Jonathan Haidt

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jonathan Haidt

Post by brimstoneSalad »

I don't think it's off topic.
Volenta wrote: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.
I see, here: https://youtu.be/K92rOsjyLBs?t=847

I think he's saying he doesn't call himself a liberal anymore due to confusion, but still considers himself a liberal in the traditional sense of personal liberty. From the context of his other mentions of politics, it seems like he strongly disagrees with conservative illiberal social values.

Sounds a lot like a vegan who won't call his or herself a vegan because he or she doesn't want to be associated with how the word is being hijacked by pseudoscience, as a diet fad, or by extremists who break the law, commit arson, etc.

Sort of like Harris said he would 'check all of the boxes' except when it comes to the issues around Islamism and dealing with the Middle East.

It looks like he's drawing a distinction between the illiberal left and the liberal left.
Since Haidt says he's always voted Democrat, and doesn't see that changing this time either, it's very hard to regard him as a centrist.
His main criticism of Clinton is her supporting the idea of a rape culture on campuses and that she may tighten down restrictions on speech: his dislike for Trump seems to be a lot broader than that despite nominal agreement on the points about political correctness.

I don't think he's quite a socialist, so he's not on the far left like Sanders (he has serious problems with communism and the extreme left).
I can't really see the justification to the claim to centrism, though.
Volenta wrote:He's liberal on many issues, yes, but it would be cherry picking to therefore conclude he's a liberal.
I think it's more of looking at the balance of his views. Placing somebody on a two dimensional political spectrum is of course more useful than any binary and muddled term like "liberal".

Is he socially liberal? It seems very much so: he's close to a libertarian to the extent he wants personal freedom, and particularly freedom of speech and belief. He doesn't seem to agree with any socially conservative or illiberal ideas.
Is he fiscally liberal? Yes, but maybe not as much so. He has a positive regard for capitalism and competition, but he does believe in fiscal regulation, and he does believe in graduated tax structures and social programs. He may be closer to centrist in that respect now, but the way he talks about education and social policies sounds very liberal.
Volenta wrote: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).
I really think he was appealing to the utility of compromise, and the dangers of extremism (as seen in the illiberal left, as he calls it, as opposed to the liberal left) when we lock out opposing ideas. He thinks we need friendly opposition in order to keep ourselves in check: that liberals need conservatives to keep from running off the rails.

In no way is he actually advocating socially conservative beliefs like banning abortion or gay marriage, or war mongering, or being 'tough on crime'.
At least, that was my interpretation,
Volenta wrote:What does 'respect' imply, if not at least thinking they are of importance.
You can respect something without agreeing with it. You can see that the existence of the idea and opposition argument has value.
Like criminal defense for a guilty defendant.
Volenta wrote: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?
I don't think that's what he wants. He believes that if there's more understanding and respect, that the right ideas will ultimately win because it will be possible for the conservatives to come around on these issues and understand why they are wrong.
Volenta wrote: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).
I don't see the contradiction here. He doesn't seem to believe that conservative values are valuable in and of themselves, but that some of them, in moderation, have good outcomes and that we need to examine their utility from an evolutionary perspective so we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There may be some value in some of them, one of his examples being some cases of group identity which improve connection without creating more hate for outsiders. He's not assuming conservatives are correct in the way or degree they express these values, but they have evolutionary links to people's behavior and that they can be understood and used to better ends.
Volenta wrote: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.
I think he believes liberals are the ones more capable of the work -- which is done in understanding.
In order for conservatives to come to understand liberals, they'd have to understand why their values are not valuable, which he sees as a near impossibility based on his research.

It seems to be easier to empathize with a value another person has that you don't agree with than to imagine a value you have is not valuable.
Volenta wrote:I'm less interested in his personal political views as I am in his professional work, which have ethical and political implications.
Sure, but if you attribute some degree of his work to his political views, you may be misunderstanding his argument (or I may be).
Volenta wrote: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).
I think when we look at, for example, the dismissal of Harris' argument that torture would be preferable to human collateral damage by using personal attacks and slandering him rather than addressing the argument, that probably qualifies.

I don't always agree with him, but few people are more misunderstood or personally attacked rather than having their arguments addressed.
Volenta wrote: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.
I think a problem with a large swath of the social "sciences" is that they are anti-scientific. Some of these fields, and as they are practiced, are comparable only to theology in the academics, and I think there is an objective metric by which we can decide that they have no real value and in the very least should not be publicly funded or encouraged (these should not be permitted at public universities any more than a class advocating a particular religion would be). Some of these classes and departments should be treated no differently from a department of radical Islamism, or a department of conspiracy theories.

Banning these things -- if they can pass an objective test of having no scientific merit -- would be good. The only question would be the institution doing the banning and its susceptibility to corruption and bias: for me, that's the unanswerable one right now.
Some ideas are just bad, epistemologically, but it's very difficult to police bad ideas without risking the good ones too, or eliminating disagreement (I don't think rationalism is as impossible as Haidt does, since the hard [real] sciences work very well without any significant contingent of complete lunatics, but it's not easy).
Volenta wrote: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.
I think he was just speaking to liberals because he doesn't think conservatives can do much in terms of understanding, so it came off very one-sided against liberals and made him look conservative or regressive on some points -- I don't think he actually is.
Volenta wrote: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.
I agree, and I think there's a good argument that he may have over-corrected on some points and became skeptical of his own views and preferences.
But is he really just advocating compromise, or is he advocating a battle of ideas with a greater degree of mutual understanding so there can be more movement on these issues?
Not all things that look like compromise mean not getting what one wants; sometime compromising is in effect a slight change in opinion. The modern hate of "flip flopping" is a strong force against being reasonable today.
User avatar
Volenta
Master in Training
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 5:13 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jonathan Haidt

Post by Volenta »

It kind of becomes your word against mine, so I won't try to rebut the main disagreement about compromise. Don't think it can get really productive unless quoting some of his work. I haven't read his book -- all I've discussed so far is based on what I've read about him from Joshua Greene which discusses Haidt's position in quite some length in his book. I don't think he is misrepresenting him, considering their work and views are for the large part similar and don't have any reason to misrepresent. But I'll pick up The Righteous Mind sometime, and read his views firsthand (don't expect a response very soon though, I've a big reading list).
brimstoneSalad wrote:I see, here: https://youtu.be/K92rOsjyLBs?t=847

I think he's saying he doesn't call himself a liberal anymore due to confusion, but still considers himself a liberal in the traditional sense of personal liberty. From the context of his other mentions of politics, it seems like he strongly disagrees with conservative illiberal social values.

Sounds a lot like a vegan who won't call his or herself a vegan because he or she doesn't want to be associated with how the word is being hijacked by pseudoscience, as a diet fad, or by extremists who break the law, commit arson, etc.

Sort of like Harris said he would 'check all of the boxes' except when it comes to the issues around Islamism and dealing with the Middle East.

It looks like he's drawing a distinction between the illiberal left and the liberal left.
Since Haidt says he's always voted Democrat, and doesn't see that changing this time either, it's very hard to regard him as a centrist.
His main criticism of Clinton is her supporting the idea of a rape culture on campuses and that she may tighten down restrictions on speech: his dislike for Trump seems to be a lot broader than that despite nominal agreement on the points about political correctness.

I don't think he's quite a socialist, so he's not on the far left like Sanders (he has serious problems with communism and the extreme left).
I can't really see the justification to the claim to centrism, though.
I think we still don't know much of his personal political view. This leaves the door open for more conservative views on other topics/issues. He calls himself a centrist (which I think is consistent with at least with one important one of his professional views), so I'm going to take his word for it.

I think it's also important to notice that U.S. politics as a whole is pretty right-wing by international standards. You're call Sanders far left, but is actually just left or I think even center left by international standards. Haidt is going to vote for Clinton (not being charmed by Sanders), which is a centrist, even somewhat right, by international standards. So the fact that he votes Democrates doesn't contradict the claim that he's a centrist.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I think when we look at, for example, the dismissal of Harris' argument that torture would be preferable to human collateral damage by using personal attacks and slandering him rather than addressing the argument, that probably qualifies.
Personal attacks are of course highly inappropriate, which I'm not going to defend here. But I highly doubt we are dealing with regressive leftism here. I think this situations you're describing are happening because the way torture is being (mis)used in practice, and given the real life situations we have to deal with, which would lead some liberals to think he's defending these wrongs. This would be a misunderstanding, not regressive leftism. Harris himself has said that it is more of a theoretical exercise, rather than delivering a pleading for strong torture-policy. Some people might still disagree with the hypothetical scenario's in which torture is used in a utilitarian manner -- although the numbers would vastly shrink -- in which case we're also not dealing with regressive leftism, but rather with deontological viewpoints.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't always agree with him, but few people are more misunderstood or personally attacked rather than having their arguments addressed.
Well, I can kind of see the causal relation here. I don't think these misunderstandings are coming from nowhere. For example this fact that he only later clarifies that his arguments on torture is more of a philosophical/theoretical exercise, while his original piece on torture is kind of provocative and controversial. Someone like Greenwald are well aware of his actual positions, but rather object to the fact that he writes more provocative with just enough ambiguity to leave open the possibility of later clarifying his position is actually moderate. Harris is possibly not doing this intentional though; I'm ignorant about that.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I think a problem with a large swath of the social "sciences" is that they are anti-scientific. Some of these fields, and as they are practiced, are comparable only to theology in the academics, and I think there is an objective metric by which we can decide that they have no real value and in the very least should not be publicly funded or encouraged (these should not be permitted at public universities any more than a class advocating a particular religion would be). Some of these classes and departments should be treated no differently from a department of radical Islamism, or a department of conspiracy theories.

Banning these things -- if they can pass an objective test of having no scientific merit -- would be good. The only question would be the institution doing the banning and its susceptibility to corruption and bias: for me, that's the unanswerable one right now.
Some ideas are just bad, epistemologically, but it's very difficult to police bad ideas without risking the good ones too, or eliminating disagreement (I don't think rationalism is as impossible as Haidt does, since the hard [real] sciences work very well without any significant contingent of complete lunatics, but it's not easy).
Some views, even though being anti-scientific, should certainly be teached. For example (parts of) Freud, Jung, Marx, etc. This has both historical and inspirational importance as well as just expanding your frame of reference. These are not things you want students to miss out on. I do have sympathy for not teaching real bad ideas (at least not without context), but I really doubt extreme cases of bad science are actually being taught as truth in universities. In practice universities are continually improving their teaching materials, and give appropriate context and interpretation to the material. Lack of diversity of opposing views can -- and actually sometimes is -- also be problematic. This way students get a real one-sided picture, and discourages critical (comparative) analysis.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jonathan Haidt

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Volenta wrote:It kind of becomes your word against mine,
I think it's more interpretation. We're also coming from very different metrics of political framework: what is left to one person may be right to another.
Volenta wrote:I think we still don't know much of his personal political view. This leaves the door open for more conservative views on other topics/issues.
Sure, this is a problem too; it seems like he's very reluctant to discuss his personal politics.
Volenta wrote:I think it's also important to notice that U.S. politics as a whole is pretty right-wing by international standards. You're call Sanders far left, but is actually just left or I think even center left by international standards. Haidt is going to vote for Clinton (not being charmed by Sanders), which is a centrist, even somewhat right, by international standards. So the fact that he votes Democrates doesn't contradict the claim that he's a centrist.
So center to you is left to me.

I see Clinton as left in the context of U.S. politics. Based on her voting record, it has been argued that she's more liberal than Obama; I can't really say what kind of president she'll be, although her campaign seems to be trying to appeal to those in the center.
And yet, I think it's pretty clear that Haidt is more socially liberal than she is on a number of issues (from freedom of speech, to gay rights). Economically, I'm not sure. He has only really talked much about his social beliefs (like supporting gay rights).

I think if we could agree on what center was, we'd probably agree where these politicians and thinkers fall on the spectrum.

The trouble seems to be that it's very difficult to objectively define right/left in any coherent way, but I don't think claiming to be a centrist makes somebody a centrist (or that the simple left right dichotomy is necessarily meaningful, and that center can be evaluated clearly in that context without separating out social and economic dimensions).
Volenta wrote:He calls himself a centrist (which I think is consistent with at least with one important one of his professional views), so I'm going to take his word for it.
I think he has begun doing so to distance himself from the partisan illiberal left he criticizes.
Volenta wrote:I think this situations you're describing are happening because the way torture is being (mis)used in practice, and given the real life situations we have to deal with, which would lead some liberals to think he's defending these wrongs.
Didn't he pretty clearly contextualize it in terms of a cost/benefit analysis? If somebody defends that harm on moral grounds of benefit elsewhere, the appropriate response is to engage in that argument, and address the claim: not accuse somebody of being a racist or a conservative and not address the argument.

I assume you saw his interview on the Rubin report?

There seem to be a number of topics he's been criticized on -- but it has almost all been personal attacks of his character, saying "that's wrong because it's racist" (when it isn't) rather than addressing the content.
I understand the criticism of Harris' position, but it has not been framed in a rational way from what I've seen.
Volenta wrote:in which case we're also not dealing with regressive leftism, but rather with deontological viewpoints.
I don't think there's a distinction. The regressive left is deontological. "Racist" therefore wrong. The victim is sacred, and can not be questioned.
Volenta wrote:Someone like Greenwald are well aware of his actual positions, but rather object to the fact that he writes more provocative with just enough ambiguity to leave open the possibility of later clarifying his position is actually moderate. Harris is possibly not doing this intentional though; I'm ignorant about that.
I don't know much about what Greenwald knows or has said, but assuming things about Harris' motivations and using personal attacks instead of addressing the arguments themselves is a problem.
Have there been cases of legitimately addressing the arguments Harris is making on philosophical grounds?
Volenta wrote:Some views, even though being anti-scientific, should certainly be teached. For example (parts of) Freud, Jung, Marx, etc. This has both historical and inspirational importance as well as just expanding your frame of reference. These are not things you want students to miss out on.
I agree they can be taught historically or critically, demonstrating their epistemological shortcomings and consequences. But that's apparently not what's happening in classes like Feminist theory, or intersectionalism, which are teaching these things as thought processes for people to use.
Volenta wrote:I do have sympathy for not teaching real bad ideas (at least not without context), but I really doubt extreme cases of bad science are actually being taught as truth in universities.
It's more that non-science is being taught. These are ideologies, not science.

While I haven't been IN the classes themselves, I've seen some of the content which demonstrates it is being taught, heard some of the professors (and personally been in a visiting lecture in university from one of these people), and most of all seen the students coming out of it -- it seems undeniable based on what I've seen coming out of it that these ideas are being taught as truth.
The critics are citing these things accurately in my experience.
Straight from the horse's mouth, I've heard the dogma that, "Black people can't be racist because racism is a system of power, and blacks don't have power". In a university, in person, in context -- there was no confusing the message being delivered (I even argued with the lecturer, clarifying the point).

It could be claimed, as the animal agriculture industry does, that all of these samples are rare outliers in an otherwise reasonable/humane system. I don't believe it, though.
Volenta wrote:In practice universities are continually improving their teaching materials, and give appropriate context and interpretation to the material.
That's an ideal, but it's not what I've seen.
Volenta wrote:Lack of diversity of opposing views can -- and actually sometimes is -- also be problematic. This way students get a real one-sided picture, and discourages critical (comparative) analysis.
I think this is Haidt's main point. People haven't really been able to criticize these ideas in academics due to the hostility against critics. People are shamed and silenced with insults, rather than having their ideas and arguments addressed.
Post Reply