For this week’s episode, I’m joined by NYU psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of several books, including (with Greg Lukianoff) The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure and The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
The last 6 minutes Jonathan describes the ideologies of the jacobins (left). Would have loved to hear Johnathan Haidt describe this in more detail. There appear to be several ideologies on the left.
Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean are home to about 400 million english speakers who speak english from early childhood and think in english. Often their english is better than their vernacular local language. They are also very much part of the English speaking world and are heavily influenced by American deep culture, including wokeness. [Many of them are very interested in Glenn Loury for example.]
Would have loved to hear Haidt's data comments on these societies. By GDP they are much larger than the [UK + Ireland + Canada + Australia + New Zealand combined.]
Like several other writers, I believe Dr. Haidt has an issue with unconscious biases. "Moderates are gone" in the Republican Party which makes them "Structurally Stupid" and the "Insane Party". There are a number of moderates within the Republican Party: Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Tim Scott, Rand Paul (Libertarian), Phil Scott Gov of Vt, Charlie Baker Gov of Mass, Larry Hogan Gov of Maryland etc etc. His statement was without merit especially when considering the policies he agreed with and those he didn't.
What I found interesting is that he used the term "Structurally Stupid" for policies related to Covid (closing the schools), Transgenders and Race. Of course the items he noted as "Structurally Stupid" were Left leaning ideals, not Right. He also noted that Policing Policies, ending punishment for petty crimes (shoplifting) and "Equity" suppressing College Testing, were items he put down but are again Left in their origins. He notes McCarthyism / Religious Fervor in destroying the lives of those who disagree, suppressing debate (Yale) and tearing down all the institutions but correctly associated these movements with the Left; aren't those items "Structurally Stupid" and/or "Insane". I don't think he ever mentioned a Right policy as being Insane and collapsed when you pushed back re; borders, economics and personal responsibility instead commenting about your tone. As soon as somebody defaults to the messenger and not the message, they are lost.
Lastly, he stated that Social Liberals have higher IQs and tend to be smarter but also admitted that Social Conservatives are vastly under-represented within academia. Perhaps the smarter are just avoiding this Insanity.
Had to listen to his comments twice about the Republican being the “crazy party..” and then his definition of crazy. He’s spot on and it’s why the Republican Party is always on defense. They can’t catch up to the trash the democrats continue to throw and they are always two steps behind. Also, I’m a Donald trump supporter .. because I’m not having him over for dinner and he did great things for all Americans .. why Americans believe the president has to be homecoming king/queen is beyond me.. he's a business man first, not a snake in the grass Obama. However, he didn’t catch up to the Democrat’s manipulation either, but he did expose it. The Democrats are far more unified in their narcissistic, power, greedy, lying ways and have lots of devils in their corner .. which Jonathan named; corporations, print media, university, social media, mainstream TV and billionaires.
I appreciated the positive tone regarding religion. As a person who actively practices my religion it’s nice to not be at the wrong end of a negative comment. I’m wondering if rather than saying “right” and “wrong” for conclusions and policies regarding different social issues a better paradigm would be good-better-best. There are not a lot of one-size-fits-all policies or solutions for complicated social issues. As an example it might be good for children to have two involved parents but who aren’t in a relationship, better that they are committed to each other and their child/ren, and best that they are married and have a healthy, stable relationship. This type of thinking could be inclusive but also acknowledges that there are some circumstances that are typically more likely to have better outcomes.
This conversation was fantastic and made me think that Ronald Crutcher would be an interesting guest for a future episode to continue the conversation about viewpoint diversity on college campuses. Dr. Crutcher is a former university president, on the advisory board of Heterodox Academy, and an accomplished classical musician.
Jonathan still seems to believe that (broadly speaking) the left can be saved. But is there any indication that this is the case? The past two decades alone show a willingness to dismantle every institution social or otherwise that stands in the way of the progressive agenda. Even more, the development of the agenda is schizophrenic. Issues come and go from the public mind with seemingly little connection to the deep problems our society is facing. I fear these trends indicate that the left is too far gone and as an institution they need to be entirely replaced.
I'm glad that Glenn pushed back on the notion that the Republican Party has lost its' mind but the Democrat party is basically sane. Who's more moderate, McConnell or Schumer, Romney or Maisey Horono?
I think that both parties are deeply dysfunctional. The Republican party is probably less sane right now since the Democrats don't have a cult leader like Trump. However, Haidt is probably letting the Democrats off too easily.
You can't compare Romney, a decidedly moderate Republican senator, with Hirono, one of the most extreme of Democratic senators, and then on the basis of that comparison extrapolate conclusions about the moderateness of their respective parties.
Looking forward to this coming out on Spotify in a day or two.it’s good to see Haidt back on the podcast circuit following his excellent recent essay… Babel.
How can a party that supports abortion-on-demand up until birth and that’s beholden to a lobby that seeks the destruction of sex-based rights, the normalization of sexual abuse and state-sanctioned rape be considered moderate? If the Democrats can still be considered moderate in spite of their rejecting first principles and institutionalizing human rights abuses, what does “moderate” mean?
Ok I just reached the point where Jonathan is saying the problem with entrance exams for colleges is that Chinese people come to America and work hard at the tests to get in. Why is that an issue? All kids should be working hard at those tests if they want to get into college. “Sacrificing your childhood”? Maybe to some extent but I’m sure those kids will thank their parents later.
I don’t think he was saying that the admissions test wasn’t a useful tool or that it shouldn’t be used. I think he was just saying that using the test as the only tool, might not be the most effective way to evaluate candidates. This is almost certainly true. Using one measure might have you miss out on some very talented and dynamic individuals, who, though they don’t score quite as high on the exam, would go on to achieve great success. If you added 2 or 3 other criteria to the admissions evaluation process, you might reveal the talents of those individuals.
I agree with this premise. I believe SAT scores should be used as part of college admissions, maybe even as the largest component of the evaluation, but certainly not the only component.
It’s an interesting point. I would like to see what the additional measures could be, because I’m not aware of what’s better or just as good. Any ideas? I think we can agree it’s not skin color 😆
I accept that people may not always perform well on the day, this happens in all kinds of areas like job interviews. As much as I am a compassionate person, I also believe that preparation for the test is a skill that can and should be practiced too.
So for me it keeps coming back to those who work hardest deserve the rewards. If someone isn’t quite as gifted in some area, they will have a skill or talent in some other area. Not everyone has to be or should be an Ivy League graduate. We need plumbers, bus drivers, and all sorts of other people too.
Nature is harsh and sometimes unfair, but that’s life and people can overcome. So long as people aren’t suffering, then I think everything else is a game, and games have winners and losers. And when you think you’ve lost, suddenly another door opens up to another game you wouldn’t have noticed otherwise.
But I definitely appreciate your perspective, and I agree we mostly have the same goals
Yes, we certainly agree on that. I do think there is something valuable in the idea of being well rounded. Showing leadership, showing initiative to get involved in the community, playing sports, creativity evaluations through essays......There are probably quite a few ways. Some we are doing and others yet to be thought of. Of course this is not in place of testing, but I might prefer someone who was involved in multiple clubs and community projects and also participated in sports, who scored a 1350 on the SAT over someone who didn't do much beyond studying and scored a 1400.
I would agree with that if it was a tie-breaker. So if you had 2 candidates with equal scores, I’d defer to their extra stuff, rather than their ethnicity. But I also think it depends on specifics, like if it’s for entrance into a school there could be slightly more flexibility than say when choosing surgeons or airline pilots. I know we were talking about entrants exams but I think meritocracy is under attack across the board and the scenarios I mention it’s just downright scary.
Taking a less obvious example, let’s apply it accepting candidates into the armed forces or police departments. I’m happy for women to be accepted as long as we don’t lower the standards for them, because the stakes are too high for their personal safety, and for the safety of others.
This is why I can’t see passed merit as being the best standard, but as I said I would be happy to look at extracurricular activities if there were tie break situations
We share the same concerns. For me, it comes down to this: Are we evaluating with the goal of predicting success or the goal of making things “fair”. I am not interested in making things fair because those results are almost always detrimental to the admitting institution and almost never fair (to either the people being admitted or the ones being excluded). Some may argue that diversity introduces a valuable perspective to the college atmosphere. I cant rule that out entirely, but I think the valuable part is diversity of experience and viewpoint, not simply race or ethnicity, and that value does not outweigh the importance of test scores, grades, and other measurable criteria.
When it comes to the goal of predicting success, I find it hard to believe that we have come up with a test that so perfectly captures the attributes that lead to success, that we can only use other factors as tie breakers. I am not one to discount the importance of test scores as a predictor of success. In fact, it may be the single best indicator we have, but it is nowhere near perfect. If you took the top of every field or area of study, even areas where IQ is obviously paramount such as physics, you couldn’t predict the order just based on test scores. So I believe we have the same goal, I just feel a more well rounded evaluation will lead to a more accurate prediction of success.
'Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university.'
Jonathan is a very smart guy and seems to be a real nice guy too. But I believe he is a little blinded by partisan politics. To me, the left are the party who have been captured by the extreme element of the party, and while they do have 2 moderates remaining who thankfully blocked their massive spending bill, I would not call them a moderate party at this time, at all. They have gone completely nuts.
As for the Republicans, sure there is a hard right element, but it’s the opposite of the what’s happening with the democrats; the moderate conservatives do have a voice. But what’s happening in the Republican Party is a battle between the traditional moderates who believe we should play fair and be gentlemen, and the new school who believe we need to play dirty like the democrats.
Personally I have always valued the rules, but at this moment in time I think the democrats have to be taught that it’s mutually assured destruction, and until they stop playing dirty, neither will we
The last 6 minutes Jonathan describes the ideologies of the jacobins (left). Would have loved to hear Johnathan Haidt describe this in more detail. There appear to be several ideologies on the left.
Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean are home to about 400 million english speakers who speak english from early childhood and think in english. Often their english is better than their vernacular local language. They are also very much part of the English speaking world and are heavily influenced by American deep culture, including wokeness. [Many of them are very interested in Glenn Loury for example.]
Would have loved to hear Haidt's data comments on these societies. By GDP they are much larger than the [UK + Ireland + Canada + Australia + New Zealand combined.]
Like several other writers, I believe Dr. Haidt has an issue with unconscious biases. "Moderates are gone" in the Republican Party which makes them "Structurally Stupid" and the "Insane Party". There are a number of moderates within the Republican Party: Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Tim Scott, Rand Paul (Libertarian), Phil Scott Gov of Vt, Charlie Baker Gov of Mass, Larry Hogan Gov of Maryland etc etc. His statement was without merit especially when considering the policies he agreed with and those he didn't.
What I found interesting is that he used the term "Structurally Stupid" for policies related to Covid (closing the schools), Transgenders and Race. Of course the items he noted as "Structurally Stupid" were Left leaning ideals, not Right. He also noted that Policing Policies, ending punishment for petty crimes (shoplifting) and "Equity" suppressing College Testing, were items he put down but are again Left in their origins. He notes McCarthyism / Religious Fervor in destroying the lives of those who disagree, suppressing debate (Yale) and tearing down all the institutions but correctly associated these movements with the Left; aren't those items "Structurally Stupid" and/or "Insane". I don't think he ever mentioned a Right policy as being Insane and collapsed when you pushed back re; borders, economics and personal responsibility instead commenting about your tone. As soon as somebody defaults to the messenger and not the message, they are lost.
Lastly, he stated that Social Liberals have higher IQs and tend to be smarter but also admitted that Social Conservatives are vastly under-represented within academia. Perhaps the smarter are just avoiding this Insanity.
All the Best!
Had to listen to his comments twice about the Republican being the “crazy party..” and then his definition of crazy. He’s spot on and it’s why the Republican Party is always on defense. They can’t catch up to the trash the democrats continue to throw and they are always two steps behind. Also, I’m a Donald trump supporter .. because I’m not having him over for dinner and he did great things for all Americans .. why Americans believe the president has to be homecoming king/queen is beyond me.. he's a business man first, not a snake in the grass Obama. However, he didn’t catch up to the Democrat’s manipulation either, but he did expose it. The Democrats are far more unified in their narcissistic, power, greedy, lying ways and have lots of devils in their corner .. which Jonathan named; corporations, print media, university, social media, mainstream TV and billionaires.
I appreciated the positive tone regarding religion. As a person who actively practices my religion it’s nice to not be at the wrong end of a negative comment. I’m wondering if rather than saying “right” and “wrong” for conclusions and policies regarding different social issues a better paradigm would be good-better-best. There are not a lot of one-size-fits-all policies or solutions for complicated social issues. As an example it might be good for children to have two involved parents but who aren’t in a relationship, better that they are committed to each other and their child/ren, and best that they are married and have a healthy, stable relationship. This type of thinking could be inclusive but also acknowledges that there are some circumstances that are typically more likely to have better outcomes.
This conversation was fantastic and made me think that Ronald Crutcher would be an interesting guest for a future episode to continue the conversation about viewpoint diversity on college campuses. Dr. Crutcher is a former university president, on the advisory board of Heterodox Academy, and an accomplished classical musician.
Jonathan still seems to believe that (broadly speaking) the left can be saved. But is there any indication that this is the case? The past two decades alone show a willingness to dismantle every institution social or otherwise that stands in the way of the progressive agenda. Even more, the development of the agenda is schizophrenic. Issues come and go from the public mind with seemingly little connection to the deep problems our society is facing. I fear these trends indicate that the left is too far gone and as an institution they need to be entirely replaced.
Totally loved it/ for me Jonathan is an ideal sparring partner for Glenn ( apart from John, of course)
I'm glad that Glenn pushed back on the notion that the Republican Party has lost its' mind but the Democrat party is basically sane. Who's more moderate, McConnell or Schumer, Romney or Maisey Horono?
I think that both parties are deeply dysfunctional. The Republican party is probably less sane right now since the Democrats don't have a cult leader like Trump. However, Haidt is probably letting the Democrats off too easily.
You can't compare Romney, a decidedly moderate Republican senator, with Hirono, one of the most extreme of Democratic senators, and then on the basis of that comparison extrapolate conclusions about the moderateness of their respective parties.
Looking forward to this coming out on Spotify in a day or two.it’s good to see Haidt back on the podcast circuit following his excellent recent essay… Babel.
Word. The discussion was too short!
If you look closely, there are certain moments you can literally see Haidt blowing Glenn's mind.
How can a party that supports abortion-on-demand up until birth and that’s beholden to a lobby that seeks the destruction of sex-based rights, the normalization of sexual abuse and state-sanctioned rape be considered moderate? If the Democrats can still be considered moderate in spite of their rejecting first principles and institutionalizing human rights abuses, what does “moderate” mean?
https://twitter.com/boysvswomen/status/1526357409429602305
Ok I just reached the point where Jonathan is saying the problem with entrance exams for colleges is that Chinese people come to America and work hard at the tests to get in. Why is that an issue? All kids should be working hard at those tests if they want to get into college. “Sacrificing your childhood”? Maybe to some extent but I’m sure those kids will thank their parents later.
I don’t think he was saying that the admissions test wasn’t a useful tool or that it shouldn’t be used. I think he was just saying that using the test as the only tool, might not be the most effective way to evaluate candidates. This is almost certainly true. Using one measure might have you miss out on some very talented and dynamic individuals, who, though they don’t score quite as high on the exam, would go on to achieve great success. If you added 2 or 3 other criteria to the admissions evaluation process, you might reveal the talents of those individuals.
I agree with this premise. I believe SAT scores should be used as part of college admissions, maybe even as the largest component of the evaluation, but certainly not the only component.
It’s an interesting point. I would like to see what the additional measures could be, because I’m not aware of what’s better or just as good. Any ideas? I think we can agree it’s not skin color 😆
I accept that people may not always perform well on the day, this happens in all kinds of areas like job interviews. As much as I am a compassionate person, I also believe that preparation for the test is a skill that can and should be practiced too.
So for me it keeps coming back to those who work hardest deserve the rewards. If someone isn’t quite as gifted in some area, they will have a skill or talent in some other area. Not everyone has to be or should be an Ivy League graduate. We need plumbers, bus drivers, and all sorts of other people too.
Nature is harsh and sometimes unfair, but that’s life and people can overcome. So long as people aren’t suffering, then I think everything else is a game, and games have winners and losers. And when you think you’ve lost, suddenly another door opens up to another game you wouldn’t have noticed otherwise.
But I definitely appreciate your perspective, and I agree we mostly have the same goals
Yes, we certainly agree on that. I do think there is something valuable in the idea of being well rounded. Showing leadership, showing initiative to get involved in the community, playing sports, creativity evaluations through essays......There are probably quite a few ways. Some we are doing and others yet to be thought of. Of course this is not in place of testing, but I might prefer someone who was involved in multiple clubs and community projects and also participated in sports, who scored a 1350 on the SAT over someone who didn't do much beyond studying and scored a 1400.
I would agree with that if it was a tie-breaker. So if you had 2 candidates with equal scores, I’d defer to their extra stuff, rather than their ethnicity. But I also think it depends on specifics, like if it’s for entrance into a school there could be slightly more flexibility than say when choosing surgeons or airline pilots. I know we were talking about entrants exams but I think meritocracy is under attack across the board and the scenarios I mention it’s just downright scary.
Taking a less obvious example, let’s apply it accepting candidates into the armed forces or police departments. I’m happy for women to be accepted as long as we don’t lower the standards for them, because the stakes are too high for their personal safety, and for the safety of others.
This is why I can’t see passed merit as being the best standard, but as I said I would be happy to look at extracurricular activities if there were tie break situations
We share the same concerns. For me, it comes down to this: Are we evaluating with the goal of predicting success or the goal of making things “fair”. I am not interested in making things fair because those results are almost always detrimental to the admitting institution and almost never fair (to either the people being admitted or the ones being excluded). Some may argue that diversity introduces a valuable perspective to the college atmosphere. I cant rule that out entirely, but I think the valuable part is diversity of experience and viewpoint, not simply race or ethnicity, and that value does not outweigh the importance of test scores, grades, and other measurable criteria.
When it comes to the goal of predicting success, I find it hard to believe that we have come up with a test that so perfectly captures the attributes that lead to success, that we can only use other factors as tie breakers. I am not one to discount the importance of test scores as a predictor of success. In fact, it may be the single best indicator we have, but it is nowhere near perfect. If you took the top of every field or area of study, even areas where IQ is obviously paramount such as physics, you couldn’t predict the order just based on test scores. So I believe we have the same goal, I just feel a more well rounded evaluation will lead to a more accurate prediction of success.
Harvard has some ideas. From the NY Times:
'Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university.'
Likability? Come on, man!
Jonathan is a very smart guy and seems to be a real nice guy too. But I believe he is a little blinded by partisan politics. To me, the left are the party who have been captured by the extreme element of the party, and while they do have 2 moderates remaining who thankfully blocked their massive spending bill, I would not call them a moderate party at this time, at all. They have gone completely nuts.
As for the Republicans, sure there is a hard right element, but it’s the opposite of the what’s happening with the democrats; the moderate conservatives do have a voice. But what’s happening in the Republican Party is a battle between the traditional moderates who believe we should play fair and be gentlemen, and the new school who believe we need to play dirty like the democrats.
Personally I have always valued the rules, but at this moment in time I think the democrats have to be taught that it’s mutually assured destruction, and until they stop playing dirty, neither will we
That was a lot of fun to listen to. The time flew by.
Hi Glenn! The audio recording, both here and on Apple Podcasts, is not the talk with Jon H, but a copy of the last one with John McW.
It does not appear Apple has updated yet. Can you repost?
Many apologies. The correct audio file is now in place. Give Apple a little bit of time to update.