devised superior technology (wings) to escape servitude in Crete, but Icarus ignored his father's warnings, flew too close to the sun, and the wax melted from the wings, plunging him into the Mediterranean. SOME people have always known that improved technology also enables hubris, and humans being what they are, the hubris makes the technology an agent of destruction.
Want some "awe"? Learn to understand and appreciate the arts--literature, music, graphic arts. THAT's where the awe is shared. In pre-20thc art, anyway. Since then it's mostly sharing chaos.
Want to know why university presidents caved in? Real basic. Universities are now corporations. Students are customers. Can't offend the customer.
I'm actually surprised at Haidt: He seems to think that his opinions are facts. I guess it ain't a bad way to make a living.
Pretty much. Could you point me to a popular thinker who presents themselves as someone who could be wrong? I am far more familiar with this behavior in the scientific community.
Yah...
Don’t be passive aggressive. Point out the specific cases and your refutations.
Well it's not as if he studied to be a social psychologist and have done several studies on the matter 🙄🙄
@@gonx9906 Social sciences also have a really hard time running experiments to verify their hypotheses. The things you would have to do in order to get consistent sampling is protested when done on mice. Imagine trying to do it with humans. 😳