Jonathan Haidt: The Three Terrible Ideas Weakening Gen Z and Damaging Universities and Democracies (www.youtube.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Tedesche@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If you skip the introduction and don't watch the Q&A afterwards, the presentation is just under an hour. A very good watch, IMO. Interested in what people think.

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 8 points 1 year ago

Eh, first of all I'm not American so I have very little insight into the day to day on American campus. But I am from a "woke" nation in the form of Sweden.

The three "untruths", god damn I hate when authors write like that, are:

The Untruth of Fragility: "What doesn't kill you makes you weaker."

The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: "Always trust your feelings."

The Untruth of Us vs. Them: "Life is a battle between good people and evil people."

And they're just so basic and completely miss the point in the case of number two. In fact I'd argue the issue now a days is that we disregard feelings too much. Not from a reasoning standpoint but from the standpoint of what is "true" to me, personal morals etc. People try so hard to reason their way out of situations you need to emotion your way out of. Like relationship troubles.

For "Us vs Them" all I can garner from what they write is that they think we should listen to bigots because there might be merit in their reasoning. And that standpoint is about the most insidious shit there is. While I agree that silent treatment ignoring sentiments like that isn't very good or effective, it's even worse to engage in proper debate when one side doesn't argue in good faith. Don't wrestle pigs and all that. The best way is to kill the debate the instant intolerable shit is spewed and explain that those viewpoints are unacceptable and intolerable. We can't tolerate intolerance to death. All it ever will do is make it seem acceptable when it isn't.

That leaves us with the fragility untruth. And here I see at least some merit. The extreme levels of fear in society in general (when we're by most metrics safer than ever) spewed on by media and news in all forms is making parents safeguard their kids from life. Ultimately leading to kids missing out of a ton of self-exploration and learning from mistakes. We're also far to harsh on kids doing and saying dumb shit, while being to tolerant of adults. When kids say racist shit they need to be taught that isn't OK and why. When adults to it they need to be told in no uncertain terms that their behavior is unacceptable and they're not welcome until they change. Today we see far to often people writing of kids as unfixable when they're 13 like they themselves weren't shit stains at that age.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

And they’re just so basic and completely miss the point in the case of number two. In fact I’d argue the issue now a days is that we disregard feelings too much. Not from a reasoning standpoint but from the standpoint of what is “true” to me, personal morals etc. People try so hard to reason their way out of situations you need to emotion your way out of. Like relationship troubles.

As a mental health provider, I have to seriously disagree with you here. Emotions and thoughts are inextricably linked, but there is no way to "emotion" your way through a problem. Emotions are like data about yourself, or at least yourself in that moment, but people frequently misinterpret them to be data about the external world. They can corrupt your reasoning, but they also motivate us and serve as the gatekeepers to our decision-making processes. I had a girlfriend in college who essentially operated on the mantra "I feel hurt; ergo, you hurt me." That's just plain toxic and a perfect example of why relying on emotions to tell you about reality is a bad idea. There is no "my truth," there's just "the truth," and your feelings don't have much to do with it at all.

For “Us vs Them” all I can garner from what they write is that they think we should listen to bigots because there might be merit in their reasoning.

No, that's not what Haidt was saying, and I actually think you just proved his point by categorizing everyone who sees things differently than you as a "bigot." If you've ever seriously engaged with someone from the other side of the political aisle from you, and you aren't being a closed-minded bigot yourself, you should be able to see that most people from your opposition aren't cartoonish, two-dimensional villains, but human beings just as complex and intelligent as you who have reasons for thinking what they do. Furthermore, the process should illuminate for you the fact that you have your own biases and flaws, to the point where trying to sort out who is right and who is wrong becomes dizzyingly complex at times. The point is: 99% of the time, it's not as black-and-white as "virtuous progressive" vs. "insidious bigot."

That leaves us with the fragility untruth. And here I see at least some merit. The extreme levels of fear in society in general (when we’re by most metrics safer than ever) spewed on by media and news in all forms is making parents safeguard their kids from life. Ultimately leading to kids missing out of a ton of self-exploration and learning from mistakes.

Yes, but when you dismiss the other two points like you did, I'm not sure you really grasp how this is intimately connected to them. You see how we should allow children to explore and learn from their mistakes on, say, a playground that isn't 100% foam-padded, but not how we should also expose them to ideological disagreements, and teach them that their feelings don't inherently justify anything--just because they feel a certain way about something doesn't mean reality corresponds.

Did you watch the talk or just read the summary that was posted? If you didn't watch the video, I'd really recommend you do. Haidt illustrates how these concepts interact and goes into a lot more detail than that summary does justice to.

[-] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

categorizing everyone who sees things differently than you as a "bigot." If you've ever seriously engaged with someone from the other side of the political aisle from you, and you aren't being a closed-minded bigot yourself, you should be able to see that most people from your opposition aren't cartoonish, two-dimensional villains...

During, and prior to the American civil war the people in favor of slavery were bigoted. During segregation the people abusing and mistreating people of color, were bigoted. During the civil rights movement, those against it were bigoted. During the gay marriage "debates", those who were against equality were, by definition bigoted.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Some years back, I had a client who was referred for treatment after he was arrested for spray-painting a swastika in the elevator of his building. In my first few sessions with him, I asked him why he did it, and he explained that he simply wanted the Black people in his building to be afraid like he was of them. He further explained that while he was Puerto Rican, he was viewed as White because of his skin tone and features, and because of that he was relentlessly bullied by Black people, both in his building and at school, on racial grounds. He explained he was simply incredibly angry at the abuse he was receiving and wanted to make his abusers feel the same way he did.

Was that 17-year-old boy bigoted?

I put it to you that if you think you can simplify entire populations of people into a single, stereotypical, "evil" group without even trying to empathize with why they behave the way they do, you are no less of a bigot than you perceive them to be. Don't talk to me about tolerance when you demonstrate none towards your enemy. There are true bigots in this world and they deserve no sympathy, but they are less than 1% of the population, and if you think otherwise you have some serious reflection to do.

[-] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Words have meaning, like it out not. I'll stand behind what I've already said about bigots and not fall into your what-aboutisms.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

LOL, all you had to begin with were whataboutisms.

[-] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm just stating facts, I'm not telling you how to feel about the facts. Bigots are bigots unless or until they change, I don't understand why you're so offended by the word. It has a meaning and is being used properly. You just don't like it, oh well.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

No, you're not stating facts, buddy, you're expressing opinions. Whenever you call someone a bigot, you're expressing an opinion, because labeling someone a bigot is always a value judgment. Someone, somewhere will always disagree with you. You and I would probably agree most of the time in our value judgments of who are/aren't bigots, actually--but that's not the issue here. The issue here is that I'm trying to point out that most of the time, there's more nuance to be had in dealing with people whose opinions differ from ours, and thus more to be gained from conversing with them and treating them with a modicum of respect, which is what Jonathan Haidt's point is. You and others in this thread are getting butthurt over the idea that those you regard as bigots might--just might--have some legitimacy to their views, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. But dismissing other people's perspectives completely and labeling them "bigots" simply because you disagree with them is the essence of bigotry.

I have treated real bigots, real racists, real monsters. What I'm trying to tell you is these people are still human, and in that fact lies the revelation that no matter what our opinions of them are, there's something to be learned about them and why they see the world the way they do. Something of real value, which is lost when you simply label them a "bigot" and shut off your capacity for empathy.

[-] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago

You're attributing all kinds of words and intent to what I'm saying. I'm saying basic, simple things. You are reading more into it than what I'm saying. I never said these people are irredeemable, however I'm not going to mince words regarding bigots, racists and monsters just because they could one day change their position.

My position is that you can't be tolerant with hate, it just encourages them. You seem very angry.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

LOL, I'm not angry, dude, and I don't know what I've said thus far that suggests that to you. I'm incredulous. I don't see any value in what you're saying. You claim to be saying "basic, simple things" about other people, but there's literally nothing basic or simple about human beings. I'm not saying you should try to empathize with Nick Fuentes because he might be redeemable (I don't think he is, quite frankly); I'm saying that learning how he became the bigot he is will inform you about something valuable, something real in his opinions that--while he might take it too far--is a valid fucking point. Xenophobes who don't tolerate any form of immigration are almost always motivated to that extreme point of view by an experience that reflects a real, respectable perspective, such as the fact that allowing people with customs and values radically different from ours into our living spaces will inevitably lead to strife and conflict. What we do in response to that or whether we allow it in the first place is a worthy debate to have, but just labeling them "racists" and refusing to consider their perspectives is an act of bigotry itself.

[-] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago

I don't think people should have to subject themselves to that sort toxic interaction just because there may be an actual fucking point somewhere in their hate filled rambling.

I do, however think we should talk about real issues that effect us all, like the cross cultural friction that often comes about due to immigration. We can raise these issues without giving voice to racists.

In the end, I believe the solution will be the acceptance of other's ways, going both directions (existing and migrant).

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

That's very sweet, but I'm willing to bet you couldn't tell the difference between a full-on Nick Fuentes fanatic and someone who simply votes Republican because they empathize with Nick Fuentes' point. The fact that you claimed to be saying something "basic and simple" about people you label bigots tells me that. The fact that you don't think people should have to "subject themselves to that sort [of] toxic interaction" when we're simply talking about honest dialogue demonstrates a level of pessimism about human interaction so great that I could easily sympathize with people who label you toxic. If you're trying to advocate for discussion of complex issues like immigration, but refuse to negotiate with people who you label "bigoted," simply because they make racist arguments, you will inevitably fail. What I'm trying to get across to you is that those you label "the enemy" are in fact people with valuable perspectives, but I'm not saying those people should be catered to, which I think is what you're thinking I'm saying. One can empathize with a monster without becoming said monster themselves, but in order to do so, you have to see past the monster and see the damaged human being inside and recognize that said human being has a valid, reasonable motivation for becoming said monster. But this notion that people shouldn't have to subject themselves to the "toxic" interaction of dealing with monsters? Welcome to fucking reality, my friend. It's not pretty. And if you think people shouldn't have to deal with the ugly parts of existence, you might as well check out from reality itself, yourself. Part of Haidt's point is that dealing with these objectionable aspects of reality is what cultivates not just resilience in us, but complex character; and that is inherently valuable and good for not just society, but you as a person.

[-] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago

You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said "enemy", that's all you. I didn't say the world is pretty, fair or right. I said slavers are bigots, and you got all upset. I don't think you disagree with me at all.

Seriously, don't put words in my mouth, it's rude. Notice how I have not made assumptions about your position, and am merely stating my view. You keep ASSUMING that my words mean something other than what I'm saying. Stop it. Address the actual words I'm using, bigots are bigots even if they have a point. You said "monster", which is a judgement where as "bigot" is a way of identifying people who hold a prejudice world-view which makes them and their "group" superior to another. That's it. No other words.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You're getting hung up on my specific words and failing to respond to my points. Bigots are not "bigots," "that's it. no other words." LOL. Spoken like a true bigot. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're railing against, and I'm not debating your definition of the word "bigot" here, simply pointing out you're a hypocrite by your own definition.

But this conversation has clearly reached the limit of its utility, at least for me. Ta-ta.

[-] 7112@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Here's a summary

https://www.colgate.edu/news/stories/jonathan-haidt-speaks-three-bad-ideas-harming-generation-z

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you! That's very brief, but it does get the gist of it and covers the three main points. I still encourage people to watch or at least skim the whole presentation, but thanks for finding a TL/DW for the thread.

[-] 7112@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Agreed.

Thanks for posting it.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/watch?v=B5IGyHNvr7E

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023

0 points (50.0% liked)

politics

19241 readers

1679 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News