Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 вер 2008
- Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most.
"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend."
--- Robert A. Heinlein (1973)
That’s certainly true; Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did not see themselves as villains.
Duh, that's so profound. Unless you actually examine it and consider the suppositions built into it. I guess we might want to consider what we mean by an "enemy"--the basis for that view by anyone, whether it's rational and beneficial or just simplistic, primitive reaction, etc. And what we mean by "friend"--what qualities or characteristics that refers to. This kind of pseudo-profound statement by Heinlein is so generic and so much in need of definition that it's virtually useless though it has the ring of a deep insight.
@@surfwriter8461 It's a general axiom, friend. Your comment is more "virtually useless though it has a ring of deep insight" than this quote. It's a starting point of thought worthy of exploration, not an absolute. I suppose you think The Golden Rule is pointless because "some people like to be tortured".
@@Or_else_it_gets_the_hose_again You don't seem to know what an axiom is, and you go on to declare the original quote just a "starting point...not an absolute" which is contradictory. Your final statement is bizarre and ugly. Not worth dignifying with further response.
@@surfwriter8461 Your condescending response to the OP wasn't any less "bizarre and ugly", and has generated a like response from me, so no argument there.
"An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments."
The first sentence of the quote is the axiom and the second his further reasoning.
I'm pretty sure most people can take this quote and apply it across the spectrum of "friend" and "enemy" without getting completely bogged down in the definitions and characteristics of either to the point they can't generate any further thought on the subject.
You come across as arrogant and incapable of lateral thinking with your response.
If an idea can be understood and practically applied in the right context, what makes it "psuedo-profound"? I can only guess that you scoff at most stoics as they have entire collections of such thoughts.
Google: let's recommend this 11 years later
Bless the algorithms. Watch some of his other videos. They're good =)
it won't matter at all - conservatives, especially the far-right just won't even digest the content at all - won't change them at all
Twelve now
15 years later now
@@pininfarina575@pininfarina575 did you even listen to anything that this man said in the video?
Conservatives have a more complex/nuanced & sophisticated moral compass than liberals. Liberals tend to reduce their moral navigation down to two basic core principles, and tend to place all of their "eggs" into those two "baskets". Thus, liberals have a tendency to care immensely about those two principles which make up their moral compass.
On the other hand, conservatives have a more complex/diverse moral compass compass that operates upon a more set a 5 distinct core principles: two of of which they share in common with liberals as they are the same two that make up the entirety of the liberal moral framework, plus an additional three distinct core principles which are not included within the liberal compass and thus appear very foreign to liberals and confusing for them. This Dynamic is likely the reason why conservatives tend to understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives, and why conservatives are able to more accurately predict what argument/position a liberal will take on a particular political issue, whereas Liberals are far less capable of accurately predicting a conservative's argument/position. It's also likely the reason why we see so many liberal and young adults who become conservative as they mature and grow slash develop with age. Either way, super interesting stuff.
...and to respond to your snarky remark, it seems that LIBERALS are the ones who need to grow and broaden their ethical/moral horizons.
12 years ago feels like a much simpler time. Now we're just at each other's throats every day and can't see any good in one another. I don't like what we've become.
are you white? 12 years ago policing and mass incarceration was even worse
@@pazz2023 Exhibit A-Z.
Everyone thinks they're an expert, and arrogantly treat mob mentality conjectures as gospel. Anyone who has a different experience or difference of opinion is heretical, wrong, and immoral as the mob sees fit.
Groupthink has replaced nuance, good faith attitudes, understanding, critical thought, and friendliness.
2021-everything is much more polarized for sure. I always considered myself a liberal but stepped outside the political matrix due to what I find to be a quasi religious orthodoxy on the left.
@@ProkofNY As a conservative I am finding myself in disagreement with many Republicans but I still don't agree with Democrats on many things. My morals haven't really changed but for whatever reason the group think with politics has gotten ugly with a false premise that I disagree with. I've had family and friends who vote Democrat and know they aren't inherently evil and the US hasn't been, it isn't a goal of, nor will it likely be destroyed by Joe Biden or Democrats.
I wish we lived in a world where this TED-talk had millions of views.
That was probably the best TED talk i've ever seen. How is this not more popular?
Exactly.
Cuz taking the red pill is uncomfortable
I am not from the western hemisphere but let me just express this, as a conservative, I am glad that this liberal spoke up what do I value and uphold for. Yes, pure conservatism itself hinders the human race to progress and we should have liberal ideas now and then. So I beg liberals, we are not enemies but rather the same yet different and we both wished for the best for humanity.
Soon Willard well Defined, so I guess your on the Eastern Hemisphere riTe? To many fools or suckers that's it the way it goes here for that outcome that seems endless..
Um as does,pure liberalisn. Withit cones pure chaos.
@@mikeh3559 Right too much liberalism leads to too much change and conservative should be there to maintain stability so the change is gradual and not sudden.
I think this is simply wrong because what u are suggesting is that we *should* allow gradual change, just not quick change. If u just want gradual change, u aren't conservative nor should a conservative advocate for that since that means the gradual demise of any type of victory. If conservatives merely put their foot on the brake pedal and tap, that's useless. It's hardly even fair to compare nor even want to be a conservative who is in effect a loser before the game has started. A conservative OUGHT to want change as well - in the form of conserving something like order. If both sides are to be characterized like this, as both being formidable and rigid in wanting change, then it's a fair game to play.
However, I agree that this is what most liberals and conservatives are. One pushes incrementalism and the other taps the breaks. Conservatives have lost the last 60 years due to not being proactive but merely reacting. They suck and no one should be a normal conservative. U should be a social or classical conservative and do not be a libertarian. Modern day conservatives are at best centre right and socially (are incrementally) becoming leftist.
sounds cucked
"Liberals like to say 'Fetch... _please_'" ranks among the greatest TED talk statements I've ever heard.
Contingence you commented this 1 year ago but I have been trying to figure out this joke and I have no clue what it means I’m sorry I am a simple idiot but could you pls explain it to me
@@trirex2547 u commented this 1 year ago and id like to explain it to you thusly: Liberals are idiots
@@radthadd You didn't get the point of this video clearly.
@@radthadd Ah an example of group think. As a conservative but not a Republican I can say the Republican party is divided between intelligent folks and Trump supporters. I put your comment in the Trump group think category.
@@lakewoodresident4674 Funny, I consider those groups to be typically one and the same. The others being RINOs who support Democrats.
“Change” isn’t inherently bad or good and society doesn’t “progress” in an inherently good or bad direction. I’d rather apply something like the scientific method to politics and culture: if something is working, preserve it; maybe carefully see if it can be tweaked a bit to make it better. If something doesn’t work, don’t keep trying it. Apparently that makes me a conservative.
I hate the oversimplification of the two ideologies. We have all heard it before. Liberals are morally ambiguous, weak, sloppy hippies and conservatives are closed-minded, greedy neanderthals. I feel the biggest issue is not liberal and conservative. It is Democrat and Republican. People seem to forget that these are simply institutionalized examples of liberal and conservative and not the pure examples of each mindset. And ironically their greatest function is not progress for either ideology, but creating a tumultuous front-line trench at which left and right get locked in a toxic, un-advancing, increasingly more dividing conflict with seemingly no end.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."
Who made this quote? George Washington upon his farewell, the man believed formal political parties do nothing but create despotism and counter-productive internal conflict. I feel damn sure that he was right about that problem before it even began.
I feel this man, Jonathan Haidt, views both sides in a way that promotes cooperation. I see liberal and conservative as two strategies for life, one is hard charging, it embraces chaotic arrival of new aspects and challenges. The other is cautious, methodical, more measured but maybe at times too inflexible where the other approach is at times too reckless. Let's say the problems of society are a war with which we fight, in war, both above mentioned strategies can be the ideal one depending on the scenario. The key is not see these as mutually exclusive, as people also seem to erroneously see other ideas like Science and Faith, but to see them as separate tools that have their own purpose and roles that are ideal for some situations and not for others. This is how we end the hate, this is how we end the bickering, this is how we combine the positives of both views to make actual progress, and not just "be progressive".
Because liberal and conservatives are just ideological categories. They aren't teams. A disorganized group of con/lib people aren't going to cause the problems parties will. Parties institutionalize the division, which is far worse.
"promote the team psychology of competition" The large, influential parties who wish to stay in power and hoard money and votes are the reason for this.
"And as long as we see ourselves as in competition with the "other side" we will be distracted from the real work of politics, fixing the problems we all face"
Like I said, I think the self interested parties drill this mentality into their constituents for their own good. I think a free market of ideas that isn't rigidly dominated by institutional parties will lack the proliferation of this problem.
***** The answer is a boost in the number of parties to bring in more divergent views. Ten parties in total would be about right.
Stoney Lonsome I don't think we'd have Citizens United if we had 10 parties.
Ray Rothermel The only reasonable way to get a real '10 party' system is a move away from first past the post.
"Why We decided long ago that competition was what best motivated individuals I have no idea, but we obviously did. " Are you serious? You really have no idea? I'm sure you know what capitalism is.. right?
Here's a moral stance toward potential commenters:
Be fair and don't try to harm each other with your words. You're not making yourself seem an authority figure by shouting via caps lock, you're not practicing ingroup thinking by blatant antagonization, and you're certainly not propagating the purity of intelligent discussion.
I respect that everyone has his or her opinion. But don't say it like you're fighting a war for your ideology. It does no one any good.
geezusispan +1! UA-cam really needs a feature to embed sources like this. Also, it should be a norm that sources like this are in the description of the video.
BUT CAPS LOCK BUTTON IS STUCK ON MY DEVICE. I AM SO SORRY TO YELL. PLEASE FORGIVE ME.
oh. Oops. I’m so embarrassed.
As the speaker noted in his talk, everyone thinks they're right. I think the problem with everyone thinking they're right is that without the respect that you note, it just descends into yelling and saying that people who don't agree with you are morally bankrupt.
My heart jumped to see Jonathan Haidt on TED. His book the Happiness Hypthesis inspired me to read other books which gave me tremendous insight (Flow, Boethius, Pennebaker, Amenemope..). I found the presentation well paced, the angle with which he started not quite calling out to me as an European, I love his argument building with facts and research, the way his story unfolded was just remarkeable. And I could even understand it :) Haidt for President!
This is one of my favorite TED talks ~ good to see it got cycled into my playlist. The five axis relative morality that separates liberals and conservatives.
I've always had an enormous amount of animosity towards conservative values, but watching this helps me understand where they're coming from, and was overall one of the only intelligent, fair and neutral discussions I've ever seen on the difference between what we perceive as the two major mindsets. It occurs to me now that when it comes to government and economy, I'm more conservative myself. I'm only liberal socially.
What do you feel 12 years later?
@@Greggah Conservatives have drifted exponentially more radical every one of those years and there is absolutely no reasoning with them or finding middle ground. The instant some lunatic like Alex Jones or Trump suggests that gays are eating babies or jews are rigging votes, rightoids lap it up uncritically and whip themselves into such a rage that they all seem inches away from a shooting spree at any given moment. They already run people over with their cars just for protesting with signs. A conservative in my town killed two random women on a street corner just because he presumed they were part of a peaceful left-wing protest several blocks away.
They now think anyone connected to LGBT culture in particular is a pedophile who wants to take their guns and ban their religion, and they fantasize openly in internet comments about how much they want to kill over it. They call up random schools to threaten random teachers with death, because Tucker Carlson told them that teachers are making children gay.
I can't see these rageaholics as fellow americans anymore. I can barely see them as human anymore. None of this is going to get better without some horrific catastrophe first; probably the "civil war" they all say they want.
@@Greggah same question
@@Greggah ...and then there was Trump, and huge oopsy for conservative values.
SOMEBODY.....PLEASE.....give this dude a glass of water. It sounds like I'm listening to someone stir a bowl of potato salad.
And Stephen Hawking?
Evan Evans
Do you really think Stephen Hawking could pick it up to drink it? Besides,it would just run out the side of his limp mouth.
TheElTiticaca Anyone of value, who cares what someone of high value has to say, is beyond pointing out technicalities of presentation. Stephen Hawking is an excellent example of this, having achieved so much, and yet unable to speak or write, or move nearly a single muscle in his body.
Evan Evans
I believe the original comment applies to how the speaker is just recycling the same political garbage as every other person of the same view. Water is needed to wash out the trash from his mouth. I understand nearly every part of the aisle, but the way this is presented is trash. My comment was to lighten the fact that Hawking was irrelevant as the speaker is of no comparison.
TheElTiticaca Ok, I see, now I get what your comment was for. Well for what it's worth, Haidt has written a few books, and everything he says (though I find the way he does so kind of in an opinionated and arrogant manner) is actually backed up by factual studies and references. He just has a style that's a little pushy. But what he's saying is right on point, and in alignment with the scientific community doing research and conducting studies on Morality. It's really good stuff.
That was the best talk I've heard so far.
Yeah it's really excellent. For me it actually achieved what Ken Wiber's work on 'Integral politics' purported to try to do
Liberal?
But do you see his personal bias?
@@eddarby469 Everyone has personal bias. But those who recognize it and are serious about revealing truth take steps to eliminate its effect.
Keep fighting the good fight, Haidt.
The whole world needs to watch this.
After hearing your intro, I almost clicked away because the conservatives you described bore no resemblance to anyone I know. I thought this video would be simply one more liberal bashing conservatives.
I'm glad I stayed to listen, however, and was pleasantly surprised at the turn you made.
Thank you for showing that the "yin & yang" of things is what we need.
I don't think this video indulges in oversimplification of the two ideologies. Generalizations are sometimes useful tools for understanding society and operating effectively within it. It's when we start applying the generalizations to individuals that that we start making mistakes and the generalization becomes a liability.
👍 Rick B 🧠
Exactly. Generalizations are not always problematic. Without generalizations we cannot effectively study many different things.
I think TED has lost it's passion for the truth since 2008. This is the first open-minded and non-discriminatory talk I have heard yet.
agreed
his book "The Righteous Mind" is wonderful and very interesting. Imagine this talk with far more cool findings and theses.
I'm part way through thiss book which is what brought me here. Possibly the most eye-opening thing I've ever read.
it rapidly shifted from research popularizing to sensationalistic sales pitch
Are you people watching TEDx? That is mostly garbage(it isn't even really TED), but TED seems to still be as evenhanded now as it was then.
loved it. this talk opened a whole new way of seeing things, i think i watched it 5, 6 times realy good argumented
After seeing this I can't wait to read his book. Has anyone here read it yet?
I'm only half way through it so far. Great read, though I've heard the final segment is more opinion-heavy. His other book, The Happiness Hypothesis is great too.
THIS. This talk describes exactly the thoughts that have been rolling around in my head for the past several years, especially during this past year.
This talk is excellent!!!
Easily one of my favorites.
Well worth the time.
This is surely the best video I've seen on this channel.
I have been waiting a long time for the moment when psychology turns into wisdom
me too.
Society needs both kinds of these ways of thinking.
Everyone in 2021 need to watch this.
I think that, while this is a good video and Jonathan Haidt is a very smart person, the biggest misunderstanding in this video is that conservatives don't stand up for the weak and oppressed and conservatives hate diversity and change. These are absolutely not true, and he makes a gross generalization that paints anyone who leans right as being somehow intellectually inferior or opposed to social justice. I'm a moderate conservative. If you define being conservative as being close-minded and clinging on to the past like some kind of over-sheltered man child, then the initial observation in this video logically holds up.
Being conservative does not necessarily mean you are opposed to change, it means you support change where it is absolutely needed and you are willing to question proposed changes and deeply analyze the consequences of change even when it isn't politically correct, at least in my mind. Being conservative is simply a different way of viewing issues, it is not about being close-minded. Conservatism should be about valuing fiscal responsibility, personal liberty and personal responsibility, and any society in history that has not valued these things ultimately has become a less free society as a result. In my discussions with my liberal friends, I find that liberals tend to misunderstand conservatives more than conservatives misunderstand liberals. Also, not all conservatives are opposed to hot button issues like gay marriage or legalization of drugs. Conservatives, at least any sane conservative, is not for the abolition or the complete nerfing of the government. The government is not a business, it cannot generate economic growth in a country. It is the citizens of a country who generate economic growth. The government should serve it's purpose to maintain law and order, maintain a strong military, and to extend benefits for people who absolutely need it. A safety net is a good thing, and is the mark of a good society that is good to live in, however it should never hold people hostage to their own misfortune. This is not social darwinism, this is how you maintain incentive to succeed and contribute to society. I don't find anything close minded about these beliefs, its simply a different lens to view issues in. As for standing up for the weak and oppressed, the old parable of "give a man a fishing pole instead of a fish" is a conservative parable. You help the weak and oppressed by showing them they are neither weak nor oppressed, and have the same rights and abilities to succeed as the smartest and most privileged people they know. It should be an uplifting, empowering message, instead of telling them that because of their societal or ethnic predisposition they cannot succeed and need to fight and blame the system. Change starts within yourself, and then bleeds over to the rest of society instead of the other way around. Not all conservatives are religious, rich, and white contrary to how they get painted by left-wing media. Are there stupid conservatives? You betcha, just as much as there are stupid liberals in this country. In conclusion, I would urge anyone who thinks that conservatives are either evil, greedy, or stupid to re-evaluate that mindset and understand that simply isn't the case.
This is a well written, well thought out response. If the conservatives in the US were represented by reasonable, well spoken people like you then maybe the conservatives would have a much reputation with younger voters. As an independent who leans mostly right on fiscal issues and left on social issues, I find it hard to explain my "conservative" views. I hope you don't mind if I quote your response.
Thanks.
Joshua Henderson you're correct in your analysis of modern conservatism in the US, but the core tenet of conservative philosophy (the broad philosophy to which he is speaking) is in group thinking and behavior and to defend against attacks on that - which is true, and he did a good job of explain why that's an important component of a robust moral and political philosophy
Shut up
David Schaffer - Who? Be specific.
I think you misunderstood the data. Conservatives equally value all 5 moral foundations, including care and fairness. Liberals don't. If anything, Haidt's is a wake-up call for the progressives.
This message is so prescient to our times. How amazing would it be to have people saying this now.
Pět společných zakladních zdrojů morálky.
1. Péče o slabé
2. Férovost na obě strany
3. Oddanost skupině
4. Autorita a Úcta
5. Čistota a Posvátnost
12:20 Spoléhat na dobrou vůli nestačí. Trest pomáha
14:50 Edmund Burke: To co se nesmí, patří k právům člověka stejně jako to, co se smí.
16:20 Z moderní psychologie morálky lze vyvodit následující. Náš smysl pro morálku je výtvorem evoluce. Umožňuje nám sjednotit se před konkurencí. Ale zastírá nám pravdu.
Haidt's talk is so timely in today's political environment. He paves a way for us to understand our differences with the "other side," a way to begin to find common ground again. Conservatives and liberals should see this, think about it, and begin talking about it comfortably with people of nearly all political persuasions.
Jon was ahead of the game. To bad too few listened.
Great talk. So many insights. Thank you.
I addressed this point in another comment, but it's great to see someone ignorant of what they're talking about accuse someone else of misunderstanding.
I love jonathan haidt. Keep up the good work.
""Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology
advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of
law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press,
and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this
ideology was generally known simply as liberalism."
mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism
Too bad the word "liberal" has been co-opted by big government control freaks and the absolutely lawless "lowest common denominator". A classical liberal would have a LOT in common with the Constitutional Conservative center of this country.
+John Steel
It's good to see that pointed out. Liberalism is supposed to be about individual liberty. I think he's confusing the term with "progressivism", which I believe is what should be on the opposite side of the spectrum from conservatism.
Not "liberalism" as practiced and understood in the US today. That is not "classical liberalism". So he used the word correctly.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans both include progressives. The establishment in both parties see a payoff in centralization of power and spending.
A true Conservative knows the importance of limiting government power to the essential functions in the Constitution.
I look forward to the day when our different factions realize that they are being separated by trivial issues or simple labels when they often share the much more important fundamental principles that policies grow from.
It seems that our language and our very thoughts are descending into chaos, though, rather than gaining clarity.
I am starting to understand now. I was raised in a Conservative Republican household, but became more Liberal as I learned more about the world around me. Now that I'm starting to pay more attention to politics, I'm starting to understand how both parties are twisting things to keep power or gain it. Our politics are control, not about what's best for society as a whole. We need to strike a balance between Conservatism and Liberalism. We are trying to be one or the other, but in reality, we should be a little bit of both. It depends on the issue, and I'm going to start by trying to find that balance in myself. I hope others will do the same one day.
It makes perfect sense for government involvement in the economy: healthcare, infrastructure, defense, environmental regulation, etc.
Love this video. I have my sociology students watch it at the beginning of my "social problems" course.
I sure hope you still believe in the things shared in this video! I’m saying that sincerely, and only because the world has changed so much since this talk was given. Lines have been drawn. It’s all “us versus them.” So depressing.
Fascinating, Beautiful, Inspiring. Thanks.
Reminds me of Atticus Finch explaining to Scout about seeing things from the other's point of view. WONDERFUL presentation.
this guy predicted 2017
So did the Gregorian calendar...
Well, it's been like this for awhile, but the polarity we're seeing today seems like this idea on steroids. Unfortunately this talk came and went 10 years ago, and it doesn't seem like many have heeded the message.
wait till you hear about 2020
👍 Jan Kostera
it would be wonderful if TED Talks also closed captioned its videos.... opening them up to a broader world...
This was a wonderful TED talk. These are really mind-opening.
Beautiful. Thank you!
As a Christian I value love as the greatest force, and love is under assault by negative based talk.
Here's your friendly reminder to not read UA-cam comments. It will melt your brain
I'd suggest the contrary. For the first time in my life, I enjoyed reading comments on a YT video.
Dawson Douglas, agreed. We need to not be so sensitive and hear the other side. Even if it hurts. We take it so we can improve our arguments and make ourselves better humans.
Cynthia Russell Total agreement. Been doing that since Trump won. Have learned so much. And if liberals don't at least understand the other side of he may very well be re-elected . Liberals think they are so much smarter, well, until they do this, they're not.
I think the OP is warning to avoid engaging the trolls, the ones who are simply being assholes, without contributing to the conversation. They WILL melt your brain, if you take their BS to heart.
all contradicting opinions will "melt your brain".
Its nice to hear someone talk about how they may be viewed by others. The psychologist was saying to know yourself. If this is done in context to others views/ feelings then relationships are strengthened. I live in an area in No. Cal. that is extremely liberal to the point that there is no room for disagreement-thus no dialogue, just a chorus of angry agreers who believe they are right. Appreciated comment Corn!
One of the best Ted talks I've ever seen period
and right after this talk TED flushed it down the toilet and started to behave like a social justice warrior.
Openness and craving are not the same thing. Happiness and excitement are not the same thing. We can be open to change without 'craving change' or excitement. As a culture, a major problem is that we mistake excitement and pleasure for happiness, meaning, and purpose. There is no such thing as a truly static person or a non-changing cultural situation - trying to hold on to, or artificially sustain such a situation is delusion. This is not the way to create reliability or dependability in our culture.
i loved what he said in the beginning about the lack of conservative vs. liberal thinkers. "teams" shut down diversified thinking. same thing Madison emphasized in the Federalist Papers.
This aged well.
I am often reminded of George Orwell’s novel 1984 when considering the modern (?) phenomenon of political correctness. This topic has arisen sharply during the Brexit debates, and now during the recent American presidential elections.
With your forbearance, I append George Orwell’s opening statements concerning newspeak. I believe a perusal of such may be enlightening.
George Orwell: ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ - Appendix
**THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWSPEAK**
Extract
Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing. The leading articles in the Times were written in it, but this was a tour de force which could only be carried out by a specialist. It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or Standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050. Meanwhile it gained ground steadily, all Party members tending to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech. The version in use in 1984, and embodied in the Ninth and Tenth Editions of the Newspeak Dictionary, was a provisional one, and contained many superfluous words and archaic formations which were due to be suppressed later. It is with the final, perfected version, as embodied in the Eleventh Edition of the Dictionary, that we are concerned here.
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc - should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.
This is a great video. Thanks for being my friend.
Hey Sugarkang,
Actually, here's my final comment:
I just watched a video of you playing guitar and singing a country/western song. (I assume that was you.) I just wanted to say I enjoyed it very much. Nice job. Thank you for sharing that song with us. Very impressive, indeed.
Cheers.
Excelente analise sobre o processo de formação humana, hoje existe um processo de desconstrução, descrença no legado do ocidente, creio que esquecemos que temos uma cadeia de ancestralidade fruto de erros ou acertos. Mas não se enganem a historia é cíclica, mas podemos aprender muito com ela. Que passemos a valorizar o frutos que a grandes civilizações do passado nos deixaram. Um grande entusiasta é o psicólogo canadense Jordan Peterson que faz um excelente resgate as tradições.
Wow...this is a beautiful way to think about it! The left and the right need each other...we're like yin and yang
yes we are like yin and yang except the left/right are SO FAR APART now in 2019 that we are about to repeat history and not good history.
@@taylorx2 yes, sad huh? :((
@@taylorx2 The problem is that the "right" has moved to the far-right and the "left" is basically neo-liberal corporate centrism.
@@owen3721 Thats a lie you freak. You have it backwards. Smh NPC
I wish my lectures at university were this fast paced and interesting.
This is very interesting. Whatever a persons own beliefs and rules this lecture gives any thinking person some alternate thoughts to consider and therefore an opportunity to grow mentally, morally and socially.
Wow, reading the comments here really proves his point, very few people are able to relate to their opinions in such a way that it lets them understand other peoples opinions. Most people are convinced that they are right and that all other people are idiots or undereducated or something else, and they can't all be right of course.
the irony seems to be lost on them
Great talk but as an anthropologist, I utterly disagree with his ascertain that there is only ambiguous evidence of reciprocal behavior among animals (something which has been proven in apes, whales, dolphins, dogs and a host of other mammalian species). Also, his ascertain that only humans exist in large groups, loyal to each other and have a similar purpose--bees and ants come to mind here--how many exist in a colony with the singular purpose to protect the queen and care for the young?
Bees and ants. yes this is called the hive-mind, or in today's language, NPC programming.
he said " or there are all siblings"
I suspect what Mihaela Gec is trying to say is that ants or bees that live together are all siblings.
This is an insanely good talk. Breathtaking stuff.
i agree, its crazy coming back to this now 14 years later. especially with how relevent this is to the potential close minded ness of a lot of people today.
I agree with those. I was just making sure what you meant by "chosen".
This is perhaps one of my favorite ted talks along with steven pinker. I love this concept, but I wonder if the five moral foundations are because of genetic disposition as jonathan haidt purpose instead of a product of social construction or surrounding. The moral foundation could be the symptom of being a conservative or liberal instead of conservative or liberal being a symptom of moral foundation.
please help me comprehend :)
he suggests these are inborn traits, when he dispenses with the blank slate fallacy @4:13
"Keep your laws off my body" really applies to both sides, and COVID proved it
"WE must be the change we wish to see in the world"- M. Ghandi
I think there is Part 2 to the concept of 'order and chaos accepting and respecting' each other. And Part 2 is the wisdom to know when chaos or order is needed so that we can climb the moral ladder. If both bring depth to the palette, then knowing where and how to juxtapose the strengths is the artistry.
Doing a Progressive Tax on (Just) the “Greedy Part” of Wealth & Conservatively Spending (Just it) on Social Programs gets us a “Stable Society” (the “True Creator” of All Wealth!!) AND we do it with “Direct Democracy” where WE Directly Propose, Enact & Enforce “Merit Based Standardized” Laws & “Money” isn’t a factor!! - "Like" this so we all See & Do this!!
PS: Nobody’s taking away our “25 Rolls Royce’s” but WE MORALLY OWE (Just
our “Greedy” 26th Rolls & up) BACK TO OUR STABLE SOCIETY (that “Owns & Allows” us to Create & Safely use our “25 Rolls”) TO KEEP IT STABLE!!
We must Realize Nobody gets Rich without our “Fast Food Workers” who
ironically Need “Food Stamps” for Stability!!
No one is lazy & “Reaping Free Benefits off the Rich’s Money” because the GREEDY PART BELONGS to all of us!!
Read Max Weber’s “Protestant Ethic & SPIRIT of Capitalism” where, early on, Wealth was only a Moral pursuit just to achieve our limited “State of Grace” & then we stopped so others could also achieve their monetary “Salvation”
Watch “The Gods Must Be Crazy” where a “Coke bottle” falls from a plane into the midst of a primitive tribe & one guy grabs it & everyone fears him for grabbing ALL the “Money” & now being their “King”!!
In "Direct Democracy" we vote directly for issues that we've tested for merit, etc before proposal, then we popularly enact them & then Voter Volunteers will easily enforce small & specific Laws that have all the "legal standards" for enforcement in them ... congress, senate, president, agencies, courts, etc have a role to play, but within it & in service to it ...
I am going to see what I can do to become a part of TED. Seems like a great way to contribute to making this world a better place. I just hope they don't serve Koolaid to all the recruits...
Great video btw!
LOVE this video.
I used to buy into this view until I "experienced" the New Left.
He isn't talking about the cultured Left/Right, but the ideological L/R. Culture causes an evolution in these paradigms that naturally change, the result in our time is that liberal/conservative, or democrat/republican have totally lost touch with their original goals, and even definitions.
Progressives aren't liberals, they're assholes taking over our ideology.
The new left are shameless Fascists/Cultural Marxists .... they are not liberals
well talk to some trump morons and you know why liberals are back and fighting to hard. Trump cult members engage in and embrace evil, immorality and lies, ALL THE TIME.
Scrooge McGruel uhm, since when is monarchy "by its nature" leftist? Also, is the appearance correct that you essentially equate "left" with "Democrat" and "right" with "Republican"? That did indeed change in the 20th century...
From “a passionate commitment to the truth” all the way to living in a “post-truth” world full of lies and relentless mendacity within the span of a decade. How sad is that?
I'm really interested in the idea of leaving the moral matrix and the yin & yang found in Asian religions, and the way he uses this to explain how conservatives and liberals could work together. Is this explained in one of his books? If so, which one?
_The Righteous Mind_
So long as those on the ideological left view those on the right as evil, I don't think it's possible.
This is likely a result of media programming.
I'm there. Thoughts of a Yin And Yang Centrism have been percolating in my thoughts for about a decade now, and this covers it quite nicely.
I'd be very interested to see what is being done with this in the heated binary opposition of our two-party political system.
I find human psychology fascinating. :)
From my experience on liberals and conservatives, both come in many different colors, there are conservatives and also liberals I can't stand and those who are really good people. A person with wisdom believes in God and the 10 commandments. He believes in the Church that Jesus created, that life begins at conception and deserves to live as much as you and I, that silence is better than a loud mouth and that no one is better than them but most important they are better than no one. Life is simple, we just make it complicated.
My interpretation of the middle way is not a negation of both extremes, but a partial acceptance of both. By that measure, they are not both wrong together, they are both wrong individually.
I have to say, I really enjoyed this video. I thought it was very insightful. I'm not shore if I can "step out of the morality matrix". I've been pretty self richas for a long time.
I'm a lefty but my three brothers are quite conservative. Same family, etc-what's the difference? Looking back I see they were far more easily scared. The order vs innovation (risk) things are both needed in a group. My brothers are not stupid, unkind or ungenerous, they just fear chaos. You know what? Sometimes they're right. And sometimes I am.
All these years later and we're seeing just what "celebrate diversity" has contributed. It's just another tribe. It's long pushed out the conservative and now even those with traditionally liberal views are being excommunicated. It's diversity on their terms.
this is fascinating to watch in 2018
This is already beginning. I'd recommend the book "Moral Minds" as a good laymen introduction to the scientific frontier of morality.
"The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians." - George Orwell, 1948.
Conservatives used to be authoritarian, now they are far more libertarian than Progressives (who now want to shut down all sorts of debates to a single 'acceptable' position - from gay marriage, immigration, Islam, to global warming). Don't get stuck by the labels.
In US political terms the political Left are for more State power and the political Right for being more individual power (less State interference). The spectrum from Left to right goes from Overwhelming State (Communist socialism) on the Far Left to No State (Anarchy) on the Far Right. The complete spectrum is: Communist socialism, socialism (National/fascist), progressivism, modern liberalism, conservativism (classical liberalism), libertarianism, anarchy.
@TAP IN MERCHANT @penalty.com That denies the existence of the bottom right hand corner of the political spectrum. Capitalism could absolutely exist in a stateless environment; it would just have terrible outcomes.
16:15
beyond good and evil
:]
Yes, and openness means evaluating objectively, not deciding against them based on prejudices.
The South Park episode about liberals vs conservatives is even more enlightening on this topic.
Very depressing -- the speech? No, THE COMMENTS! What a sad parade of (mostly) determined, unyielding, unreachable people of all stripes; firmly committed to embracing forever their ignorant misconceptions.
Are you saying they are the far right leaning conservatives?
Inkling of course unreachable people of all stripes
Ryan S I could say the same about your comment.
"Ignorant misconceptions" as you put it shows the exact total commitment to your own matrix Jonathan was talking about. How about first start by not disparaging others.
Vripiat Buzoi u
9:12 Conservatives value authority over fairness. Conservatives value ingroup over fairness. Conservatives value purity over fairness. And the more conservative one is, the less one cares about harming others and fairness to others.
And, as shown at 2:30, virtually everyone there discussing things rationally and trying to solve the problem is liberal.
It seems that only one side is trying in good faith to make a better world.
What am I missing?
You're an idiut. So why have so many Left wing societies failed so miserably? Why has Right Wing America done so well? (You losers on the Left can have the French Revolution). And yes, the United States was founded on Right Wing principles. 10th Amendment. Individual Liberties. Limited Government. Separation of Powers. Federalism and enumerated powers.
What do we find on the Left? Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, etc.
Real life experience.
@@AbsentMinded619 you must be surrounded by deplorables then.. Or are one yourself. "Real life" is created by people making decisions, not some preordained hate fest.
You're missing 50% of the puzzle, that's what you're missing.
@@bc4315 Please fill me in then, bud.
Maybe there's another variable called strength/weakness. It makes a lot of sense and people judged according to honor and strength as well.
Only Jonathan Haidt would get so excited about platitudes.
I'm sick and tired of only the left-right political division. Not all people can be sorted into two boxes.
Well anything more is lunacy
This TED Talk highlights something about TED Talks generally that has always bugged me a bit. Mind you, so far as it goes, it's all very interesting. A psychologist discusses the moral roots of both conservatism and liberalism, and posits that each can serve as an important counterbalance to the other. It makes for a nice, neat, attractive package that one can use to sound knowledgeable about the problems we face as a society. And I don't disagree with it -- IN THEORY. But what the talk does not address is the problem we actually face, which is hoiw to find such a 'balance' when the forces that purport to represent liberalism are not actually all that liberal, and the forces that purport to represent conservatism have devolved into an irresponsible radicalism. This is the thing, I now realize, that has bugged me about many of the TED Talks I've heard: so many of them seem to want to present similarly attractive, neat little packages, but in so doing fall prey to a kind of reductionist over-simplification of the issues about which they purport to offer insight or solutions.
I would tend to agree. Indeed I'm working on a study that will hopefully pick apart the neat package and make it messy again.
In the meantime, I'd highly recommend you check out Bob Altemeyer 'The Authoritarians'.
This guys spoke at "Beyond Belief". It was really good as well. The talk is on the web.
"..It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones."
-Carl E. Sagan
I really enjoy the Kumbaya comments here, but seriously if we all can’t agree that firebombing our own cities, for any reason, is a bad thing, we really have nothing to talk about.
I think his talk proved that law & order are essential to a quality society or civilization. Right now we see the violent protesters and looters and rioters walking free, meanwhile the far less violent people of J6 are still rotting in prison two years later. They should've never entered the Capitol, and true Patriots should've done all they could to stop them from entering. There is plenty of video footage of real Patriots blocking the entrances that day. It's a shame how that went down. But yeah, what we see from city violence and skyrocketing crime because now everyone is afraid to do or say anything, to include the police, and all this smash and grab stuff, and attacks on "whites" and Asians. Western Civilization is allowing outsiders to collapse us from within.
I have a question from all you experts out there, but first let me explain, please read. All of my moral feelings are liberal as far as gay marriage, me being agnostic meaning I do not believe in god, see smoking weed as a choice, and very creative, so on and so on. However, I hate large government, high taxes, and I am big on authority, own a successful business, am for large military, want to dominate the world type of personality. I vote conservative, but morally i am liberal... is there a name for this?
Danny P You're something like a Libertarian, or what some call a "classical liberal." Not exactly either. From what you say, why on Earth would you want to stick yourself in a pigeon hole?
Jeffiekins Im trying to find a label to identify with so that I can simplify my search for who I should vote for with as little research on them as possible. Also, its just interesting. "Classical Liberal" is interesting for sure. Its just that when I think the word liberal, I think far left wing liberal because seems like that's all we have in congress lately. Anyways, thanks.
Jim Fallin I understand what you mean when you say you cannot be against economic freedom and yet still be free. Keep in mind, politically, my education is near nil, so I speak in layman's terms. I think that I I'm more libertarian because I am smart enough to understand that economic freedom drives human advancement though the natural human need to always want more "Greed". It drives me, and I'm smart enough to be competitive and successful in a free economic world. I think that this is why America has so many inventions. Planes, computers, cars, cloning, electricity, central air, microwaves, TV, phones, smart phones.... on and on and on. Its a free setting that lets the natural greed of humans drive everything, especially human advancement.
Anything else would be stagnant... I am about to turn 40 now, so my eyes are open wider to whats going on in the world, and am a little scared that economic freedom is slowly fading away. How can you, or we help others understand? Education can only go so far, its having the ability to understand that education that limits others from seeing what we see. Anyways, thanks brother.
The name I'd give that is "intelligent", or rather, free thinking. Consignment to one of two political directions on a one dimensional spectrum is useless. Those thinking for themselves rather than letting partisan politics think for them will often find they don't fit snuggly into either camp. Unless if course one's entire thought process is driven by the party.
Danny P I would agree, you share the same beliefs I do overall, you basically approval of personal liberty i.e. people should have the freedom to choose what they want yet you are conservative when it comes to the role of government in our lives. This is most definitely libertarian, most notable politician of our time if Ron Paul. I however do not always vote libertarian, and I am a registered NPA - No Party Affiliation. The only unfortunate thing about this is no voting in primaries :( but i kind of refuse to identify with a party as I really believe the two party system is a failure. I would absolutely say our founding fathers were the greatest libertarians of all!
I've seen plenty of people completely ignore evidence of their errors because they can not stand mentally or emotionally to be wrong. No more so than in the world of politics.
This really needs to be put into public school curriculums (for students and teachers too).
I mean, I'm here as a result of a college professor assigning it as homework. Baby steps.
I find it bemusing reading threw the comments, with all the ad hominem fallacies that are tossed about in an attempt to berate or belittle the speaker of this 19+ minute video which used research to state; all be it not in layman's terms, "everyone needs to be more tolerant" is getting flamed.
Goes to show just because a person was exposed to something does not mean they learned anything from it or in a colloquialism "You can lead a horse to water . . . ".
Broch Tyr haha how long did it take you to write this in order to sound smart? You use big words paired with horrible punctuation that gives you away. Lol not that I am any better.