Jonathan Haidt: The Three Terrible Ideas Weakening Gen Z and Damaging Universities and Democracies
Jonathan Haidt: The Three Terrible Ideas Weakening Gen Z and Damaging Universities and Democracies
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL, all you had to begin with were whataboutisms.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).