From what I've seen of him so far, he sounds like a great liberal voice against the regressive left (glad we don't have to rely completely on the right to call this stuff out)
Haidt and Sam Harris:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K92rOsjyLBs
A presentation on two hypothetical universities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj5QmZPzvlQ
Here's the project he talks about in that Video: http://heterodoxacademy.org/
This panel is chilling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEV3ifJovaI
Really long lecture (only indirectly related to regressive leftism, dealing with views of morality):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u-ahvx3pkc
I recommend watching the whole thing, including questions (which were well edited)
Here he takes on the New Atheists, and dogmatic rationalism (in short, the idea that people typically can/will be able to be rational and that this results in the correct view of things):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI1wQswRVaU
I'll post back with more (will probably edit) later.
Anybody else followed him?
Jonathan Haidt
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
- miniboes
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:52 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Jonathan Haidt
I watched a couple of his TED talks and listened to the podcast episode you linked. He's indeed an interesting voice, and not only where he's criticizing the regressive left.
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
- David Frum
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Jonathan Haidt
Can you link to some of your favorites? I'm binge watching now.miniboes wrote:I watched a couple of his TED talks and listened to the podcast episode you linked. He's indeed an interesting voice, and not only where he's criticizing the regressive left.
So glad to find another coherent liberal on this issue IN academics, and IN the social sciences. His guy has his stuff down on treatment of PTSD etc. It's all about exposure. There's nothing more harmful than "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings".
- Mr. Purple
- Full Member
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:03 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Jonathan Haidt
I spent a ton of time on yourmorals.org a few years ago after watching alot of Jonathan Haidt. I got my family and friends to all take the tests on there as well. That kind of stuff is fascinating to me.
As far as moral reputation goes. This is why I wish there was a more robust system in place for "gamifying" life more. Badges for donating to charity, or recycling, or going vegan, or whatever else it may be. I don't know how this could be done in a way that wouldn't require big brother watching your every move though. People don't like boasting, and it's even a religious virtue to not boast, but if the government forced it, maybe it would let that boosting off the hook, and we could see the corresponding moral gains.
I'm on board with the concept of parochial altruism as a way of generating a stronger moral response from people, but only as long as there is a way to channel that to the wider society. I don't really care that almost every mormon gives 10%+ of their income to the church. That may be very giving, but I don't see making the mormon church more rich as a good thing. There needs to be a way to trigger that local impulse, but have it affect everyone.
It's very unfortunate that channeling your instincts by focusing on the elephant's path and reputation are SO much more effective than the methods most people actually see as moral such as changing your negative instincts or controlling your instincts through reason.Really long lecture (only indirectly related to regressive leftism, dealing with views of morality):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u-ahvx3pkc
I recommend watching the whole thing, including questions (which were well edited)
As far as moral reputation goes. This is why I wish there was a more robust system in place for "gamifying" life more. Badges for donating to charity, or recycling, or going vegan, or whatever else it may be. I don't know how this could be done in a way that wouldn't require big brother watching your every move though. People don't like boasting, and it's even a religious virtue to not boast, but if the government forced it, maybe it would let that boosting off the hook, and we could see the corresponding moral gains.
I'm on board with the concept of parochial altruism as a way of generating a stronger moral response from people, but only as long as there is a way to channel that to the wider society. I don't really care that almost every mormon gives 10%+ of their income to the church. That may be very giving, but I don't see making the mormon church more rich as a good thing. There needs to be a way to trigger that local impulse, but have it affect everyone.
That poor viviana girl is out of her league here. Her views look so childish when put next to someone who knows what he is talking about. Maybe that's the editing though.This panel is chilling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEV3ifJovaI
- Volenta
- Master in Training
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 5:13 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Jonathan Haidt
Except he isn't really a liberal. He's more of a centrist who has talked in one of his book (I believe it's called the righteous mind) about the division between liberalism and conservatism. Starting out as a liberal himself before writing his book, he talked (and now believes) in the book about how conservative people have actually better moral compasses because they're more perceiving of different types of emotions (liberals don't tend to put less value in things like honor and family values). This might actually be correct from the data (indeed, I also think this is correct), but he goes beyond that by stating that liberals really should be understanding of these conservative values and be more compromising. Joshua Greene in his book Moral Tribes (reading tip by the way if you like Haidt!) rightly points out that it would be a mistake to conclude that from the data, because in reality these values conservatives value more highly aren't necessarily ethically interesting.brimstoneSalad wrote:From what I've seen of him so far, he sounds like a great liberal voice against the regressive left (glad we don't have to rely completely on the right to call this stuff out)
And since you also caught up using the snarl word; in the same manner I would like to point out that the position of Haidt (and don't understand me wrong, I actually really like his work on moral psychology) is 'regressive'. But yeah, I think the word only supposed to be used against those who are on the left focusing their attention on the 'wrong' things.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Jonathan Haidt
I agree, I think he goes a bit too far in congratulating conservatives on such shallow metrics of giving, when in terms of global consequences they do a lot more harm. This may come from his particular brand of "relativism".Mr. Purple wrote: I'm on board with the concept of parochial altruism as a way of generating a stronger moral response from people, but only as long as there is a way to channel that to the wider society. I don't really care that almost every mormon gives 10%+ of their income to the church. That may be very giving, but I don't see making the mormon church more rich as a good thing. There needs to be a way to trigger that local impulse, but have it affect everyone.
His criticisms of New Atheism are rather weak (see the video on dogmatic rationalism, if you haven't read those), since again he is using very shallow metrics. Using the same words and certainty language doesn't mean they're wrong like Coulter, which I don't think he's claiming, but he's suggesting parallels in psychology that aren't really clear from those points alone (I think Atheists understand their opponents' positions better, and are probably challenged a lot more: there's no danger in such challenges other than improving arguments, particularly on the validity of religion, since they're right). Something more telling would be how well a person can argue for the opposition, and how accurately the opposition's points can be outlined.
His point about adversarial ideas enhancing critical thinking is a good one, but this can certainly exist within a more rationalist framework too.
I don't think it's the editing, they seem to have captured her arguments pretty much in full (at least, what she said seemed to encompass what I've heard from the horse's mouth).Mr. Purple wrote: That poor viviana girl is out of her league here. Her views look so childish when put next to someone who knows what he is talking about. Maybe that's the editing though.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Jonathan Haidt
I don't think that's fair, rather a no true Scotsman. He votes democrat, he believes in a progressive tax structure, he espouses liberal social values. He seems pretty solidly blue. He said his research made him respect some conservative arguments more, but I don't think it made him so much a centrist.Volenta wrote: Except he isn't really a liberal.
I don't think he's saying they're morally better -- I don't think he's as much of a "relativist" as he thinks he is -- but that they may more accurately reflect where society is right now.Volenta wrote: Starting out as a liberal himself before writing his book, he talked (and now believes) in the book about how conservative people have actually better moral compasses because they're more perceiving of different types of emotions (liberals don't tend to put less value in things like honor and family values). This might actually be correct from the data (indeed, I also think this is correct), but he goes beyond that by stating that liberals really should be understanding of these conservative values and be more compromising.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u-ahvx3pkc (linked in the first post)
In this talk, it seems like he fundamentally agrees with the goals of the institution, and he's advocating some compromise and consideration of those values for the sake of efficacy, and saying they may have some place in terms of consequentialism as long as they're not overdone (he always seems to appeal to the harm or benefit of those values). In that sense, I think he's a rule consequentialist (he talks about virtue ethics, which is basically rule consequentialism when you justify the virtues and their comparative weights like that).
I think he's giving conservatives too much credit for ineffective altruism, but that comes back to his theory on focusing locally being more effective in the long-run. I think he's putting a lot of faith in the ripple effect of virtue ethics, but it's interesting to hear a well articulated defense of certain conservative values (particularly where he talks about group identity being capable of adding value without subtracting by creating more hostility; the example he gave was academic sports).
I agree. I'm not sure he's really concluding that, though: at least not in that way.Volenta wrote:Joshua Greene in his book Moral Tribes (reading tip by the way if you like Haidt!) rightly points out that it would be a mistake to conclude that from the data, because in reality these values conservatives value more highly aren't necessarily ethically interesting.
How do you think he's regressive? That didn't come across to me in his social and political views. He wants more progressive tax structures and good social programs, from what I've seen (although he's only talked a little about his personal politics in what I watched).Volenta wrote: And since you also caught up using the snarl word; in the same manner I would like to point out that the position of Haidt (and don't understand me wrong, I actually really like his work on moral psychology) is 'regressive'.
He had some very choice words for objectivists and people who worship capitalism; he definitely doesn't want an unregulated market.
I think it's fair to use it in any way it fits, although this is my main concern. Academics is heading in a very intellectually chilling direction. I went to school a bit too long ago to have really seen much of that, but looking at all of the censorship of speech, the trigger warnings, impositions on professors, safe spaces; it's not psychologically healthy or conducive to an environment that's supposed to challenge students. I typically learn more in debates with opposition than I do on my own (and I have probably spent more time reading things I disagree with than most, but reading only goes so far).Volenta wrote:But yeah, I think the word only supposed to be used against those who are on the left focusing their attention on the 'wrong' things.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Jonathan Haidt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN42ZLwNFBYVolenta wrote: Except he isn't really a liberal. He's more of a centrist who has talked in one of his book (I believe it's called the righteous mind) about the division between liberalism and conservatism.
Here's a pretty good interview following the book. He talks about how because he was writing the book for a liberal audience, he was too generous to conservatives and too hard on liberals, but he should have been harder on the conservative view of Karma too (how conservatives sometimes assume karma is true and that people who are suffering always did something to deserve it), and more even handed with his criticism and praise.
The main message he seems to drive home is dialogue and understanding; that people need to be socially engaged too, so that on an emotional level they can't just reject each other's ideas as coming from bad or dishonest people. To stop the hard line partisanism and demonization of the other.
He seems to be saying he went from a liberal partisan to just being liberal, and non-partisan, although he's pretty vague about what his own views are. I think the key to his changing mindset was losing the partisan thought process and being more considerate of other views.
- miniboes
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:52 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Jonathan Haidt
If you've been binging you've probably seen them; they were the top results. I don't recall the titles.brimstoneSalad wrote:Can you link to some of your favorites? I'm binge watching now.miniboes wrote:I watched a couple of his TED talks and listened to the podcast episode you linked. He's indeed an interesting voice, and not only where he's criticizing the regressive left.
So glad to find another coherent liberal on this issue IN academics, and IN the social sciences. His guy has his stuff down on treatment of PTSD etc. It's all about exposure. There's nothing more harmful than "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings".
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
- David Frum
- Volenta
- Master in Training
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 5:13 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Jonathan Haidt
Why? Just correcting what his position is. Wasn't using it as an argument against his positions in the video. I do agree with him on the safe spaces-thing in the first video (haven't watched the others).brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't think that's fair, rather a no true Scotsman.
He's liberal on many issues, yes, but it would be cherry picking to therefore conclude he's a liberal. I don't think it's unreasonable to say he's a centrist when advocating liberals have impoverished moral sensibilities, and should therefore compromise with conservatists (who have a stronger sense of them). Maybe this was off topic, but because of the topic title and the amount of videos you posted, I thought it was about all of the man himself.brimstoneSalad wrote:He votes democrat, he believes in a progressive tax structure, he espouses liberal social values.
What does 'respect' imply, if not at least thinking they are of importance. If it were merely more understanding (which he definitely should, doing the job he does), it wouldn't have changed his own position. I'm all for understanding, but it's about what you do with this understanding.brimstoneSalad wrote:He seems pretty solidly blue. He said his research made him respect some conservative arguments more, but I don't think it made him so much a centrist.
But don't take my word for it, watch the first video you linked, he himself is stating he's a centrist. He also states that the word 'liberal' has got another meaning in U.S. than what it traditionally meant (and Europe still holds by the way). I used the word 'liberal' in this discussion in the U.S. way (meaning 'left'), although I'm fully aware of the hijack and use 'liberal' in my own (European) country in the traditional way.
He's definitely not a real conservative, no, and not an unreasonable person either. I think he's just wrong on this point, which is a regressive position to hold. Just think about what it would imply: accepting more abortion restrictions, holding down on environmental regulations, is that really what we want?brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't think he's saying they're morally better -- I don't think he's as much of a "relativist" as he thinks he is -- but that they may more accurately reflect where society is right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u-ahvx3pkc (linked in the first post)
In this talk, it seems like he fundamentally agrees with the goals of the institution, and he's advocating some compromise and consideration of those values for the sake of efficacy, and saying they may have some place in terms of consequentialism as long as they're not overdone (he always seems to appeal to the harm or benefit of those values). In that sense, I think he's a rule consequentialist (he talks about virtue ethics, which is basically rule consequentialism when you justify the virtues and their comparative weights like that).
He is still an regular utilitarian by the way. He's quite contradictory in that sense. On the one hand he argues that the liberals and utilitarians have bad moral taste by having such limited values, which he thinks originates from the enlightenment period, especially from the autistic (which without doubt had effect on his philosophy) philosopher Jeremy Bentham. But then to the question 'what should we do?', he concludes that he has no better alternative than utilitarianism (given that there is ethnic and cultural diversity in society and we have to have some common currency).
Not sure what you mean by 'that way', but if you think I wasn't nuanced: that's true. He also thinks conservatists should understand and compromise to liberals. But the point is, that he thinks liberals are the ones who really have work to do because of their moral insensitivities. I don't think it's unfair to focus on this aspect more, since he's mostly talking about this as well.brimstoneSalad wrote:I'm not sure he's really concluding that, though: at least not in that way.
I think I've repeated it enough by now to get a understanding why I think he's position is regressive.brimstoneSalad wrote:How do you think he's regressive? That didn't come across to me in his social and political views.
I'm less interested in his personal political views as I am in his professional work, which have ethical and political implications.brimstoneSalad wrote:He wants more progressive tax structures and good social programs, from what I've seen (although he's only talked a little about his personal politics in what I watched).
I think most right-wingers don't really want that either, but that's going off topic too much.brimstoneSalad wrote:He had some very choice words for objectivists and people who worship capitalism; he definitely doesn't want an unregulated market.
If it were only used in places where it fits, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem I have with it is that it has become right from the start a rethorical tool that even conservatives now use to either legitimize actual right-wing policies, or to dismiss some legitimate types (also illegitimate sometimes, I'm not delusional about that) of left-wing viewpoints. I think Sam Harris is guilty of this (his fan base even more) as well. The original usage of Maajid Nawaz to describe people dismissing minority views within minorities was appropriate (although I haven't actually come across people from the left actually holding this believe).brimstoneSalad wrote:I think it's fair to use it in any way it fits, although this is my main concern.
I think these are legitimate concerns to have (weird things going on in the U.S.). But to balance the view a bit since it's a popular one these days, I also think some popular YouTubers are going too far in their criticism by attacking social science at large and wanting universities to ban (read: censor) certain studies they don't like.brimstoneSalad wrote:Academics is heading in a very intellectually chilling direction. I went to school a bit too long ago to have really seen much of that, but looking at all of the censorship of speech, the trigger warnings, impositions on professors, safe spaces; it's not psychologically healthy or conducive to an environment that's supposed to challenge students. I typically learn more in debates with opposition than I do on my own (and I have probably spent more time reading things I disagree with than most, but reading only goes so far).
I hadn't yet seen his reflections on the book, thanks. It's good that he realizes this was valid criticism against his book. I still disagree with his normative ethical view, but it's great he's aware of this point.brimstoneSalad wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN42ZLwNFBY
Here's a pretty good interview following the book. He talks about how because he was writing the book for a liberal audience, he was too generous to conservatives and too hard on liberals, but he should have been harder on the conservative view of Karma too (how conservatives sometimes assume karma is true and that people who are suffering always did something to deserve it), and more even handed with his criticism and praise.
I'm all for constructive discussions and understanding. It's the compromising aspect I don't agree with (I believe he doesn't state this in this interview though). Middle ground isn't always (many of not most times not) the best option.brimstoneSalad wrote:The main message he seems to drive home is dialogue and understanding; that people need to be socially engaged too, so that on an emotional level they can't just reject each other's ideas as coming from bad or dishonest people. To stop the hard line partisanism and demonization of the other.
He seems to be saying he went from a liberal partisan to just being liberal, and non-partisan, although he's pretty vague about what his own views are. I think the key to his changing mindset was losing the partisan thought process and being more considerate of other views.