This guy is a fucking legend

@llewodcm20

6 жыл бұрын

jasper2500 it'd be packed if he was speaking in Polish

my goodness isn't this guy a breath of fresh air.

@StrefaPsycheUniwersytetuSWPS

5 жыл бұрын

Happy to hear that :)

The director of such a video should ensure that the viewgraph the talker is gesturing towards should always be visible. The best way to do this is to employ a split screen. Anyhow there were times in this presentation that I literally did not know what the speaker was talking about.

@ThePatrvq

7 жыл бұрын

agree ... .

@chuchaichu

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThePatrvq Typical copyright problem, most online lectures don't show the graphs and pictures, because you need a special license for it.

The questions posed by the lady @55:00 are actually very good. Polarisation in politics is frequent in two-party states, and the incentive to change such systems is very small. I'm speaking of the UK in particular, and whichever party wins power through FPTP won't let go of it.

I think Hume was descriptive and Plato was prescriptive at around 18:40 - 19:15. Plato was very much aware that most people were subject to their instincts and emotions. Those people were the sophist.

Very good lecture, thanks for posting. Haidt is a very clear and thoughtful speaker.

@StrefaPsycheUniwersytetuSWPS

6 жыл бұрын

Happy to hear that :) You are welcome to visit our blog: english.swps.pl/psyche-space you will find more interesting materials there :)

Mądrze prawi, dobry wykład ;p

Great Analysis 5 years post 2016 U.S Elections. Thank you very much.

@StrefaPsycheUniwersytetuSWPS

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for your kind words :)

First question is a statement of disagreement and shows that people don't want to change their minds.

Bardzo aktualny i mądry wykład. Świetnie zdiagnozowane w 2014 problemy, które z siłą tsunami uderzyły w naszą ojczyznę. Czy ciało ma być placem zabaw czy świętością? Może być nawet areną cyrkową (już bywa), ale nie za pieniądze podatników.

@StrefaPsycheUniwersytetuSWPS

3 жыл бұрын

Cieszymy się, że wykład przypadł Ci do gustu! 😊

heh, time passes and the ukranian guy @1:05:00 approx was spot on ... small world

Many of us have gotten to the point of not liking either party :D NICE

1:04:40 "this is your brain on politics" *egg sizzles on frying pan* This is very true of Americans, at thie Nijmegen March in Netherlands people from many countries came together, and I noticed a few conversations about politics in which Americans were made to look utterly dumb by just a few articulate political observations by Europeans.

Worth watching

@StrefaPsycheUniwersytetuSWPS

5 жыл бұрын

Many thanks! :)

I like how Jon opened with the family history. Mine was similar, a city in modern Poland, Lithuanian ethnicity, German speaking "language island" as they called it in the day, the city owed by Prussia for a while and then the Austrian Habsburgs... are we German? Polish? Lithuanian? Russian-Jewish? Russian-Lithuanians? Lithuanian-Polish-German-Austrians? Or just American Presbyterians? Okay, back to the morality of economics...

Is there somewhere I can find that selection of graphs?

@samealcee

8 жыл бұрын

+Elizabeth Hobson their websites are yourmorals.org and moralfoundations.org Hope that helps.

@elizabethhobson7939

8 жыл бұрын

Thanks. I'll have a look...

What does it mean for debating climate change?

1:00:00 "That's why nothing gets done." This is actually wrong. The Federal govt in the US passes laws all the time, even with divided congress/senate/president. Gridlock would be an improvement!

@MH-be6hr

Жыл бұрын

You're obviously a conservative or conservative libertarian!

When cameraman has no clue about the content, he will never shift the visuals or ppt slides when required.

The first speaker in the Q&A sounds kind of like Werner Herzog.

Haidt suggests the recent increase in the animosity between the two sides in US politics is a result of the passing from politics of the older ww2 generation, that that conflict acted to unit that generation in spirit, a spirit they carried forward through their lives. Here's another theory: As with many countries the US unites in the face of serious external threat, with the demise of the USSR the US no longer faces such a threat - the Islamists not really being an adequate threat substitute for the USSR, (though Saddam filled the role for a few years. The problem of political hyper-partisan isn't limited to the leadership but rather runs through the entire US population demographic. I agree with Dr. Haidt that this enduring problem in America is a result of the system of governance with the primaries system which is lends itself to creating a political divide. So the solution to the US division is either a different system of governance, perhaps some form of proportional representation, or another major external threat. Throughout its history the U.S. Has Been At War 222 Out of 239 Years.

@718junius

5 жыл бұрын

@B A in the last hundred years, which one of the united states 's enemies would you have wanted to live in their society, kaiser's germany, nazi germany, militarist japan, soviet union, saddam hussien 's iraq, islamist iran, taliban afghanistan, any of the communist, or fascist, or islamist countries. in the cold war, just as with wwII if a government allied, or ideologically associated with our totalitarian enemies; you are damn straight we are going to work with opposition in that country to get rid of that govt. also name me one human civilization, that didn't have what we consider human right violations; from slavery to brutal conquest.

@Fernando-ox5mo

4 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately that "external threat game" is getting increasingly dangerous to play now that atomic bombs are on the scene. Look at Trump´s efforts to demonize Iran and bring it to war (not that the Iranian regime is blameless of course, but under Obama they had come to a pretty workable agreement).

@chickenfishhybrid44

2 жыл бұрын

That last line about war sounds significant but look at places like the UK and alot of Europe... until somewhat recently they were constantly at war as well.

Americans are individualistic, and if the political belief is attached to the individual, like they define such as 'i am x' then if one criticize the political belief, you criticize the individual.

We’ll buy food with compassion!

Generally can't see the screen. Very frustrating!

@StrefaPsycheUniwersytetuSWPS

5 жыл бұрын

It's an old recording; since then we have changed the way we edit our videos :)

I really like what professor Heidt has to say but I think he should update his talk and substitute what Rush Limbaugh said for what an opposing politician said. Two reasons, Rush isn't a politician, thus not equivalent, but more importantly, I'm pretty sure Rush said that President Obama's policies are so radical that he hope he fails at getting them implemented (shortened to hoping he fails). That is very different than simply wishing for failure.

@michaelritchie9875

3 жыл бұрын

His first example (of the normal partisan) was John Wayne who also wasn't a politician. If you substitute a politician in place of Rush, you'd have to do the same with John Wayne.

@MH-be6hr

Жыл бұрын

Not really. Limbaugh wanted both!

Jonathan would be an amazing presidential candidate. He's liberal but rational and understands why capitalism is so important, where most of the left demonize it.

@StrefaPsycheUniwersytetuSWPS

5 жыл бұрын

Too bad you weren't present during the lecture to tell him that :)

@DiaboloMootopia

5 жыл бұрын

That's not so. That is a conservative straw man.

@rohitrai6187

4 жыл бұрын

Yang Gang

@mothermahapp5338

3 жыл бұрын

He’s actually a independent now

@EnralicGaming

2 жыл бұрын

I think much of the left doesn't hate capitalism, and if they do, it's because it's part of the far-left university counter culture. I've been talking with a lot of my friends who I met in uni (therefore tending to the left) and it seems most of em don't actually want to tear down the establishment. It's just some utterances they have fun repeating. I think we'd find that most people actually aren't that far apart in most of the political sphere, it just seems so due to the increasing volume of the voices of leftist extremists and the unwillingness of the left to denounce that deconstructionist viewpoint. Again, just me projecting from my own experience, but as a traditional lefty, I dont think it's as bad as we all think it is. Just a bunch of kids (some dressed in the skin of adults) spewing propaganda. Boil up their views in a genuine conversation and most people I've talked to are actually quite rational and don't actually wanna destroy capitalism, just improve it. edit:: wow this comment is 3 years old, sorry about that lmaoo

Interesting talk. I'm a little surprised that he didn't mention some of the procedural factors in our polarization. For example, primary elections disadvantage centrist candidates -- if you ask Republicans, for example, who they want for their candidate, they are more likely to pick someone solidly in the Republican camp than someone who would be more palatable to Democrats. Another such procedural factor is that we don't have ranked choice voting, or some other voting system that would allow a third-party candidate to be elected. (Actually, a woman brought it up in Q&A.) If more parties were represented with significantly under 50% power each, then parties would cooperate as a matter of course. And of course the US's electoral college disenfranchises voters in non-swing states. I wonder how far we could get by just (not that it's easy) fixing the procedural problems. Unfortunately it is not in the interest of either party to move to ranked choice voting, and the electoral college is baked into the Constitution.

@Fernando-ox5mo

4 жыл бұрын

He did mention what you point to regarding primaries, but he did it in passing and very quickly towards the end of the talk.

@ribbonsofnight

3 жыл бұрын

It's funny that many other countries have electorates where your vote doesn't matter but in the USA those electorates form people's identity so they are very aware that their vote doesn't matter e.g. Californian people are well aware that it will be won by the Democrats for the foreseeable future where as in Australia our electorates are small enough that I think there are people who aren't aware which way their electorate voted last time and whether it's regarded as a safe seat for one party or not. For example I live in the electorate of Bennelong for federal elections and I think 60% of people in that electorate would fail to name the electorate they're in and even more would not be certain which party the candidate who represents us is from (and he's one of the few candidates who is famous outside of politics as a former top tennis player)

@chickenfishhybrid44

2 жыл бұрын

The electoral college is baked in for a good reason. It's so the coast don't rule the whole rest of the country. I am open to some potential changes.

@MH-be6hr

Жыл бұрын

As it has been for a while now, the conservative interior of America now "runs" our presidential politics! The primary system and Electoral College greatly favor far-right conservatives.

So if everyone believed demons were attacking them we could unite around Gordon Freeman?

BTW, these theories work better outside of the USA than within.

Look to football in the States for instructions of how to manipulate the tribal divide. When I grew up in the 80s teams/fans were EXTREMELY divided before Free Agency and Fantasy Football. Once people started to stop embodying their loyalty to a team, vs paying attention to the entire organization, then fans started to respect other teams, and players, as a result (imo). I sincerely wish there was data on this.

@SCHMALLZZZ

3 жыл бұрын

What kind of asshole cares about a team that isn't from the same city?

@SCHMALLZZZ

3 жыл бұрын

Oh yeah. Packer fans, move back to Wisconsin if you love the Packers so much....

@JH-ji6cj

3 жыл бұрын

@@SCHMALLZZZ what kind of asshole cares about a team he doesn't actually play for is a great question Mr Genius

This was presented at a time when the Left in America still hid its hatred for its own Country. The Greatest Generation was united in its love of Country. The Left grew like a cancer on the American politic with self-destructive loathing. That is why they cannot meet in the middle. There is no middle ground between those who love this Country and those who hate it. There is no ground between those who want it to succeed and those who want it to fail. There is no middle ground between those who consider it the greatest force for good in the history of mankind, and those it think it exists to oppress them because of their identity. This dichotomy wasn't a widening of a division. It was the departure of the American Left from mainstream, freedom-loving values into fascistic, totalitarian identity politics. There wasn't a widening of a divide between fellow travelers. The Left took the off-ramp from reality and reason. To study this fundamental difference in civic and moral values as "trends", psychological dynamics, and game theory completely disregards the anti-American, anti-constitutional dimension of the modern progressive Left. Additionally, the Left's tortured redefinition of language makes discussion of the Left's pseudo-values, like "caring and compassion", a comedic venture. This is so naive, which is what I would expect from anyone who has succeeded in modern academia. "We invented super-fandom . . . " Has this guy ever been to a British soccer match?

@karikling8812

2 жыл бұрын

We don't hate the country, we want to see it improve. Pointing out where it has failed in the past and continues to fail doesn't mean you want it to fail. Plus, our freedoms have *always* been restricted to some degree, and that's good. If you want unmitigated freedom, you have to be clear about what cost you expect others to pay for your unbridled freedom because it will always come at a cost to other people, not only yourself.

LEFT WING: X exists BECAUSE of Y, Therefore we must do maximum of Z.. RIGHT WING: X exists DESPITE Y, Therefore we must do a minimum of X..

Am finding this guy to be more helpful than Jordan Peterson

@StrefaPsycheUniwersytetuSWPS

6 жыл бұрын

glad to hear :)

@joebuslife9275

6 жыл бұрын

@paddy Diddles - I like his emphasis on not Demonizing. That's really the main critique I have of Peterson is how much he gets caught up in Left vs. Right stuff and paints people as evil too often. Not that Peterson is anywhere near as bad as most in this regard, but if he was on Jonathan Haidt's near Saint level status he would be unstoppable.

@lwilso20

5 жыл бұрын

Peterson paints ideas as evil, not specific people. It’s just the way he structures his sentences that can sometimes make it seem that way. Peterson would say that all people are inherently evil or have the potential for evil-ALL of them. Ideology is the catalyst. Bad ideas make people behave badly. Just clearing that up.

@DiaboloMootopia

5 жыл бұрын

Peterson knows a lot about Carl Jung and not much else.

@KingPancakez

5 жыл бұрын

They're both very helpful in their own ways.

Did not deal very much with economic questions.

so cute 💕 💞 💓 💗 💖

I was expecting a barrage of questions.

Why all the empty chairs?

@EuropeanQoheleth

8 жыл бұрын

Probably because of people not being able to speak English. Not saying the Poles are bad at learning English but Poland isn't part of the anglosphere.

"This is your brain on politics..." LOL

always legend. but jeeze this crowd, they look like they are not either understanding or listening, they dont know who he is even possibly, i dunno kinda weird

@Fernando-ox5mo

4 жыл бұрын

I think the questions were quite interesting and showed at least some of them were attentive and understanding. Like always, there may have been some younger students who were there without knowing why, but let´s hope even they got something out of it.

Has post-factual always here with us? Can not use facts/science to change views that are part of political identity.

@MH-be6hr

Жыл бұрын

It is possible, but the person has to be open to the possibility of changing their mind. Conservatives are very closed-minded. It's a cornerstone of their know-it-all belief system. 💔🇺🇸

His reasoning on why democrats and republicans are more antagonistic being because they are farther removed from the camaraderie World War 2 imposed doesn’t address the increasingly incompatible political directions the parties have gone in the modern period.

@ribbonsofnight

3 жыл бұрын

The thing that's really changed is that people get their news from very partisan sources, not just the news organisations but their social media bubbles. It could be argued that this is what is leading the parties to try to appear to be more different than ever because their far fewer votes to be gained in the centre. Of course what they do isn't very different.

Someone should advise Dr. Haidt that Ronald Reagan didn't drink alcohol.

@718junius

5 жыл бұрын

and beohner used to go golfing with obama while he loved bashing other republicans,

@JubilantCherry

5 жыл бұрын

@@718junius Yup, I noticed that mistake as well.

well done poland keep those borders shut!

e pluribus multum

I won't how much this has changed now that Trump is in office.

A lot to digest. Call me a cynic but I can see both left and right looking at this and wondering how they can use it to manipulate voters. It seems that it is impossible to reconcile such harsh divisions in one generation. I liked the guy in the audience that was skeptical. Most ideas on morality end up being wrong.

@EuropeanQoheleth

8 жыл бұрын

Given the state of discourse over politics and religion these days I'd almost say that a cynic is a realist.

@Naukkat

7 жыл бұрын

I guess you mean the first speaker from the audience. The guy identified himself as a post-modernist. He was skeptical about the concept of measurement. If post-modern thinking is not familiar, In a nutshell post-modernism states that there are no objective truths. For example, statement "Gravity affects mass." is false in post-modernism. In any case, graphs in social sciences can be seen in degrees of imperfectness. The amount of variables is so overwhelming that they are hard for people to identify and handle.

@abhimanyukarnawat7441

7 жыл бұрын

Jan Scott my gathered for progressives s greater than that for conservatives

No society could survive emancipation of its women women.

The fact that majority of listeners were women made me suspecting that nothing will be done. It's not that something is inherently wrong with women, but there is strong bias against manliness in psychology and social science. It's not uncommon in psychology to use words "he" or "abuser" and "she" or "victim" interchangeably. It make me think that it's new incarnation of old Virgin Mary cult with the perfectly good, innocent, suffering queen of haven which son and husband is perfectly obedient to her because she is so good. And Father is white old dude with power who judges without mercy. This could explain decline in catholic church. There aren't any duties in secular version but you can say that father is evil at loud. Polish culture is based on myth that being victim gives the right to behave bad towards others. I came to call it polish disease. It gives right to attack anybody you want if you feel in any way victimized, without taking any steps to check if somebody did something wrong. And we have huge wave in psychology of people who specializes in finding places where you were victimized and with all respect, mainly for female audience. So we have nation of survivers who are taking sticks and go to change world. It's seems that US was infected with this virus and i believe that it could be transferred from Poland.

I also think money in politics may be a reason for political deadlock in the United States...........I also wonder if the data he used take social class and inequality into consideration?

I like many of Jonathan Haidt's ideas; except some of his political assertions and explanations. Particularly of note in this KZread is his mention of Rush Limbaugh's comment re: President Obama - what Rush would like to say about Obama's administration's goals. Rush's response was "I hope he fails." Unfortunately Jonathan doesn't analyze political commentary of those with opposing political views of his, as fairly as he examines moral philosophy. Jonathan failed to mention that President Obama's presidential objectives were to radically "transform America." starting with socializing our health care system, and liberalizing our immigration system, i.e. altering our immigration law by executive order DACA. Let's continue to search for truth, and perhaps examine why one may wish an administration to fail in their objectives. Is being honest in response to media questions of any value in a peaceful, civil society, specifically when an administration's political policy is perceived to threaten one's liberty? Is any examination of the accuracy of the perceived threat performed before portraying it as radical right thinking? Do values matter anymore in political philosophy, or are all political objectives and administrations equally admirable?

@Fernando-ox5mo

4 жыл бұрын

So, he threatened you with health care for all. How conservative of you. Poor Rush, so misunderstood.

@philtrumcorp

4 жыл бұрын

You are the extreme that Mr. Haidt is talking about. Socializing health care is hard to argue against as "radical" when most western democracies and other successful advanced countries [South Korea, Japan, etc] have socialized health care which, while not perfect, is superior in many ways to American health care.

@holidaytrout5174

Жыл бұрын

Believe me Haidt is a lot more open minded. I think you're reading into it a bit much.

Whose divided Mr Jonathon Tossbottom we now have Thomas Piketty.

@abhimanyukarnawat7441

7 жыл бұрын

Gary Askwith Picketty lol

The constituencies are hyperpartisan but Republicans and Democrats are the same party. Their supposed animosity towards each other is basically professional wrestling

@MH-be6hr

Жыл бұрын

No, they're not the same party. You must be alt-right.

The premise here is, that the state is legitimate and democracy is a good thing. Both are false.

His understanding of current political realities is too simplistic , sorry a great talker but not much substance , you can not discuss societal issues without trying to understand power dynamics , role of history , foundational principle etc, I am not talking about his knowledge of psychology but he tries to apply that without anything else

@Fernando-ox5mo

4 жыл бұрын

He´s speaking as a psychologist, which is what he is. And he does mention those things you list: role of history and foundational principles, for example. But it´s a short talk. How would you expect him to delve deeper into those other factors in the time he has?

ann coulder is devilishly hot

"Everything from the govt was a lie" "No one respected the laws" damn Johnathan, you really lose me when you deal deal in absolute language that doesn't allow for nuance between sides, which seems like the whole purpose of your presentation.

@Iamwrongbut

3 жыл бұрын

You realize he was quoting what other people have told him when he said that right? That’s what the polish people told him about being under USSR rule.

"A parliamentary system is more flexible then our Constitutional system" (1 hour into the video he says this) WTF is this guy smoking? LOL

@StrefaPsycheUniwersytetuSWPS

5 жыл бұрын

You don't agree? :) Why?

@dexstewart2450

5 жыл бұрын

Parliamentary govt Is more flexible - but there's a trade off in lower stability

He's wrong about the causes. The biggest cause of the increasing political divide is... the Internet.

@StrefaPsycheUniwersytetuSWPS

5 жыл бұрын

Interesting - could you elaborate? :)

@jbyrd655

4 жыл бұрын

So are you. Though there're multiple causes, at least in the US (from which a lot of the world copy their 'morals' nowadays [due to the real god, 'easy' money]), the main one was/is the passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which, instead of opening up the communications industry to all, did exactly the reverse, consolidating all communications into the hands of a very few powerful multinational corporations and individuals, which/who are even more powerful now. What Haidt is saying is as relevant now as it was 10,000 years ago; human nature is subject to a large group of variously interrelating influences both environmental and genetic. The internet is a symptom, not a cause. A one-line solution to a lot of these self-inflicted problems, in the US at any rate, is this. A corporation is not (contrary to US law) an individual. A clue to the editors. As I'm sure others have noted, this production is almost unwatchable (though it's good to listen to when going to bed). Suggest to your cameraman; If the speaker is looking at his slides, the camera should be also, as it should be at any time the speaker is referencing them. Also, the only time a video audience 'needs" to see the crowd in an academic-style (or really any other) presentation is at the beginning or ending, or, in the case of a question and answer session, when a question is being posed...

@thaynedye1292

4 жыл бұрын

@@jbyrd655 How could the internet possibly be a symptom and not a cause? It's technology developed to link university libraries that got out of hand. The internet has changed our social environment dramatically, and that has changed a lot of the incentives and metrics for success. Some of the algorithms that feed these new social dynamics are literally designed to polarize people. To not list the internet as a cause is to miss both a massive driver of behavior and a massive tool for positive change.

@jbyrd655

4 жыл бұрын

@@thaynedye1292 That you don't even realize that your statement proves my point (which cannot be separated into single-sentence blurbs or taken out of context, at least not if one wants to understand it) illustrates its accuracy and validity. Suggest you re-read, or perhaps read, my statement, think about it, and then evaluate your definitions for these words from your post; 'social environment', 'incentives', 'metrics for success', 'social dynamics', 'polarize', 'driver', 'behavior', 'tool', and 'positive'. The characterization of the internet as a 'cause' in the context to which I was referring could only be even remotely accurate if preceded by the word 'proximate', and still, such a characterization is so tenuous so as to be non-existent.

@thaynedye1292

4 жыл бұрын

@@jbyrd655 With all due respect, nothing you’ve said appears to me to negate the claim "the internet is a causal driver of polarization". If anything your reference to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 seems to be reinforcing it by implying that telecommunications has a large impact. I’m not sure what your argument is, in fact. I don’t mean to be rude; I literally have no idea what your main point is. My comment was addressed specifically at your claim “The internet is a symptom [of polarization], not a cause”. If you are arguing something completely different, please elaborate.

Haidt's is fascinating, but you can see here he's a bit confused. It's not surprising that reality has a liberal bias, if you look at the the elements of moral reasoning that conservatives value more than liberals, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and Sanctity/degradation, these are the elements that are going to drive the 'blinding' part of morality. The the drive to divide and hate others springs from the elements conservatives value. It's 2016, Trump recently became the GOP candidate, it's not that surprising, the GOP is a pusher of despicable policies, based on lies and hate, like driving government into insolvency while giving ever more tax breaks the the already wealthiest, like destroying the education system, like all the misogyny and homophobia laws, etc. We are not rational critters, very true, but we're also not slaves to our genes. We can and do override our emotions when it's the intelligent, the right, thing to do, Haidt appears to imply we don't do this much, and shouldn't strive to more. It's highly rational to identify the US as an oppressive country, with a horrific history of mass slaughter. It isn't a sign you don't love your country to point out its failings, it's the opposite, to deny it has problems is to ensure you'll make no effort to improve it. I saw something somewhere indicating he's come to realize the conservatives in this country really are batshit crazy loons, and I say he needs to look at those elements of moral foundations to see why reality has a liberal bias.

@EuropeanQoheleth

8 жыл бұрын

"Bias" would imply that reality has a brain with which to be biased so not only is the phrase "Reality has a liberal bias" arrogant it's also stupid.

@mechtheist

8 жыл бұрын

Sioraf asNaCillini FFS, words are a bit more fluid than that now, aren't they? A modicum of intelligence should allow most to glean the meaning. An observation of fact, obvious fact actually, can't be arrogant or stupid.

@jsgdk

8 жыл бұрын

Its becoming a little stupid, Used to be spot on tho, today the old religious social-conservatism has pretty much died and most young conservatives are pretty liberal.

@BabylonianHebrew

8 жыл бұрын

+jsgdk or nationalist

@jsgdk

8 жыл бұрын

Babylonian Hebrew Nationalism is on the rise in the entire west, for obvious reasons. But the "alt-right" and white-nationalism is a small loud minority. You can be a pragmatic nationalist and a liberal or even a socialist.