Leave a Response

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

100 thoughts on “Jonathan Haidt: How common threats can make common (political) ground”

  • Quick, everyone, make up a completely false quote from the video in mockery of something in the first two minutes!
    Seriously, expand your attention-span and realize that it's just a reference to another speech. His argument at that point has already been established to have two more parts to it, beyond the talk he already started to discuss. Deciding to simply be impatient and not fully hear someone out is where 99% of all political problems in the U.S. come from.

  • I can tell you watched the whole video, unlike most. 😛
    One of the biggest problems that we have in the U.S. is how people take on the mentality of parenting others, deciding what is best for others. If people could accept that individuals know what's best for their own self, then we can definitely make strides to working together.
    It's like what Christopher Hitchens said on Holocaust denial being outlawed; listen to extreme opinions and correct people to help them, don't be an ass, essentially.

  • Hi John,
    Whatever counter-arguments you may have, now's the time to make them; a *video* response would be even more efficacious at getting your point(s) across.
    Always bear in mind though, when it comes to *naïvety*, Matt 7:3 speaks volumes.

    Καληνύχτα και καλή τύχη.

    (& of course *Ευτυχισμένο το Νέο Έτος!*)
    Percy.
    ^_^

  • 今日は ミズカィ-さん,
    If I understand Wilhelm Reich correctly, " In its pure form, fascism is the sum total of all irrational reactions… &c. &c.", then fascism crops up pretty much anywhere where there's a economically deprived under class looking for a leader OR someone to blame, regardless of the prevailing religion.

    ご幸運を祈ります!
    Always,
    Percy.
    🙂

  • Religion is not a problem. The problem is dogma. It does not matter if that's religious fundamentalism or the rigid "communism" as seen in the USSR.

    One Southpark episode put it very nicely: "let's get rid of all the -isms"!

  • Japan and Germany were not allowed to have a military for a while after the 2nd World War.
    So… why could it not be possible in the long run?

  • The asshole in me wants to say "come to Germany, Hitler fixed *that* for us".

    Seriously, though… this is interesting. I was going to ask you for sources, but Google helped me out.
    BUT: what has that to do with Jews being racist or not? I dont get the connection.

    Also: this is interesting. Where groups of immigrants tend to drift, career-wise.

  • this is an interesting presentation, but i think it ignores one glaring possibility. the republicans really are wrong about almost everything. demonstrably wrong. and thus people should dislike and distrust the republicans. it is not just hysteria. one of the parties is wrong, and demented.

  • I agree the republicans are largely wrong, but the problem is what they are doing right to make people think they are right. You are certainly not going to win anybody over by telling them they are demented.

  • this is something called being right-justly right where you think that you are right by will of god, your party, or other group. this is the main cause of the polerisation that this talk was about.

  • military spending in the US for 2012 is being estimated at between 1.030 trillion dollars and 1.416 trillion dollars, i don't know if this includes the 70 billion obama pledged to israel just before the end of last year…the point is, we could spend half as much, probably even less, and feed, clothe, educate, provide shelter, and provide health care for every human on the planet…this guy forgets that the studies he references are by establishment groups…

  • You are right, it is a big issue in the US when it comes to how media, the population and politics feed of each other. That said I think changes to the political system could lessen the need for the sensationalism and therefore moving back towards a more down to earth media.

  • because he is so full of it. He's completely full of it, & has no clue whats going on or he is lying to us through his teeth. I thought the talk was going to be about something else guessing by the title. All propaganda & lies. i hope everyone listening to this realizes that just about everything he said is either completely wrong, entirely misleading, & distorted.

  • true i phrased my argument poorly. the speaker however equates the two sides as equivalent, which is simply preposterous. it is a trick fox news uses, climate scientst on one side, climate denier on the other.

    the obstruction of the right is not equivalent to whatever obstruction he percieves on the left. there are still moderate democrats, there are no moderate republicans left.

    normally the ted channel is very good, so i was surprised that this talk had such a glaring flaw.

  • The arguments made in this video are incredibly simplistic and questionable at times. Poverty is caused be falling marriage? People critical of state global warming programmes only do so because they're ignoring what is going on? Narrow, simplistic arguments that only an academic could dream up. Try actually asking the person in the street.

  • Wtf? Your just sticking to your own blunder. You DIDN'T have enough context to say what you said, you DON'T know what you're talking about, and your animosity towards me is probably fueled by a misled assessment of my political stance. FYI, his original comment to the video was simply "Gross oversimplifications." I wasn't even disagreeing with him. I was just calling him out for being dismissive, smug and useless. Much like yourself.

  • I see Haidt as a rebellious liberal who sympathize with conservatives. However, there is no way he thinks the left and right position are equal in terms of evidentiary support. He simply ask us to understand the other side psychologically, and appriecate the fact that the other side may not be so different from us in terms of intention and motivation. It is the only way to cooperation.
    Check out this interview, I believe it will be worth your time /watch?v=jHc-yMcfAY4&feature=share

  • When he was talking about how we got to building cities from being hunter gatherers, I wanted him to say, "The explanation is.. aliens."

  • How about we make our circle of "magnetic togetherness" humanity instead of arbitrary religions and rhetorical politics? That is the binding morality that we need that will not blind us from ourselves.

  • I'd like to know if a lot of the divorce/non-marital problems are associated with the mindset that you have to be in the upper class to be happy in this country. I wouldn't doubt it. But I wouldn't blame lower class individuals for striving for greater opportunities in a higher class, and providing more stable environment for kids to grow up in. Though, the fact that you have more opportunities in a higher class is an innate problem in this country that creates the wealth complex of success.

  • YES! He forgot a very important asteroid, the rising birth rate! This is more of a problem raised by liberals though because it is not focused on the country, it is focused on humanity. Though it is contributing largely to global warming, and obviously the marriage problem; which is really more of an education/opportunity/values problem.

  • History that you are a part of, and history that has the capability of destroying your future. But go ahead and say it's boring, just like school, who needs it?

  • We should raise the minimum wage to reduce the income inequality?
    It boggles the mind that a brilliant psychologist can be this economically illiterate.

  • How can you just assume that non-marital relationships are unstable? There are people who live together, have kids, and a stable relationship without getting married… You need to take that into account. His graphs seem pseudoscientific and oversimplified.

  • if you want to be (ok 99,98%) sure that the woman you are having sex with does not get pregnant…wear a fucking condom! In all other situations except for nutering yourself you will have the moral obligation to take care of the child if she gets pregnant, even if she was a total bitch that lied about using birthcontrol…because even that hasn't got a 100% succes rate (the birthcontrol…).

  • It seems a stretch to assume that "non-marital births" are caused by two people having sex who are not married. Other possible causes: a) inadequate birth control, b) religious beliefs, c) insufficient income to afford marriage and cohabitation, d) rape or unwise sexual partner selection combined with inadequate birth control.
    Rising non-marital births is an economic problem: if society could easily absorb this cost, we wouldn't be talking about it.

  • I really liked the dick-gun analogy and (being a self-described intellectual from a good household) would be morally okay with sanctions on reproduction (China had laws regarding education for more than 1 child and it doesn't seemed to have f*ed them over yet). The problem would be in getting it passed and implementation. While owning a gun is an voluntary option, having 1/2 the population born with a dick isn't something we can get around.

  • 'I'm struggling to find value in this presentation. The first point that comes to mind is "Never believe statistics you didn't fake yourself." He starts by connecting increased governmt spending due to wars fought; OK. Then he ignores the two most expensive wars ever fought by the USA, Afganistan and Iraq (both at the same time!) and ignores the bank crisis which affected millions but he focuses in on social costs like medicare. I don't get his arguenent. He should view this issue more globally.

  • I was wondering the same issue, It really bugged me he just completely forgets about that considering the military industrial complex makes up a large portion of US Debt

  • If it is true that almost all American politicians are horrible, then we must assign the blame to none other than the American people, since America is a democracy. The American government is filled with people who were lawyers, bankers, or business owners before they were politicians. And for much of the 20th century, 60% of congressmen were from these 3 professions! Now that number is down to about 40%, but that is still high! If your government sucks, stop electing people from those jobs!

  • What is going to happen is a LOT of us are going to die. The world of tomorrow is the Uganda and DRC of today… If we are here at all.

  • You make some great points. I will concede that Britain is just as greedy as the US. But France, for example, was a very vocal in expressing their opposition of the Iraq war. Almost all western countries did not support the US invasion of Vietnam. What exactly is France doing in West Africa? Algeria was granted independence from France 50 years ago. In any case, international companies often exploit foreign labor, but not without the permission of those countries' governments.

  • great talk, lets get it together people, bringing politicians together is more important than any of these other "asteroids" because it's the only solution that includes all other solutions!

  • So great to watch Jon Haidt highlight "Climate Change" and "Boomer Medicare" as two massively dangerous asteroids. Michael Dowd does the same in a 2-minute video clip of his 2013 sermon delivered in Colorado. Find it on YouTube under this title: "Michael Dowd challenges baby boomers to leave a great legacy re climate change & death"

  • I think if we really want to reduce polarization in congress, then (in addition to John's other suggestions) we get rid of our first past the post voting system and replace it with something that would promote independent parties by removing the spoiler effect. People tend to vote strategically, rather than based on their views and conscience, and that naturally devolves towards a dichotomy wherein it's more economical to simply mudsling and debase your opponent than it is develop real solutions

  • Medicare is cheaper and more affordable than not having it. Unless you want to get rid of old people then stfu

  • According Dr. Haidt’s data, fiscal conservatives concerned with paying the federal debt and Social Security Insurance policy holders, will vote Democratic. Federal debt increased under Reagan and Bush I, declined under Clinton, then turned upward during Bush II (also see Ungar – Forbes 5/24/12; Ackerman – Forbes 7/20/04). Data show a similar trend for income inequality. Why do Republicans believe otherwise? Who benefits by working with people whose delusions only serve the 1%?

  • alright got it to the point until he blames non married couples for rising inequality
    i mean just wtf??
    stating that only married couples kids will make good money is totally wrong and probably heavily influenced by some weird religious education

  • He doesn't blame non-married couples for rising inequality, he merely points out that an instable home environment is a major contributing factor.

    He certainly did not say that "only" married couples kids will make good money.

    He is a liberal atheist.

  • so the man has absolutely no say while the baby is a fetus but immediately owes 33% of his gross income when the baby is born?
    sounds like reproductive rights for some, not all…

  • i dont want to put words in your mouth, so please clarify for me.
    you believe women should have reproductive rights but men shouldnt?

    "Don't want babies, don't have unprotected sex."
    does that apply only to men, or to women as well?

  • ok, so to be ultra clear on this.
    with the exception of rape,etc. you oppose abortion. so no reproductive rights for anyone?
    .

  • I like Haidt, but he's clearly not a climatologist. The whole global warming scare is complete propaganda. Nobody is denying the Earth's temperature has increased ever so slightly. But the projections for the next 20-30 years are completely invalid.

  • If as male one would become pregnant it would be more obviosu that sex and ready for pregnancy isnt the same. It is so easy to push it all on the women.

  • I don''t think it's based on a concern for either men or women. Planned Parenthood gets over $400 per abortion that a woman agrees to. The ABA makes a great deal of money off the present system of divorce, and the US welfare system profits handsomely from the present methods of promoting single motherhood. Having lots of families without fathers makes training children in the public schools to be good Leftist voters that much easier. The people behind all this have been made filthy rich for it.

  • What is he asking? Is he wondering why the taxpayers fighting the asteroids ought to band together with the Leftists who keep creating the asteroids? How do you "cooperate" with a faction that wants everyone else to just shut up and pay them to run everything for their own benefit?

  • Abortions cost over $400 each. When RU-486 came out, it threatened this lucrative cash cow – now a woman could just go to the pharmacy and buy a cheap abortion pill. Planned Parenthood fought against it, and only stopped when a law was passed demanding a doctor oversee the use of the pill (for a $400 fee).

    Abortion is profitable. If you're in the business of selling abortions, you want to promote the use of abortion as much as possible. Maybe fight to have them federally funded and on-demand.

  • There's an even more "equitable" system that has already evolved. Young girls get pregnant as a career choice, go on welfare and use the government aid for their children to pay their rent, their food bill, and to otherwise support their lifestyle. Men fertilize the women, otherwise avoid holding down legal jobs (where their income can be garnished for child support) and instead supplement their personal funds through drug trafficking, robbery and other crimes. That's where we are now.

  • Old people who can afford to keep working so they can buy their own health insurance, because Medicare pays for only the most minimal care. In fact, Medicare is essentially disposing of old people in a socially acceptable manner who can't afford anything better. So STFU.

  • I've looked at most of the observations on here but I feel it's a excellent youtube video. My older brother simply would like to get extraordinary with women of all ages. He studied a fuck load from a site called Master Attraction. (Google it.) The recommendations for how to get women at night clubs from Master Attraction got him his first fucks in more than a number of long years. I'm pissed though given that I heard them all. Grrrr.

  • Intelligent man. Help, help, help. Or as Alex suggested – quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack ……  That's what the mother duck did when her chicks fell down the drain …. and it worked. Someone came and rescued them for her. Quack, quack, quack everyone.

  • The red state/blue state concept is oversimplified. If you look at voting by county (see: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/2012-election-county-by-county/), you will see a very strong trend of rural = red & urban = blue – a much more telling pattern. For example, there are many "red" states where the two or three largest cities are hosted by blue counties.

  • Is there anybody out there who thinks that we should have mix market capitalism with a popular tax scheme? Then just socialize the markets that are inefficient economically but provide basic human necessities (healthcare, contrition workers, military, etc). I just think the essence of of western democracy are what's important.

    First, group selection is not substantiated. He's being untruthful and irresponsible.

    Second, he's making strong normative claims on morality, economics, and politics.

  • It's the men's fault? That's complete bullshit. Corrupt family courts and welfare to single moms keep men from seeing their children.

  • If anything the Citizens United ruling decreased polarization because Democrats and Republicans are incentivized to appeal to the same wealthy donors and interest groups. If we had campaign finance reform that empowered the individual, we'd have even more polarization because the majority of small donors are middle income hyper-partisans. We'd have a bunch of Ted Cruz's and Bernie Sanders's in congress.

  • I wish the republicans would acknowledge climate change! I hate the idea of the government addressing this issue. The free market could do a much better job if it was given the proper incentive. That is the realm of republicans. Stop the government spending on fossil fuel projects and give tax breaks to the companies promoting green energy. That will reduce government spending, encourage growth in new sectors that don't have to compete with countries like Saudi Arabia, and help the environment.

    On the other hand, healthcare should be handled by both the government and private sectors. The best model I have seen is Hong Kong. There are government funded public hospitals and also privately funded hospitals. If you can't afford healthcare then you can go to the public hospital free of charge. If you can afford healthcare and want the best of the best, you have the option of private hospitals. Hong Kong spends about 3% of it's GDP on public healthcare and another 3% on the private hospitals, the US currently spends about 18% on it's "free market" solution.

  • That’s exactly why there’s so much focus on “White Supremacy”. It allows the left to coalesce disparate and ordinarily competing political interests (e.g. feminism and Muslim fundamentalists) into an alliance