Thanks for posting, that was very interesting

This is possibly the most insightful TED lectures that I have ever seen. Big ups for posting this.

Very interesting... enjoyed that a great deal. I'm admittedly new to this... but something i've felt since i really began engagin politics... The point about the psychology of 'team' is something that just permiates our society and our government.

Trying to explain someone's political opinion based on science is a little undemocratic, and combined with such loaded terms it's not far from considering outlawing the "defectives"

Well, science isn't democratic, thank god.

Besides, this is correlative evidence, not causal.

>> ^Crake:
Trying to explain someone's political opinion based on science is a little undemocratic, and combined with such loaded terms it's not far from considering outlawing the "defectives"


Since when is human behavior off-limits to science?

I'm not sure what you're advocating as an alternative to science, but unless it can send humans to the moon and extend the average human lifespan from 20-30 to 77, I quite doubt that it can replace science as a means of inquiry as readily as your argument implies.

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Crake:
Trying to explain...

Since when is...

my point is that democracy works on the assumption of free will, and if you start trying to second-guess (yeah yeah, a favorite republican word, but hear me out) the voters' motivation or level of ignorance, you encroach on the assumption democracy rests on: that the common man knows what's best for himself.

this might not always be correct, but it's a necessary construct for having a civilized society. so sure, make liberal-ish studies about how republicans are naturally authoritarian and closed-minded, just don't let that study carry any more weight in society than one from, say, Bob Jones University, that says that liberals are so weak-spined and perverted because they don't love Jesus enough

Re: free will.

His definition of innateness seemed very reasonable to me: "the 'first draft' of the moral mind." It seems to leave plenty of room for free will:

The initial organization of the brain does not rely that much on experience... Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises... 'Built-in' does not mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience (Marcus, 2004).

re: ehm... science?

I'm not concerned with whether it's true or not, I'm just saying that relying on it as "knowledge about human nature" might conceivably influence the lawmaking process (we don't need the people to vote on this law because it's been scientifically proven to be sound), and that would be a technocratic tendency.
I hope i didn't come off as a hater of science or research into human nature earlier (some of the replies seemed to think so); I'm not, i just see the democratic state as a bit more fragile and precarious than others perhaps do.

I'm with Churchill on this one: "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried"

Isn't this kinda *long

Invocations (long) cannot be called by tamman2000 because tamman2000 is not privileged - sorry.

>> ^Crake:
so sure, make liberal-ish studies about how republicans are naturally authoritarian and closed-minded, just don't let that study carry any more weight in society than one from, say, Bob Jones University, that says that liberals are so weak-spined and perverted because they don't love Jesus enough

But that sounds like you're confusing correlative evidence with opinion.

And Bob Jones University isn't even accredited with the common university system--it's a Christian school with Christian accreditation--so you have to take that into account, too.

sorry but whens the last time you heard a liberal change his mind on an issue? how many ex-liberals have you met?

liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives are.

the only difference between liberals and conservatives is liberals think they are special because they happen to be living in a cultural which conforms to their beliefs. 100 years ago this wasn't true.

I love TED. Wish I could attend.

>> ^imstellar28:
sorry but whens the last time you heard a liberal change his mind on an issue? how many ex-liberals have you met?
liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives are.

Oh, bull.

Liberals often change their minds when faced with new evidence.

We're not perfect, but at least most of us have been paying attention and can spot what a fraud Bush is and how badly he's hurt our country.

A few conservatives have woken up and realized that, but the majority has not and those are the assholes who will be voting for McCain.

the only difference between liberals and conservatives is liberals think they are special because they happen to be living in a cultural which conforms to their beliefs. 100 years ago this wasn't true.

You just admitted that liberals are 100 years ahead of our time, that we are 100 years more advanced than conservatives.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^imstellar28:
sorry but whens the last time you heard a liberal change his mind on an issue? how many ex-liberals have you met?
liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives are.
Oh, bull.


Irony is a liberal like rougy refusing to accept anything in common with a non-liberal like imstellar.

Didn't you watch the video? Liberals don't emphasize ingroup/loyalty.

anyhow the reason i like this video, is that it's not technology, it's not even psychology. this one is kinda philosophical. Obama talks about reaching across the isle to join republicans, if he watched this I think he'd be more likely to do so.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ted, talks, democrats, republicans, morals, purity, authority' to 'ted, talks, democrats, republicans, morals, purity, authority, jonathan haidt' - edited by my15minutes

Seeing the Dalai Lama as a moral authority and the his world view is close to perfect in its openness seems well pretty uninformed. The Buddhist faith is terribly fatalistic and the Tibetan social structure is very conservative and quite fascist.

And to celebrate moral relativism seems rather naive. That is best left for drum circles and the dead.

*long *religion

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by jimnms.

Adding video to channels (Religion) - requested by jimnms.

>> ^rougy:
>>
Oh, bull.
Liberals often change their minds when faced with new evidence.
We're not perfect, but at least most of us have been paying attention and can spot what a fraud Bush is and how badly he's hurt our country.
A few conservatives have woken up and realized that, but the majority has not and those are the assholes who will be voting for McCain.
the only difference between liberals and conservatives is liberals think they are special because they happen to be living in a cultural which conforms to their beliefs. 100 years ago this wasn't true.
You just admitted that liberals are 100 years ahead of our time, that we are 100 years more advanced than conservatives.


1. The "most recent" is not always the "most advanced". Case in point is the middle ages.

2. Can you give me a list of issues which you have completely changed your stance on?

>> ^Crake:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Crake:
Trying to explain...

Since when is...

my point is that democracy works on the assumption of free will,

Okay, I'm gonna stop you right now, because my bullshit meter just went through the roof. No one except religious idiots would have to assume free will to define democracy. I suggest you read more, especially J.S. Mill's On Liberty, of which I will quote the first sentence:

"The subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will [i.e. free will], so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity [i.e. determinism]; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual."

Political leanings are a lot more difficult than this video makes out. You can't simply chalk it down to that simplistic of an idea -- I mean, you can, but I think (at least in the US) deciding to be conservative versus liberal largely depends on your stance on the following:

Pro Choice/Life
Gay Rights
Origin of Life

Your belief in these can radically change your affiliation. I grew up in a Christian household, and in my experience -- I've been on both sides of the fence -- Pro Life, Anti-homosexual and Creationist ideas are not up for discussion. We were NOT given a choice. I've always been a liberal guy, even when I attended church, but it wasn't until I began educating myself beyond the beliefs forced upon me since birth that I began to let my true identity guide my political thoughts.

The video makes sense when you look at it from a specific point of view (namely a more open, liberal point of view) but from your typical USA Conservative POV, it's just liberal propaganda.

I also do not believe that our two United States presidential candidates are fair representations of Conservative versus Liberal.

>> ^Bidouleroux:
>> ^Crake:
>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^Crake:
Trying to explain...

Okay, I'm gonna stop you right now...


Ok fair enough, I'll agree that it's not metaphysical free will I'm talking about, but something like this "social liberty" of which you speak. Makes sense. hmm.. what i want to say is that people should be aware of the sanctity (as it were) of other people's opinions, and be aware that no amount of scientific proof can strip them of that equality in the eyes of the law.

(and thus a proper scientific study carries as much weight in regarding a person's fitness to be a democratic citizen, as a study from an unaccredited school like Bob Jones U, the firmness of his handshake, or the cut of his jib)

also, do i come off as religious or something? i'm really not.

>> ^Crake:
my point is that democracy works on the assumption of free will, and if you start trying to second-guess (yeah yeah, a favorite republican word, but hear me out) the voters' motivation or level of ignorance, you encroach on the assumption democracy rests on: that the common man knows what's best for himself.

There's a great humorous thought experiment in "The Dilbert Future" that goes something like this...
Compare the voting record in a given election of the most intelligent 10% of the population to the rest of the population and you will come to one of two distressing conclusions:
1) The results are the same for the two groups, meaning that intelligence is irrelevant to democracy.
2) The results are different for the two groups, meaning that intelligence is relevant, but democracy negates its impact.

Sure it's not logically sound, but it's still funny.

>> ^imstellar28:
sorry but whens the last time you heard a liberal change his mind on an issue? how many ex-liberals have you met?
liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives are.


I'd consider myself a liberal, and I believe that I had a discussion with you earlier this week wherein you presented new facts and I changed my mind. Just sayin'.

Beyond that, I believe there is a whole section of liberals who 'changed' their minds. They're called Reagan Democrats.

I enjoyed this video but the lecturer asked the TED people if they were liberal/conservative on social issues only. Why? What about economic issues? For me the economic issues of the world are far, far more important than social ones. I simply don't believe any of the great conflicts of the world were fought over social issues. Please refer to Jared Diamond's book "Collapse"..

I also found it surprising that left-wingers are supposedly anti-group and anti-loyalty. This flies in the face of pro-socialism and pro-democracy left-wing movements. Socialism and democracy are largely positive words amongst the left-wing, and both require pro-group and pro-loyalty thinking, much more so than the "every man for himself" capitalist right-wing views. It's the Republicans who are trying to "drown the government in the bathtub" in the hopes that individual Americans, each a capitalist maverick, will benefit society through their own greed. It's the Republicans who are the Destroyers here, dismantling the New Deal, and crushing government benefits, and cheering on globalization and capitalism.

Meanwhile, socialism and democracy are all about majority rule. Groups of people. Huge masses of people. Socialism and democracy were revolutionary concepts in the past, but today they are often seen as obsolete. Please refer to the book "It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism failed in the US".

And in a democracy, even if your team loses the election, you must remain loyal to the nation due to the force of the law. You must pay taxes to wars you oppose for example. In a more capitalist society, taxes might be almost entirely abolished, and if you don't support a war, you wouldn't pay for it. Heck, the military would be non-existent, replaced by mercenary groups..

And are American liberals really more tolerant than the conservatives? If so, in what ways? Most American liberals are highly critical of the non-Western world, usually citing human rights issues ("human rights" having been formulated almost entirely by Westerners by the way). Roughly 80% of the world does not exist in the West and they are all condemned regularly in Western liberal circles, from what I've seen. Meanwhile, Western right-wingers condemn the non-Westerners for other reasons, namely economic ones. "The world isn't capitalist enough, not rich enough, not smart enough. Too lazy." Simply put, most Westerners are "Western Supremacists", regardless of liberal or conservative affiliation.

Here's more food for thought. America, the most capitalist (and supposedly the most right-wing) of the white Western nations, is also the MOST diverse racially and culturally (but perhaps the LEAST politically diverse.. there are only TWO parties.) Meanwhile, northern Europe countries, the most socialist, and supposedly the most left-wing, are also the LEAST diverse racially and culturally, but appear to be far more politically diverse (far more parties in parliamentary systems). Which region of the world is more "open", knowing this?

If we must endure a democracy then we need at least four parties - liberals on the left, conservatives on the right, libertarians on the top and authoritarians on the bottom. Without all those options you end up with a government you didn't vote for, which is why the US and UK are both ruled by authoritarians when they thought they were electing conservatives and liberals respectively.

>> ^aaronfr:
>> ^imstellar28:
sorry but whens the last time you heard a liberal change his mind on an issue? how many ex-liberals have you met?
liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives are.

I'd consider myself a liberal, and I believe that I had a discussion with you earlier this week wherein you presented new facts and I changed my mind. Just sayin'.
Beyond that, I believe there is a whole section of liberals who 'changed' their minds. They're called Reagan Democrats.


There are moderates and independents on both sides of center: Reagan Democrats on the one hand, and "Obamacans" on the other, though the latter is a much smaller movement.

Aaronfr was talking to Rougy, though, who's posts (on politics, not science) generally seem representative of the demographic that is more interested in self-righteous tribalism than any kind of discourse that reaches across dividing lines.

Free will is a red herring. The mind is the brain, and the brain is a physical device that obeys the laws of physics. Reward and punishment exist to affect future behaviors, since they cannot have retroactive effect. Revenge and malice are not justified towards anyone. The criminal justice system exists only to protect people from crimes through deterrence, rehabilitation, and restraint. Obviously motives, chemical influences, and mental illness are relevant to that effort and should affect the action taken on individual offenders. Free will only exists as a subjective feeling, and choices are easily influenced by chemicals and other environmental variables. There is such a thing as defective thinking, obviously, but that is not a reason to abandon democracy. No system of government can guarantee the quality of the leadership.

gorillaman: upvote your comment so hard. we need a 4 party system if this democracy is to be legtimate.

jerryku: upvote your comment so hard as another advocate of capitalism. and the mention of jared diamond's "collapse." do you have "it didn't happen here: why socialism failed in the US" as an ebook? i'd love to read it.

Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.

"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.

thanks for the upvote, imstellar. But I don't know if I'm an advocate of capitalism. I've voted for socialist party candidates here in the US, even. Not sure what I'm an advocate of today though..

Guy is boring and his mouth is dry.

People who are shielded from or made ignorant of the consequences of their actions tend to be more liberal in their choices. Examples: children, college profs, the worst workers in a union, affirmative action hires and the temporarily wealthy by inheritance or bad movies.

People who are exposed to and experience the consequences of their actions tend to be more conservative. Examples: children after a spanking, private educators, performance-based workers who can be fired for making too many mistakes, the temporarily wealthy by inheritance after losing too much money or making bad movies nobody sees.

I DEMAND 3 DOWNVOTES FOR THIS COMMENT. 'Night.

^--- I DEMAND THAT YOU UPVOTE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT.

A lot of people here are seeing this video as almost an attack on conservatives (open mind vs. closed mind). I don't see it like that at all. Studies like this should promote understanding of views that differ from yours.

I found the data to be very interesting.

Also, a pet hate, don't base your argument on "read such and such book". To coin a phrase, Quote Relevant Paragraph or Get The Fuck Out.

>> ^nosro:
Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.



Compared to Europe, both US parties favor more government entanglement in business, but less welfare. It's hard to place that on a liberal-conservative scale. I would prefer less government entanglement in business, but more welfare. Downsize the military-industrial complex, cut subsidies and tariffs, and promote alternative fuel with a pollution tax instead of pork barrel spending on pet projects.

QM: Cite some statistics to back up your stereotypes. I'm still waiting.

>> ^jwray:
Free will is a red herring...

Yeah, but until we've mapped out all the causal relationships of the brain, it makes more sense to just assume that people have free will. It would be arrogant to think we can rely solely on what little neurological knowledge we have.

And hear hear for a 4 party system!

>> ^Maze:
Also, a pet hate, don't base your argument on "read such and such book". To coin a phrase, Quote Relevant Paragraph or Get The Fuck Out.

Do you remember any time in high school or college when you walked into class and the teacher put a single paragraph on the board and then said class dismissed?

Your argument rests on the assumption that any subject can be asserted/argued for in a single paragraph. I would argue that this is almost never true. As proof of my argument, pick any issue you would like even one we all know is true (say that the earth is round) and try to provide a single paragraph which proves beyond a doubt that it is true.

I would maintain that it takes at least one, if not several books, to grasp an understanding of a complex subject. This is going to be anywhere from 400-800 pages, or on average 150,000 words and 3,000 paragraphs. So if what I say is true (and it seems to be as this is how high school/college classes are taught) then you are, in effect, attempting to "pass a class" by reading 1/3000th of the text associated with it. As an experiment, maybe sign up for a class at a local college and try reading only 1 paragraph from the textbook and see how that works out?

>> ^jerryku:
I also found it surprising that left-wingers are supposedly anti-group and anti-loyalty. This flies in the face of pro-socialism and pro-democracy left-wing movements. Socialism and democracy are largely positive words amongst the left-wing, and both require pro-group and pro-loyalty thinking, much more so than the "every man for himself" capitalist right-wing views.

I think you misread what he means by relative importance of these five moral issues. While more left leaning folks don't hold loyalty in high regard relative to caring and fairness, they still have a feeling that loyalty is good, as long as it does not subvert those concerns. Caring about your country is good, excusing it's abuse of the citizens of other countries is not good in the liberal view, because fairness trumps loyalty.
To conservatives this is treasonous, to liberals loyalty at the expense of fairness is unconscionable.

Neither of these positions is "wrong", because they are matters of political opinion, we can certainly argue which is more practical, or beneficial, but the fact that these differing opinions exist, are internally consistent, and correlate into neat groups is all that the speaker is claiming.

As an ex-liberal(to answer imstellar28's question) I am struck that his analysis seems critical of that perspective, I would submit that taking the red pill is uncomfortable no matter where you sit. For those who are more to the right, and you thought it was too hard on you, I think this was an equal opportunity to be offended all around.

You only have free will until you get married..

>> ^jwray:
>> ^nosro:
Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.


Compared to Europe, both US parties favor more government entanglement in business, but less welfare. It's hard to place that on a liberal-conservative scale. I would prefer less government entanglement in business, but more welfare. Downsize the military-industrial complex, cut subsidies and tariffs, and promote alternative fuel with a pollution tax instead of pork barrel spending on pet projects.
QM: Cite some statistics to back up your stereotypes. I'm still waiting.


They say Europeans distrust business (e.g. GMO), and Americans distrust government (e.g. wiretapping is controversial here, but in Europe it's done regularly).

The American parties' more relaxed approach to regulation of minimum wage and "quality of life" issues like the length of the work week seems to be a big part of US parties favoring less, not more, government entanglement in business relative to European parties.

bravo

This was a great talk indeed, fascinating stuff.

From looking at some of the comments here there are calls for 'four party systems' and the like...

But you know what, it doesn't work that way.

For instance. In Australia, there are the two really big parties, the Liberals (who are actually conservative) and the Labor Party (Who are the left wingers). But then there are two other pretty large parties, the Greens (very environment focused, very left), and the Democrats (also left, but not as much as the Greens).

Now... the Greens and the Democrats wax and wane in popularity, and win seats and the like, but never really pose a real threat at taking leadership of the country.

And why is that? Because the majority of people are pretty much... average... and they don't give that much thought to the long terms affects of political decisions, they don't think about what's best for the community as a whole, just what they see as best for them.

They don't necessarily think about injustice or the like, just how they can get ahead better.

And thinking of a country run by actual libertarians... would be horrific, as it would by authoritarians. No country should ever be run by a complete, hard line anything really, as you need a bit of it all melded together.

And that's really what the major parties in each country appear to give.

Although I am saddened about how right the middle seems to be moving... more and more right, less and less left. Sad.

QM: Cite some statistics to back up your stereotypes. I'm still waiting.

You need statistics to tell you you'll be more reckless spending OPM (other peoples' money) than your own money?

Lettuce agree that it is good that new ideas be heard, but it is also good that new ideas be forced to "run the gauntlet". Thus, the conservative who opposes change is as valuable as the liberal who demands it.

^spoco2

And thinking of a country run by actual libertarians... would be horrific, as it would by authoritarians. No country should ever be run by a complete, hard line anything really, as you need a bit of it all melded together.

what on earth are you talking about? liberty is the root word from which libertarianism is derived. libertarians want extremely limited government: it is the exact opposite of authoritarianism.

the prejudice and pseudo-science oozing out of this video is absolutely sickening.

^ ... his whole point is that squaring off into two corners is a problem. To work on a problem it must be recognized and understood in order to solve it.

The problem is tribalism, and being unable to capitalize on diversity of thought because we just don't think alike and don't want to be around people who don't think alike. This is the reason he asks for hands raised @3min, to try to illustrate that these people are surrounded by few voices different from their own (...I'm simplifying things, of course).

^whatever he may have said, at several points in the video his words were dripping with prejudice.

And don't even get me started on his "moral foundations theory" of human innateness:

1. Care for others, protecting them from harm
2. Fairness, Justice, treating others equally.
3. Loyalty to your group, family, nation
4. Respect for tradition and legitimate authority.
5. Purity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

the emergence of all of these need to be proved through selection pressures in evolutionary theory, not some bullsh*t new age pseudoscience. several of them may be valid, but he is severely perverting the implications they have. here are two examples:

3. Loyalty: most animals have developed a "loyalty" to their kin, precisely because there is a clear biological advantage for animal that is loyal to members of its own family. this is because animals that are related to them have a higher chance of having some of the same genes, and if they guard or protect (are loyal) to animals who are their kin, they are more likely to pass down their genes to further generations. but to take this and think it applies to ones patriotic duty for their country (ala republicans) is just nonsense.

5. Purity: animals have powerful pyschological responses to poisonous/noxious foods developing what is know as taste aversion. again this has a clear biological advantage, those who avoid lethal plants or substances are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. in the talk, he uses an example of "organic foods" that liberals eat. it is just rubbish to try to liken taste aversion to the liberals choice of eating organic foods.

and his 23,000 person questionnaire might have been good for a freshmen-level psychology student, but TED is really dropping the bar of standards for scientific practice if they are sponsoring this quack.

>> ^imstellar28:
^spoco2
And thinking of a country run by actual libertarians... would be horrific, as it would by authoritarians. No country should ever be run by a complete, hard line anything really, as you need a bit of it all melded together.
what on earth are you talking about? liberty is the root word from which libertarianism is derived. libertarians want extremely limited government: it is the exact opposite of authoritarianism.


Exactly what I was saying, they are polar opposites.

Either extreme would be terrible. A group of people who want to be able to pretty much any damn thing they please and not have anyone to answer to running the country would be god damned terrible. As would the OPPOSITE, as in authoritarians.

Geeze, try to read a bit better, which seems to be your major problem in your aggressive reaction to this talk overall really... you don't quite 'get' where he's coming from I don't think.

Your complete misunderstanding of what point 5 is all about just as a simple example is stunning.

^looks like you meant was "as it would with authoritarians" but what you said was "as it would by authoritarians" which is a typo that I read as "as it would be by authoritarians". not really a problem with my reading you just made a typo. no biggie.

your argument is basically extremism=bad. which really makes no sense. "extremism" is just another word for "consistency". just because you usually hear it proceeded by "islamic.." doesn't mean extremism is bad.

here is an example of why your logic is flawed:
"a government run by wholly good people would be terrible, just like a government by wholly evil people. what we need is some mix of people who are sorta evil, sorta good"

good and evil are two extremes. thus by your argument, we wouldn't want someone who is wholly good to run our government. clearly this makes no sense. you need to attack positions on their merits, not the notion that they are "extreme"

A group of people who want to be able to pretty much any damn thing they please and not have anyone to answer to running the country would be god damned terrible

what you are describing here is anarchy. libertarians aren't anarchists. it depends on how you set up the scale, if you set it up as "total government versus no government" then libertarians wouldn't even be the extremists: anarchists would be. if you set up the scale as "no individual rights vs full individual rights" then yes, libertarians would be the extremists--but how would having "full individual rights" be as bad as having "no individual rights" ? this is where you placed them in your equating of libertarians with authoritarians. either way I was correct in my assessment that you do not understand libertarianism...

under a libertarianist government you would still have police, fire, national defense, and a legal system. theft, fraud, murder, rape, and assault would all still be illegal. there would still be a congress, president, and supreme court--and democratic elections every four years. it is nothing like anarchy, and people would not be able to do "any damn thing they please"

^Ahh, strawman arguments, love em.

I didn't say extremes in all possible ways did I?

Do you truly believe that the country would run really well if run in a pure libertarian manner? Do you think everyone would let everyone else be and not descend into a bit of the old west style mob rule, because, well, the government is keeping its hands out of everything, and everyone is allowed to be armed to the teeth if they so desire... and you KNOW that everyone is not mr/mrs happy who is all live and let live.

Of course it would be terrible.

As would any country that was ruled with an iron fist of authoritarianism.

But take a country which using authority to keep those that wish harm on others from doing so, that allows those that are different to be so as long as they mean no harm, and allows everyone to live the life they want to live for themselves... but making sure there are safety nets there for those cases where people don't have the money to support themselves or their children, or become mentally unbalanced and need help caring for themselves or other that depend on them etc. etc.

You NEED a government funded by the people as a whole that acts in the global good interest, but doesn't discriminate against people just because they don't fit inside the 'norm'.

So I was attacking those types of ideas on their merits, not to do with their extremism other than they tend to focus on one thing (one's liberty for example) at the expense of the broader picture.

>> ^spoco2:
^Ahh, strawman arguments, love em.

Its not a strawman, how did I misconstrue your assertion? these are the words right out of your mouth:

No country should ever be run by a complete, hard line anything really, as you need a bit of it all melded together.

if thats not an argument against extremism--what is it?

^spoco2

Just so we are clear, can you describe what you think a libertarian government would consist of? that is, what services it would provide, and what kind of policies it would follow?

it looks like you posted your latest comment while I was still adding to mine, but it clearly shows you have no idea what a libertarian government even is. no wonder you disagree with it...you think its anarchy...

Do you truly believe that the country would run really well if run in a pure libertarian manner? Do you think everyone would let everyone else be and not descend into a bit of the old west style mob rule, because, well, the government is keeping its hands out of everything, and everyone is allowed to be armed to the teeth if they so desire... and you KNOW that everyone is not mr/mrs happy who is all live and let live.

as I said...libertarian governments have police and national defense just the same as we do today...we don't have mob rule now--so why would we then?

But take a country which using authority to keep those that wish harm on others from doing so, that allows those that are different to be so as long as they mean no harm, and allows everyone to live the life they want to live for themselves

libertarian governments do this too...again they have a police and national defense for exactly this reason. violent crime is just as illegal to libertarians as it is to republicans or democrats.

This is a fantastic video, possibly one of my favorites ever here.

I'm surprised at the number of conservatives taking offense, since despite the somewhat derogatory intro, it's a pretty good theory to consider. It's just as revelatory about us (social) liberals as it is about social conservatives.

To imstellar28's comment immediately above, just because he didn't provide the full documentation of how he came upon this theory, doesn't make it bullshit new age pseudoscience. He doesn't need to prove all the evolutionary causes for it anymore than Newton needed to explain what gravity is when he wrote his Theory of Gravity. You can find evidence supporting a theory's predictive capability without understanding the underlying mechanics. In fact, that's pretty much how science works.


>> ^aaronfr:
>> ^imstellar28:
sorry but whens the last time you heard a liberal change his mind on an issue? how many ex-liberals have you met?
liberals are just as close-minded as conservatives are.

I'd consider myself a liberal, and I believe that I had a discussion with you earlier this week wherein you presented new facts and I changed my mind. Just sayin'.
Beyond that, I believe there is a whole section of liberals who 'changed' their minds. They're called Reagan Democrats.


Two aspects of this I wanted to respond to. First, I reject the notion that in order for liberals to be open-minded, they need to have been conservatives at some point in their life, or have abandoned one of their core principles, or altered their moral calculus at some point in their life.

Second, as for Reagan Democrats, I think this explains why they flipped -- they were social conservatives, and when the Democratic party started being socially liberal, they flipped parties.

Ya gotta keep in mind that both of the major American parties have changed over time. Republicans used to be socially liberal, and economically conservative. Democrats in the earlier part of the 20th Century were socially conservative, and economically liberal. The parties went through polarity shifts on the social scale during the 60's and 70's. I'd contend the Republicans also became economically liberal in the same period, but that was more gradual (and has culminated in 2008 with them becoming the American socialist party).

^NetRunner

I never said that in order to be open-minded you have to change your opinions. I'm just saying that most American's have the exact ideas that their parents/culture instilled in them. Changing parties says nothing about changing opinions--as you said--the parties have shifted their opinions, which is why people switched parties.

Still...I have yet to see any liberals in this thread--despite responding to my comments--give even a single political issue they have changed their mind on. and when I say issue...I don't mean the iraq war..I mean a fundamental issue...like war in general as opposed to the iraq war.

I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions, but its a really high chance that whatever beliefs you formed growing up...are the exact same beliefs you have today.

I don't deny he is a fast talking speaker with a slick presentation...it does sound good, but his ideas are just rubbish.

A lot of the conversations have drifted into the non-social aspects of political philosophy. My take on what was discussed in the video is that he's not attempting to address economic differences of opinion, nor authoritarian/libertarian, purely a difference in moral focus between social conservatives, and social liberals.

I wish he had talked about libertarians as a sub-group specifically -- I suspect they test like liberals. The questionnaire is available online at http://www.yourmorals.org/, I'd love for blankfist or imstellar or some other libertarian to take the test and post their results. I took it, and definitely presented the expected liberal skew, with mine being slightly more skewed than the average liberal.

I say that because libertarians are socially liberal, and that is driven by a moral philosophy that accentuates caring and fairness over blind loyalty, respect for authority (something I've never seen in a libertarian), and purity (just look at blankfist).

I think economic theory is easier to explain when you dig down into the definition of "fairness" -- not everyone has the same concept of fair. To economic liberals like me, fairness is equality. If a group of people are splitting a pizza, fairness means we all get roughly the same amount of pizza. People who take extra, and force others to go without are morally wrong, even if they paid for the whole pizza.

To conservatives, fairness has more to do with opportunity. Taking the same pizza metaphor, they think people should be free to take as much pizza as they like, and if people come late and get none, well that's fair. They came late; had they come earlier, they'd have gotten some. They get angry at people like me who say "that's not fair, you shouldn't have taken the last piece", because we're unfairly placing limits on people's freedom to be a-holes.

I don't think that divide is caused by one side or the other being open or close minded, or whether they're authoritarian or loyalist, just a basic difference on what the important lessons are from the above experiences.

It's why I think economic conservatives might change their tune if they're the ones who don't get any pizza, or if all of a sudden their leveraged financial derivatives turn into dust before their eyes.

I mean literally, he is asserting that there is a genetic predisposition to a person's political affiliation--is that not extremely offensive to you?

NetRunner: are you familiar with classical liberalism? its actually the same thing as modern day libertarianism ...the meaning of "liberal" has actually strayed quite far from its original meaning as well.

it looks like you posted your latest comment while I was still adding to mine, but it clearly shows you have no idea what a libertarian government even is. no wonder you disagree with it...you think its anarchy...

^NetRunner

Here is my new-age quack morality score:
1. Harm: 0
2. Fairness: 0.8
3. Loyalty: 0
4. Authority: 0
5. Purity: 0

I answered "extremely relevant" to the question "Whether or not someone was denied his or her rights." and "not at all relevant or strongly disagree" to every other question. all I've got to say is watch out motherf*ckers I have no innate moral foundation!

>> ^imstellar28:
^NetRunner
I never said that in order to be open-minded you have to change your opinions. I'm just saying that most American's have the exact ideas that their parents/culture instilled in them. Changing parties says nothing about changing opinions--as you said--the parties have shifted their opinions, which is why people switched parties.

I watched the beginning of this again, and I think we're mistaking what he said for openmindedness and closemindedness. He introduced it as "openness to experience", craving novelty and variety. We don't have some strong resistance to going to see a play -- even one titled the Vagina Monologues.

Social conservatives...would be apprehensive, to say the least.

He later refers to them as open and closed minds, which is probably the source of confusion.

Still...I have yet to see any liberals in this thread--despite responding to my comments--give even a single political issue they have changed their mind on. and when I say issue...I don't mean the iraq war..I mean a fundamental issue...like war in general as opposed to the iraq war.
I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions, but its a really high chance that whatever beliefs you formed growing up...are the exact same beliefs you have today.
I don't deny he is a fast talking speaker with a slick presentation...it does sound good, but his ideas are just rubbish.

I'm not really understanding your point -- if you don't have to change your opinion to be open-minded, how is the fact that no one here is saying "I used to love war, then I decided maybe it's not so great" even relevant?

The video pretty much says that people are affected by their environment with regard to the accentuation of these moral values, so you're agreeing with several of the tenets of the theory...how is his idea rubbish?

>> ^imstellar28:
^NetRunner
Here is my new-age quack morality score:
1. Harm: 0
2. Fairness: 0.8
3. Loyalty: 0
4. Authority: 0
5. Purity: 0
I answered "extremely relevant" to the question "Whether or not someone was denied his or her rights." and "not at all relevant or strongly disagree" to every other question. all I've got to say is watch out motherf ckers I have no innate moral foundation!


You're trying to be a detached ideologically-pure zealot. Moral judgment is something you do instinctively, and something you feel. If you see a man beating a little girl in the street, you don't think "oh my god, that man is abusing that girl's rights!" you think "he's hurting her!"...or at least you do if you're a human.

Sometimes I think you're just some sort of weird Turing-test, though.

^NetRunner

I have read of similar characteristics being evolutionarily viable (in-group loyalty, altruism, taste aversion). I am accusing him of pseudo-science because even if there was some sort of link between genetic programming and political affiliation his scientific methods are juvenile at best, and he is making conclusions based off his own prejudice rather than from the actual data. How exactly is he testing for these 5 foundations in babies (anyone older than a baby would have their "moral foundation" erased by empirical data).

And as far as tying the 5 foundations to political affiliation--the questions in his survey (which I just took myself) are clearly biased such that it is obvious what choices one could select in order to obtain a score of "liberal" or "conservative". He isn't asking subtle, complex moral questions, he is in literally asking questions which are direct opinions held by liberals or conservatives. Case in point is the question about chastity which is directly scored as "purity".

>> ^imstellar28:
I mean literally, he is asserting that there is a genetic predisposition to a person's political affiliation--is that not extremely offensive to you?
NetRunner: are you familiar with classical liberalism? its actually the same thing as modern day libertarianism ...the meaning of "liberal" has actually strayed quite far from its original meaning as well.


I disagree about what his assertion was -- he says all five morals are inborn to all humans, and likely all mammals. He said our environment likely drives how we prioritize them. I suspect the real aim of his survey is to try to gather evidence for a nature vs. nurture conclusion.

Assuming he did say there's a genetic tendency for people to be liberal or conservative, no, I'm not offended by the thought. Nor would I be offended if someone said there was a genetic predisposition for people to be interested in math, or literature, or politics, or jelly donuts.

I'd be offended if he recommended sterilizing certain types of people...but that's not what he was talking about at all.

About the word liberal, yeah, I realize that, but at a certain point being pedantic about the etymology of words doesn't help drive the conversation -- especially if it blurs the distinction between the very things you're trying to contrast.

... his whole point is that squaring off into two corners is a problem. To work on a problem it must be recognized and understood in order to solve it.

The problem is tribalism, and being unable to capitalize on diversity of thought because we just don't think alike and don't want to be around people who don't think alike.

But see he's come to that conclusion because he's a liberal and his analysis is an outgrowth of his liberal mindset. I think the truth is much simpler - conservatives really are just the viscious evil swine they seem to be.

>> ^imstellar28:
^NetRunner
I have read of similar characteristics being evolutionarily viable (in-group loyalty, altruism, taste aversion). I am accusing him of pseudo-science because even if there was some sort of link between genetic programming and political affiliation his scientific methods are juvenile at best, and he is making conclusions based off his own prejudice rather than from the actual data.

I'm no psychologist, sociologist or anthropologist, and while those branches of science do take a lot of flak from proponents of the "harder" sciences, you have to keep in mind that we're at the infantile/alchemical stage of study there. We know so little about the mechanics of the human mind, so to study behavioral patterns, you pretty much have to do this kind of study by survey.

I think again, you're trying to take this video and assume that this is all the documentation he has for his theory, and that he just woke up that morning and stumbled onto the auditorium, with no credentials for being there.

You're a fan of telling people to go read books -- go read some of his.

^NetRunner:
You're trying to be a detached ideologically-pure zealot. If you see a man beating a little girl in the street, you don't think "oh my god, that man is abusing that girl's rights!" you think "he's hurting her!"...or at least you do if you're a human.

I don't think zealotry is a fair accusation. Yes I am consistent. But I mean really, how hard is it for me to be consistent when I only believe in one thing? Yeah, if you have 10,000 laws (real number) like we do in the US trying to enforce all those might be zealous...but I only follow one law, so its really not that hard.

Moral judgment is something you do instinctively, and something you feel

For a lot of people, yeah, thats true. But for me its not--morality to me is a rational evaluation of a single law...thus its really not complicated to make moral judgments on the fly--say, in the example of a guy beating a girl on the street. If you have bunch of commandments, or moral "gray areas" and "conditions" where things are different depending on different "circumstances" then yeah..morality would be tricky. But life is simple when you only have to check your actions against a single law.

You're a fan of telling people to go read books -- go read some of his.
I actually did take a look at his work before I commented.

imstellar28: "I mean literally, he is asserting that there is a genetic predisposition to a person's political affiliation--is that not extremely offensive to you?"

This seems to me to be a "moralistic fallacy," as described above.


As someone who is a fan of every book you list on your profile, let me say I think you're missing out right now on some of the intellectual joys of genetics.

Haidt flashes in this video Steven Pinker's iconic book the Blank Slate, which changed the course of the intellectual community's understanding of the human sciences.

If anyone hasn't watched the following video, it's eye-opening:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Identical-strangers-twins-separated-at-birth

^I don't think my position is a moral fallacy, as I don't think there is anything morally wrong about a genetic predisposition towards political party (given the single moral law I adhere to, how could it?). I believe that humans are not created equal, that there are many different psychological configurations that come "from the factory". I mean at its very core, "open-mindedness" and "close-mindedness" are two viable evolutionary strategies. There is nothing offensive about Haidt's hypothesis...what is offensive is how he got to his conclusion--he is making sweeping generalizations and using his own prejudice to greatly overstate his data. How could human nature not predict a (polarized and stereotypical) political affiliation in the majority of humans--given that the majority of humans are uneducated (i.e. running on stock settings)? Whats offensive to me, is reducing the incalculable intricacy of the adult, educated human brain to a simplistic notion of "innateness"--based off extremely impoverished data. To me, it is tantamount to reducing the overwhelming beauty and elegance of evolutionarily theory to the "I love genie" theory where god nods his head and animals pop up.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, September 18th, 2008 8:19am PDT - promote requested by winkler1.

Good stuff here.

waisted 10 min. this was crap
fortunately comments are very interesting

3.8/3.8/0.7/0.0/0.0 ---->

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, October 16th, 2008 11:50am PDT - promote requested by kronosposeidon.

To me I think both groups play a key role in human development. If you can see liberals as the guys who wants to advance as fast as possible towards a goal and you see the conservatives as trying to undersand where we are better. Then you can understand how important each group is.

Look at one of the key subjects of our time. Such cloning, liberals are more likely to say go ahead while conservatives are more likely to say don't do it. Now I think cloning there is not much risk but think about biotech in general. Sometimes I think we should be more conservative in key subjects such those and more liberal in subjects such green energy.

Such you do not want to have more power than your ability to control it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ted, talks, democrats, republicans, morals, purity, authority, jonathan haidt' to 'ted, talks, liberals, conservatives, morals, purity, authority, jonathan haidt' - edited by oohahh

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, December 30th, 2008 2:39pm PST - promote requested by videosiftbannedme.

Made me think of this:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/02/25/is-libertarianism-a-sign-of-mental-illness/

My results. I thought I was a moderate but apparently I'm just a mold-breaking douchebag.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

*length=19:13

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 19:13 - length declared by Norsuelefantti.