The moral roots of liberals and conservatives – Jonathan Haidt


suppose the two American friends are traveling together in Italy they go to see Michelangelo’s David and when they finally come face to face with the Statue they both free is dead in their tracks the first guy will call them Adam is transfixed by the beauty of the perfect human form second guy will call them Bill is transfixed by embarrassment it’s staring at the thing they’re in the in the center so here’s my question for you which one of these two guys was more likely to voted for George Bush which for Al Gore I don’t need to show a hands because we all have the same political stereotypes we all know that it’s that it’s Bill and in this case the stereotype corresponds to a reality it really is a fact that liberals are much higher than conservatives on a major personality trait called openness to experience people are high on openness to experience just crave novelty variety diversity new ideas travel people low on it like things that are familiar that are that are safe and dependable if you know about this trait you can understand a lot of puzzles about human behavior you can understand why artists are so different from accountants you can actually predict what kinds of books they like to read what kinds of places they like to travel to and what kinds of food they like to eat once you understand this trait you can understand why anybody would eat at Applebee’s but not anybody that you know this trade also tells us a lot about politics the the main researcher of this trait Robert McCrae says that open individuals have an affinity for liberal progressive left-wing political views they like a society which is open and changing whereas closed individuals prefer conservative traditional right-wing views this trade also tells us a lot about the kinds of groups people join so here’s the description of a group I found on the web what kinds of people would join a global community welcoming people from every discipline and culture who seek a deeper understanding of the world and who hope to turn that understanding into a better future for us all this is from some guy named Ted well let’s see now if open is predict who becomes liberal and openness predicts who becomes a tedster then might we predict that most tedsters are liberal let’s find out I’m going to ask you to raise your hand whether you are liberal left of center on social issues we’re talking about primarily or conservative and I’ll give a third option because I know there number of libertarians in the audience so right now please raise your head down in the simulcast rooms – let’s let everybody see who’s here please raise your hand if you would say that you are liberal or left-of-center please raise your hand high right now okay please raise your hand if you’d say you’re libertarian okay about a two dozen and please raise your hand if you say you a right of center or conservative one two three four five about eight or ten okay this is a bit of a problem because if our goal is to understand the world to seek a deeper understanding of the world our general lack of moral diversity here is going to make it harder because when people all share values when people all share morals they become a team and once you engage the psychology of teams it shuts down open minded thinking we when the liberal team loses as it did in 2004 and as it almost did in 2000 we comfort ourselves we try to explain why half of America voted for the other team we think they must be blinded by religion or by simple stupidity so so if you think if you think that half of America votes Republican because they are blinded in this way then my message to you is that you’re trapped in a moral matrix and a particular moral matrix and by the matrix I mean literally the matrix like the movie The Matrix but I’m here today to give you a choice you can either take the blue pill and stick to your comforting delusions or you can take the red pill learn some moral psychology and step outside the moral matrix now because I know okay I assume that answers my question I was going to ask you which one you pick but no need you’re all high in openness to experience and besides it looks like it might even taste good and you’re all a cure so anyway let’s go with the red pill let’s take let’s study some moral psychology and see where it takes us let’s start at the beginning what is morality and where does it come from the worst idea in all of psychology is the idea that the mind is a blank slate at birth developmental psychology has shown that kids come into the world already knowing so much about the physical and social worlds and programmed to make it really easy for them to learn certain things the hard to learn others the best definition of an anus I’ve ever seen this just clarifies so many things for me it’s from the brain scientist Gary Marcus he says the initial organization of the brain does not depend that much on experience nature provides a first draft which experience then revises built in doesn’t mean on malleable it means organized in advance of experience ok so what’s on the first draft of the moral mind to find out my my colleague Craig Joseph and I read through the literature on anthropology on cultural variation and morality and also on evolutionary psychology looking for matches what are the sorts of things that people talk about across disciplines that you find across cultures and even across species we found five five best matches which we call the founded the five foundations of morality the first one is harm care we’re all mammals here we all have a lot of neural and hormonal programming that makes us really bond with others care for others feel compassion for others especially the weak and vulnerable gives us very strong feelings about those who cause harm this Moeller foundation underlies about 70% of the moral statements have heard here at Ted the second foundation is fairness reciprocity there’s actually ambiguous evidence as to whether you find reciprocity another animal but the evidence for people could not be clearer this Norman Rockwell painting is called the golden rule and we heard about this from Karen Armstrong of course is the foundation of so many religions that second foundation underlies the other 30% of the moral statements I’ve heard here at Ted third foundation is in-group loyalty you do find groups in the animal kingdom you do find cooperative groups but these groups are always either very small or they’re all siblings it’s only among humans that you find very large groups that people are able to cooperate join together into groups but in this case groups that are united to fight other groups this probably comes from our long history of tribal living of tribal psychology and this tribal psychology is so deeply pleasurable that even when we don’t have tribes we’d go ahead and make them because it’s fun sports is to war as pornography is to sex we get to exercise are some ancient ancient drives the the fourth foundation is authority respect here you see submissive gestures from two members are very closely related species but Authority in humans is is not so closely based on on power and brutality as it is in other primates it’s based on more voluntary deference and even elements of love at times the fifth foundation is purity sanctity this painting is called the allegory of chastity but purity is not just about suppressing female sexuality it’s about any kind of ideology any kind of idea that tells you that you can attain virtue by controlling what you do with your body by controlling what you put into your body and while the political right may moralize sex much more the political left is really doing a lot of it with food food is becoming extremely moralized nowadays a lot of it is ideas about purity about what you’re willing to touch or put into your body I believe these are the five best candidates for what’s written on the first draft of the moral mind I think this is what we come with is a preparedness to learn all of these things but as my son max grows up in a liberal college town how is this first draft going to get revised and how will it end up being different from a kid born sixty miles south of us in Lynchburg Virginia to think about cultural variation let’s try a different metaphor if there really are five systems at work in the mind five sources of intuitions and emotions then we can think of the moral mind as being like one of those audio equalizer that has five channels where you can set it to a different setting on every channel and my colleagues Brian Nozik and Jesse Graham and I made a questionnaire which we put up on the web at www.americanoutback.net the blue line shows you people’s responses on the average of all the harm questions so as you see people care about harm and care issues they give high endorsement of these sorts of statements all across the board but as you also see liberals care about a little more than conservatives line slopes down same story for fairness but look at the other three lines for liberals the scores are very low liberals are basically saying no this is not morality in-group Authority this stuff has nothing to do with morality I reject it but as people get more conservative the values rise we could say that liberals have a kind of a two channel or two foundation morality conservatives have more of a five Foundation or five channel morality we find this in every country we look at here’s the data for 1,100 Canadians I’ll just flip through a few other slides the UK Australia New Zealand Western Europe Eastern Europe Latin America the Middle East the East Asia and South Asia notice also that on all these graphs the slope is steeper on in-group Authority purity which shows that within any country the disagreement isn’t over harm and fairness everybody I mean we debate over what’s fair but everybody agrees that harm and fairness matter moral moral arguments within cultures are especially about issues of in-group Authority purity this effect is so robust that we find it no matter how we ask the question in one recent study we asked people to suppose you’re about to get a dog you picked a particular breed you learn some new information about the breed suppose you learn that this particular breed is independent minded relates to its owner as a friends and an equal well if you’re a liberal you say hey that’s great because liberals like to say fetch please but if you’re conservative that’s not so attractive if you’re conservative and you learn that a dog is extremely loyal to its home and family and doesn’t warm up quickly to strangers for conservative well loyalty is good dogs ought to be loyal but to a liberal it sounds like this dog is running for the Republican nomination so you might say okay there are these differences between liberals and service but what makes those three other foundations moral aren’t those just the foundations of xenophobia and authoritarianism and Puritanism what makes them moral the answer I think is contained in this incredible triptych from Hieronymus Bosch the Garden of Earthly Delights in the first panel we see the moment of creation they all is ordered all as beautiful all the people and animals are doing what they’re supposed to be doing where they’re supposed to be but then given the way of the world things change we get every person doing whatever he wants with every aperture of every other person in every other animal some of you might recognize this as the 60s but the 60s inevitably gives way to the 70s where the cuttings of the aperture has heard a little bit more of course Bosch called this hell so this this triptych these three panels portray the timeless truth that order tends to decay the truth of social entropy but less do you think this is just some part of the Christian imagination where Christians have this weird problem with pleasure here’s the same story the same progression told in a paper that was published in Nature a few years ago in which Ernst Affair and Simon’s actor had people play a commons dilemma game in which you give people money and then on each round of the game they can put money into a common pot and then the experimenter doubles what’s in there and then it’s all divided among the player so it’s a really nice analog for all sorts of environmental issues where we’re asking people to make the sacrifice and they themselves don’t really benefit from their own sacrifice but you read one everybody else’s sacrifice but everybody has a temptation to freeride and what happens is that at first people start off reasonably cooperative this is all played anonymously on the first round people give about half of the money that they can but they quickly see you know what other people aren’t doing so much so I don’t want to be a sucker I’m not going to cooperate and so cooperation quickly decays from reasonably good down to close to zero but then and here’s the trick if they Aaron Kaptur said on the seventh round they told people you know what new rule if you want to give some of your own money to punish people who aren’t contributing you can do that and as soon as people heard about the punishment issue going on cooperation shoots up it shoots up and it keeps going up there’s a lot of research showing that to solve cooperative problems it really helps it’s not enough to just appeal to people’s good motives it really helps to have some sort of punishment even if it’s just shame or embarrassment or gossip you need some sort of punishment to bring people when they’re in large groups to cooperate there’s even some recent research suggesting that religion be priming God making people think about God often some situations leads to more cooperative more pro-social behavior some people think that religion is an adaptation evolved both by cultural and biological evolution to make groups to cohere in part for the purpose of trusting each other and then being more effective at competing with other groups I think that’s probably right although this is a controversial issue but I’m particularly interested in religion in the origin of religion and in what it does to us and for us because I think that the greatest wonder in the world is not the Grand Canyon the Grand Canyon is really simple it’s just a lot of rock and then a lot of water and wind and a lot of time and you get the Grand Canyon it’s not that complicated this is what’s really complicated that there were people living in places like the Grand Canyon cooperating with each other or on the savannahs of Africa or on the frozen shores of Alaska and then some of these villages grew into the mighty cities of Babylon and Rome and Tenochtitlan how did this happen this is an absolute miracle much harder to explain than the Grand Canyon the answer I think is that they used every tool in the toolbox it took all of our moral psychology to create these cooperative groups yes you do need to be concerned about harm you do need a psychologist Asst but it really helps to organize a group if you can have subgroups and if those subgroups have some internal structure and if you have some ideology that tells people to suppress their carnality to pursue higher nobler ends and now we get to the crux of the disagreement between liberals and conservatives because liberals reject three of these foundations they say no let’s celebrate diversity not common in group membership they say let’s question Authority and they say keep your laws off my body liberals have very noble motives for doing this traditional Authority traditional morality can be quite repressive and restrictive to those at the bottom to women to people who don’t fit in so liberal speak for the weak and oppressed they want change in justice even at the risk of chaos that this guy shirt says stop bitching start a revolution if you’re high an openness to experience revolution is good it’s change it’s fun conservatives on the other hand speak for institutions and traditions they want order even at some cost to those at the bottom the great conservative insight is that orders really hard to achieve it’s really precious and it’s really easy to lose so as Edmund Burke said the restraints on men as well as their liberties are to be reckoned among their rights this was after the chaos of the French Revolution so once you see this once you see that liberals and conservatives both have something to contribute that they form a balance on unchanged versus stability then I think the way is open to step outside the moral matrix this is the great insight that all the Asian religions have attained think about yin and yang yin and yang aren’t enemies yin and yang don’t hate each other yin and yang are both necessary like night and day for the functioning of the world if I’m the same thing in Hinduism there are many high gods in Hinduism two of them are Vishnu the preserver Shiva the destroyer this image actually is both of those gods sharing the same body you have the markings of Vishnu on the left so we could think of ish nu as the conservative God you have the markings of Shiva on the right Shiva’s liberal God and they work together you find the same thing in Buddhism these two stanzas contain I think the deepest insights that have ever been attained into moral psychology from the Zen master sense on if you want the truth – stand clear before you never be for or against the struggle between for and against is the minds worst disease now unfortunately it’s a disease that has been caught by many of the world’s leaders but before you feel superior to George Bush before you throw a stone ask yourself do you accept this do you accept stepping out of the battle of good and evil can you be not for or against anything so what’s the point what should you do well if you take the greatest insights from ancient Asian philosophies and religions and you combine them with the latest research on moral psychology I think you come to these conclusions that are righteous minds were designed by evolution to unite us into teams to divide us against other teams and then to blind us to the truth so what should you do am I telling you to not strive am I telling you to embrace sense on and stop stop with a struggle for and against no absolutely not I’m not saying that this is an amazing group of people who are doing so much using so much of their their talent their brilliance their energy their money to make the world a better place to fight to fight wrongs to solve problems but as we learn from Samantha power in here in her story about Sergio Vieira de Mayo you can’t just go charging in saying you’re wrong and I’m right because as we just heard everybody thinks they are right a lot of the problems we have to solve our problems that requires to change other people and if you want to change other people a much better way to do it is to first understand who we are understand our moral psychology understand that we all think we’re right and then step out even if it’s just for a moment step out check in with sense on step out of the moral matrix just try to see it as a struggle playing out in which everybody does think they’re right everybody at least has some reasons even if you disagree with them everybody has some reasons for what they’re doing step out if you do that that’s the essential move to cultivate moral humility to get yourself out of this self-righteousness which is the normal human condition think about the Dalai Lama think about the enormous moral authority of the Dalai Lama and it comes from his moral humility so I think the point the point of my talk and I think the point of the point of Ted is that this is a group that is passionately engaged in the pursuit of changing the world for the better people here are passionately engaged in trying to make the world a better place but there is also a passionate commitment to the truth so I think that it the answer is to use that passionate commitment for to the truth to try to turn it into a better future for us all thank you you

100 thoughts on “The moral roots of liberals and conservatives – Jonathan Haidt”

  1. Donald Drumpf
    : just to let you know. I opened this in a new comment box. The reason is that I think I replied to more than one comment on this site and when I hit reply to you I was not taken to this comment. Now then, please see below.
    John Miles "I mean,what is the moderate point of view on abortion,gun control or immigration." Just look at the mainstream democratic platform on those issues. That's pretty moderate for the most part.

    As for the Democratic party having a moderate point of view on abortion, gun control and immigration,you must be joking.
    The party,like all of the Democratic presidential candidates are for tax payer provided abortion on demand right up to the delivery room and perhaps beyond. As for guns, they want only agents of the government to be allowed to have guns and regarding immigration, they are for open borders.

  2. I remember my dear old conservative Gramma saying "Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out"

  3. I’m conservative and like Ted. Liberals are generally smart and have a lot of good idealistic talking points. But ironically seem to be unreasonable to disagreement. This is probably why people like liberals, but they have never maintained a monopoly on power in any lasting regime. A bunch of fixed closed off people that will at least begrudgingly accept compromise. Are better than progressive that refuse to meet at the table.

  4. How liberals see conservatives: oppressors, douchebags, unfair people
    How conservatives see liberals: what a bunch of idiots
    Libertarians: I`m just gonna smoke my weed while these two kill each other

  5. I am conservative and I would go for the beauty of the intellectual craftsmanship. Bill would vote left because he is focused on one thing, quick to judge his own feelings. I think Liberals and Conservatives are close, its the Alt Left and Alt Right that clash.

  6. On the first question, it may have been that way in 2008 however I. 2019 liberals are offended by everything. Even this post.

  7. Conservatives, built modernity via capitalism, stopped slavery and engineered civil rights. Liberals are anti-free speech, high government control and compliance to a norm – their authoritarian norm. Conservatives are open minded not Liberals. Haidt does a clever straw model twist … just nonsense.

  8. Actually it takes "openness" qualities to eat at Applebee's, admitting it's pretty good food, despite what other liberals will try to tell you.

    It's like TED doesn't even try to not display its blatant political biases.

  9. Jonathan: Ok so Liberals tend to be more open
    A billion conservatives: WeLl AcTuAlLy LiBeRaLs ArE tHe WoRsT aNd ThEy SeEm To NeVeR tRy To ArGuE wItH mE.
    Hey conservative, please re-evaluate your life. If that's what you think then you're giving a reason as to why they shouldn't argue with you.

  10. It's just an unfortunate thing that security and freedom are always at odds, and that even when perfectly balanced there will be people who want or need a change in that balance. But maybe such conflict just makes life more interesting.

  11. Liberals do not crave diversity as it pertains to ideas. In that regard they are incredibly close minded and totalitarian.

  12. "Which one voted for Al Gore and which one voted for George Bush? …. We all know that it's Bill." What? You mean Bill voted twice?

  13. Video Title: Bait
    Video: The Eastern mystics are as close to the truth as you're gonna get
    Comment Section: Minnows n chubs

  14. they see the beauty of the ultimate human form :O. but when they look at the american flag they see nazis. idk Mr.Haidt… im pretty sure the right is winning by a long shot.

  15. If I'm supposed to be neither for nor against anything, then I'm supposed to be neither for nor against being neither for nor against anything? But if someone tells me to be neither for nor against anything, then he's for what he's telling me to be.

  16. I completely understand what he is saying and have studied this, as well. What I have noticed, though, is that things might be splintering, in that there seem to be a lot of very libertarian minded people, who for example are in to different cultures, and advocate for the disenfranchised, might use cannabis, travel, etc. Yet, they are politically, more conservative. So I think this is changing in ways we don't quite understand.

  17. Human society progresses as a dialectic. The end result is always topical equilibrium, yet this is never what the two biggest players initially want.
    Stop thinking like those two biggest players. They are a means to an end, temporary allies.
    When you start to find nuance as an individual, you'll suddenly find yourself able to predict the future.
    The only problem is – in the meanwhile, you will be considered a heretic by both.

  18. A very well spoken man,that creates a unbiased solution to humanities complex and greatest difficulties,in 18 minutes.Bravo!People need to not only hear this,but also integrate this on all levels of interaction,for their own sake,as individuals,and as a part of larger collectives.

  19. Indoctrination. Period.
    Both groups are made of illiterate plebes corralled into mob mentalities and neither group has a single thought to question anything they weren't specifically told to question.

  20. The tribal exactly is the reason and yes we Americans should be tribal right now that means present day

  21. I disagree. In America I like right wing people more. I prefer security. Maybe I am fighting nature. But of course anarchy is best. If I was in a protected country protected by America and allowed to experiment without needing to worry about our position in the world I would be more casual with my choices. If you think that there arent countries who wont give you a choice and that you can resist them then your all REAL high. It is not fun. We are just spoiled at this point in our evolution.

  22. This video is horrible! 1. Promotes the lie that is evolution 2. Has a negative view of conservatives(the map) who are traditionally Christians 3. Promotes other religions over Christianity.
    People of YouTube, Do not listen to this person. His views are wrong

  23. Strange listening to this in 2019, 3 years after the "liberals" have plunged into their progressive regressive rabbit hole

  24. It’s important to note that the speaker is a liberal. His opening experiment with the statue is somewhat misleading and I think reveals an implicit bias. What if he showed a picture of a religious symbol such as a crucifix and observed the reactions of a typical secular atheistic liberal and a typical conservative? The atheist would get enraged as he sees religion as oppressive and offensive while the conservative will see beauty, love and peace. The liberal in this scenario is not “open” to see the beauty in religion as the conservative. I’m a conservative and what I see ever day are liberals and progressives rioting in the streets when conservatives are invited to speak at universities. It’s the liberals who are always getting triggered not conservatives. I may suffer from confirmation bias but that’s how I see it

  25. I am an Atheist, I am fine with abortion in the first trimester (three months), I am against taxation, I am pro 2A, weed should be legalized, I am for the Wall, immigration should be merit based, I am for a living wage, I am against Medicare for all, and I will be voting for President Trump again in 2020. ❤️🇺🇸

  26. One major difference is how the left and right explain differences in outcomes (inequality). The modern right emphasizes the role of personal responsibility and action taken, while the modern left emphasizes the role of circumstance and environment. Something like "Fairness" could be interpreted either way: Liberals could say "we need to make the world more fair by redistributing wealth", while conservatives could say "we need to make the world more fair by NOT redistributing wealth" (thus letting people keep the results of their labor, encouraging responsibility and discouraging irresponsibility.) I bet the way the researchers phrase questions heavily influences the measurements of "fairness". You could probably influence the results on the other moral values by similarly rephrasing the questions. Not to say that it's a bad metric.

  27. Those are liberals of the past, when both sides were fighting for what's best for America. Modern liberals don't wan't to talk or debate, they just want to scream until they get what they want, like the children they are.

  28. Liberals are generally very singular thought individuals. Multi-faceted thinking is not their strong suit.

  29. I would strongly recommend that most people view as many Milton Friedman videos as available.  The US Constitution  written by the Founding Fathers based their writings on the history of governments and this limited governments power.  As individuals citizens have the freedom to follow their own beliefs and thank goodness people differ.  Liberalism reaches a limit when you run out of other people's money!!!

  30. The Man Jesus put it best – as He said, "Those who are not against us are for us." If we think not in terms of our enemies, but rather our potential allies, this opens the way for dialogue.

  31. I'd like to believe that there is no inherent truth for all situations, rather each truth for each circumstance. And mind you, there are infinite circumstances, and possibly infinite truths.

    Simply put, no one is right and no one is wrong.

  32. I like art, local restaurants, travel, experiencing new places and probably will never step in an applebees. I’m a conservative.

  33. Every person in the comments, both liberal and conservative, missed the point. Like I get that you have a 6th grade problem solving level but jesus

  34. I stand for men like Ross perrot. My grandfather was a off conservative so I was so desperate to be a conservative around him. Truth is I only care facts and morality I lean towards the right but I'm not blind by issues that are on the right

  35. The overall problem is once the experiment is engaged, you can never erase the damage that has been done.

  36. Although this may have been (somewhat) accurate at the time the speech was given in 2012, this philosophy no longer applies to liberalism and conservatism in 2019. The political world has changed so drastically in just seven years that liberalism almost seems unrecognizable. Being the ideology of change, it makes perfect sense. Conservatism, on the other hand, is the ideology of conservation and staticity, and has remained mostly the same, although it may appear much different from its true form due to extreme bias in the liberal-dominated mainstream media. Although an obvious bias was present in this speech, thank you Jonathan Haidt for your insight into human psychology.

  37. What's this about conservatives being closed minded when literally all of the top comments on this video are from conservatives complaining about the closed mindedness of the leftist we harbor in our colleges?

  38. No—-wait…!!! Ted Talks, "Is it bad to hold your Pee," is my new favorite video, over Haidt's penetrating analysis of the Liberal/Conservative personality analysis….!!!

  39. I used to be part of the left but I noticed how most of them tend to generalize people as the bad guy simply because they have different opinions/beliefs from them. Not that the right is any better, they have flaws too and political parties tend to have extremists hiding behind them which is why I'm an independent so my personal beliefs can't be confined to a party

  40. Evolutionary psychology, especially evolutionary morality is a scam. It has as much credibility as believing in evolutionary astronomy. It's all conjecture, stacked on hypotheticals, reinforced with the most tenuous evidence.

  41. I am a voluntaryist (some would say a libertarian “anarchist”). I find that I am in some sort of no man’s land here. I am personally morally conservative as I am a Christian, but I also don’t believe I can force that on others with laws (e.g. I think prostitution and drugs should all be legal – no victim, no crime). I am an artist. I love art, new experiences, and loath the idea that people are so willing to bow to human authority. I’m appalled at how humans want to use violence and coercion to get their views shoved down everyone else’s throat. I’m some weird mix between the conservative and liberal side of things… interesting. With that said, I think the left has swung more toward the authoritarian side of things in recent times… which is interesting. I wonder what Haidt would say to that.

  42. I'm a outside observer, I've noticed two particularities that produced the polarization in America
    1 A small but loud group on the left have dissuaded right and conservative advocates from seeking discussion and debate. Because as soon as they express their opinion they're branded as extreme right.
    2 Conservatives have given up trying to understand those on the left, because as they have their leader holding the presidential office, they see no point in trying anymore.

  43. that chart needs an update on their “in-group and authority” lines considering how ridiculous the left has gotten.

  44. The Democratic party has betrayed the white working class, their main voter group, and like philosopher Richard Rorty predicted in the 90s, they stopped talking about the suffering individual, to talk about just groups. The working class, no matter race or cultural background, used to have healthy pride, and the democrats embraced that nationalistic pride as something we all came together under, no matter race or culture. Now their strategy is shame and creating racists who are non-white, by smearing all whites. I believe they will fail, but it is a dangerous development as this will only alienate good white people to options that were traditionally seen as flawed. They are also not just removing belong to a country from peopke through this, they are sending us to the tribal ages, where we are not to sort ourselves under nations, but as people group themselves anyway (antifa or other grouos), we will be in tribal grounds with no reason to live together at all. Borders are defined through shared principles, like honouring freedom of speech.

  45. Lotsa asian philosophy and religion, so send this guy to asia to give a speach like that and see the liberty asia will provide him with

  46. I think I've got the very complicated paradigm of left vs. right sniffed out pretty well, and I see it as, there is no left or right. We all have our virtues and faults. Yin yang, again. But there is a tendency, for certain traits that we have of ourselves we don't like, to be disgusted when seeing the same traits in others. I think that's just a normal psychological reaction. I think maybe people on the 'right' (symbolically), are afraid to expand their positive aspects, because of the phobias they've developed seeing those aspects in others, aspects they don't approve of. So we all have phobias toward kindness, it's just that those on the symbolic right have more.

  47. Clever, he believes he is. I don't. Sure, I began listening reasonably open and then 17:35 truth won over my moral standing inside my judgement.

  48. I'm curious what Haidt thinks of the six years since this video. Clearly the message has not reached his liberal audience.

  49. I feel Liberals generate more harm than they can imagine in the name of some ungrounded notion, saying this as a former one.

  50. Everyone that watched: that was a really good lecture, I'm gonna try and be more open to make changes and be more accepting.
    Comments section: the problem with the other side is……..

    … And the things we learned go out the window and everything's back to the normal fighting as usual!

Leave a Reply

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