Structural Stupidities of the Left and Right | Glenn Loury & Jonathan Haidt | The Glenn Show

Support The Glenn Show at glennloury.substack.com
0:00 Glenn asks: Is Jon’s heterodoxy insufficiently pugilistic?
5:23 Jon’s theory of social media-driven “structural stupidity”
16:18 Do the Republican Party’s structural flaws negate its policies?
26:53 The rise of social media and the disappearance of free play for kids
35:42 Race, trans issues, and the future of the country
45:34 Why are economists uniquely heterodox thinkers in the academy?
48:08 What fills the “God-shaped hole” in the hearts of putatively secular Americans?
Glenn Loury and Jonathan Haidt (NYU, Heterodox Academy, The Coddling of the American Mind). Recorded May 19, 2022.

[@adamfstewart81]

Two of my favorite public intellectuals. This was a great conversation.

[@Rorshacked]

Same, really like both of these guys

[@alexanderperez-sanz1779]

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@j.clements2093]

“Giving childhood back to kids.” Something I’ve been complaining and worrying about for years but all the parents even my spouse don’t seem to think this is a big problem.

[@naradaian]

Too busy on the road again Taking kids to piano lessons Karate, ballet, riding.... Not taking time to walk under trees, with a piece of grass in their mouth or sit on the beach or river bank Watching the flow Yup I agree with you

[@stvbrsn]

“When does a kid ever get to sit in the yard with a stick anymore? Just sit there with a fucking stick. Do kids today even know what a stick is?” George Carlin

[@oldsoul3539]

Just seeing how many places we historically messed up out of understandable ignorance I can remember: 1. Seeing computers as "something the kids seem to be very clever with" and leaving the understanding of them up to them 2. Not understanding how addiction works and not predicting how gradually more addictive these little everything boxes would become. 3. The internet was percieved as "obviously safe" in the early says because physically they were at home, and being physically outside was what parents were concerned about. The internet was seen as not real. 4. People percieved the internet in metaphors of real world communication like electronic mail, and didn't understand this wasn't just a lot of one on one communication but included group dynamics and psychology. 5. Parents raised in a purely physical world didn't understand the internet was a psychological world and couldn't understand how much kids would feel like they needed some kind of online authority, The lack of being able to hold anyone to account for their behavior online set up a Lord of the Flies parentless environment.

[@robinlillian9471]

perceived p-e-r-c-e-i-v-e-d

[@MrMadalien]

great points, I feel like a casualty of this zeitgeist as I spent almost the entirety of my childhood in front of a screen, it's incredibly difficult for me to socialize, the words and expressions simply don't flow, I feel unable to connect with my neighbours or anyone around me. At least I'm aware of this and I'm trying my best through therapy and reducing my use of technology.

[@garfieldbraithwaite8590]

Wise words

[@AndyJarman]

And then the kids formed gangs to stage struggle sessions to shame the Four Olds ... and dismantle the ignorance and corruption they can suddenly all around them. In the words of Saint Greta - SHAME ON YOU! (SCOWL).

[@zeej80]

Hundreds of years from now there will be discussions, dissertations,& essays about the beginning of the Digital Age,& it’s effects on Western civilization. Hopefully it won’t be the beginning of the *end* of our civilization, but we’ll see.

[@sherrydionisio4306]

OMG Glenn, that was one of the VERY BEST “push backs” I have ever heard you or anyone orate in my lifetime! It was award winning!

[@CraigTalbert]

Time stamp?

[@jdarling5315]

Haidt is a very insightful thinker, but here he tries so hard to walk the line and keep feathers unruffled that at times he is denuded of substance. Glenn's pushbacks at those times were cathartic

[@Rocchio753]

@@CraigTalbert 39:30

[@arrogantprickly]

@@jdarling5315 I think he strategically focuses on what matters and what he can contribute towards, namely fixing the root structural problem, instead of just getting into the never-ending ideological debates.

[@CraigTalbert]

@@Rocchio753 thank you

[@rikconant1228]

Glenn and Jonathan, please continue doing what you're doing. We need these rational, open, discussions from true intellectual leaders such as yourselves. It's America's only way out of an ever encroaching darkness.

[@seamusnot142]

Im a little shocked at Haidt's blind spots. To say that there are debates going on between moderate dems and leftists is questionable.

[@amorfati4927]

Yeah it seems pretty clear and it least in the social sphere if you’re to the right of a “leftist” than you are right wing. End of discussion… Actually, no, the discussion would be how far right are you because you aren’t just moderate right.

[@adrianarchie]

he is so naive...

[@michaelahurt]

Then why are the leftist policies not in place or being brought up for votes? There is no *public* debate, you are correct, but there is certainly a lot more pushback behind closed doors. Publicly, moderate Dem pander to the progressives, just like Rep pander to MAGA supporters and before that the tea party.

[@Low_commotion]

No, I think there certainly are (interparty warfare, not debates). I remember that infamous DNC call where that Dem congresswoman went off on AOC & Omar. There's definitely a schism in the Dems, as well as their media if you look at what's happened to people like Matt Yglesias or Ruy Texira. Biden (or his admin?), however, is not putting his thumb on the scale for the moderates. However, I would disagree with Haidt that the Republicans have shot all of their moderates. Last I checked, Romney & Chaney were still active, and I'm pretty sure they still have a small contingent behind them. As well, rising stars like DeSantis & Youngkin will absolutely seek to move on from Trump as soon as feasible, given how much airtime he sucks from them. Even now we can see them trying to figure out how to be as neutral as possible towards him without turning off his supporters.

[@mikepepper8395]

@@amorfati4927 which is exactly the 3 party system we have in Canada.

[@jjroseknows777]

I can't help it; I love Glenn Loury with my whole heart.

[@adamfstewart81]

I LOVE HIM MORE :P

[@jjroseknows777]

@@adamfstewart81 LOL

[@chaucerianfraud6767]

🌈

[@kenyafromcali]

‼️‼️‼️‼️

[@sabinesfamily]

His laugh? I'm in love too.

[@riclacy3796]

I like the reframing of 'intellectually homogenous' to 'structurally stupid'. It's usefully emotive.

[@eriatarka209]

These are the sort of great "LEFT" and "RIGHT" discussions we need! You would NEVER see anything like this on the television or legacy media.

[@jimpadilla6795]

Sadly you won't see this conversation in our educational facilities at any grade level either.

[@lc4365]

I have so much admiration (and adoration!) for both of you men. Prof Loury, I listen to your podcast all the time. Thank you so much for your valuable and impeccably articulated insights, and your wisdom. (And, unrelated, your book "The Anatomy of Racial Inequality is literally my next read.) Prof. Haidt, I have learned so much from both "The Coddling of the American Mind" and "The Righteous Mind." I follow you wherever I can find you, and am indebted to your efforts to understand our unique social divisions (and what can, sadly, feel like lunacy) and offer possible solutions. I think this recording was cut off; I was looking forward to hearing you two go back to Prof. Loury's initial question to Prof. Haidt at the very beginning of the conversation (about an unanswered question posed by GL to JH at a talk given years ago.) Maybe another completed recording of this interview will be coming on KZbin. Either way - thank you both. Our nation is indebted to each of you. Know that many out here are grateful for what you do. PS - I work at Harvard in Cambridge (not as a professor, I'm a medical doctor) and experience regularly the prominence of radical doctrine and the silence of the majority. Very disturbing to witness.

[@ProdigalSunTzu]

I was born in 84 to parents who grew up in the 50s on farms. I had the perfect free range childhood. And not only were our play groups mixed age they were mixed race..heavily diverse. One of the greatest gifts I could have been given...playing was more important than anything else ao we figured shit out to keep the games going In my therapy practice sooo many kids and teens tell me that they want to go out and be with peers but either their parents won't let them or their friends' parents won't. It's sad they are all stuck in this loop with no way out.

[@jr.6199]

Wow, you believe you had the perfect childhood?

[@danelen]

I could listen to these two talk about issues for hours.

[@dennisdose5697]

Some very good items in this. I would say at some point John Haidt should listen more closely to...Johnathan Haidt. He believes that the Republicans are more homogeneous and less tolerant of internal debate. Yet his personal experience has found just the opposite, conservatives debating without destructive interaction and "liberals" enforcing orthodoxy. He observes that historically it's the left that turns to violent Jacobin oppression, which he notes never works. (This may be why the left fears the right will go violent, it's their own reaction and they find a different way hard to conceive. ) The Democrats are the party that votes in lock step for thousand page bills no one has read, abortion bills more radical than anything in Europe, spending levels an order of magnitude beyond anything before. Joe Manchin stands out because he is typically the lone dissenter in an otherwise seamless orthodoxy. Head nod to Kyrsten Sinema also on occasion. He has a lot of good things to say, politically he is a bit bias blind. Just some thoughts. 🤔

[@darkrzane]

I think you're braiding a few different arguments here - in terms of representatives, Republicans are more homogenous. Democrats have AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden all in the same party. Do they vote the same? Sure, but both parties do because its a two party game. There is a larger spectrum of moderate to extremist on the left and more homogony on the right. His point about debating with conservatives is more about how people are generally good and reasonable yet we're finding people being unreasonable in groups within our institutions.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Great post.

[@dennisdose5697]

@@darkrzane OK, let me get this right if I can, you give me two self identified socialists and a man who seems to be trying to do their bidding and call it diversity of thought. Fine. Let's try Collins, Murkowski and Romney and try to bridge the chasm to Cruz, Paul, Hawley and Cotton. There may be a reason that the left doesn't have a comparable term to "RINO" in their lexicon. Again, just some thoughts. Take care.

[@dennisdose5697]

@@davethebrahman9870 Thanks🤠.

[@amorfati4927]

@@dennisdose5697 He is bias. If you hear some of his other podcasts he has said things like… 1. When talking about “misinformation,” using Russia as his sole example for 5 minutes. 2. Going to a museum with certified race hustlers and talking about how he feels their pain and how real it is. 3. Solutions tending to be more authoritarian in nature. A bunch of other stuff. I mean, the truth is that by and large both parties tend to lock step. However, in current day the republicans most definitely have more dissenting personalities. More than likely because they’re having more populous (or what ever you would like to call them) candidates and representatives being voted in. I don’t even claim party affiliation and honestly don’t follow that part of politics that closely (as in, knowing who all are in congress and the house) but I know of basically the only democrat that constantly dissents. I know of the around 10 republicans that might as well have a D or a U (for either democrat or uniparty) on their forehead. The maybe 10-12ish republicans (of which you named a few) that are constantly loud in their dissenting on a wide variety of topics (doesn’t mean in the end they don’t vote yes, but they will voice displeasure or try to get what they don’t like changed up, or in hearings tend to be ruthless especially to people like Faucci that deserve it). Then the rest meander as just run of the mill Republican/kind of opposition to the other side. You’d have to take a deep dive into history to see if it’s always been that way or not. There tended to be a lot more disagreement overall in the old days, though.

[@HouseJawn]

I've become OBSESSED with Jonathan Haidt, this is definitely one of his top two interviews. The talk on demographics of this phenomena were FASCINATING!

[@Rorshacked]

I been a huge fan for a while; what would you call his other top interview? I loved his interview with the braver angels/John wood Jr podcast

[@s.l.george1219]

One of your very best shows Glenn. Johnathan Haidt is brilliantly insightful. Further, he seems to be a true person of character.

[@smelltheglove2038]

That’s what you call being completely dishonest about the right?

[@thomasmills3934]

Ya until u read his book and he suggests putting your nine year old daughter all by herself on the bus to get you milk...

[@Grappapappa]

@@smelltheglove2038 You are right? 😉

[@katedunning9467]

I really like Haidt but saying the Dems are not an insane party because of Manchin is ridiculous. Reps have Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney who would fill the same role if it was reversed. Both parties are structurally insane.

[@walterlippmann6292]

I like him too, and he definitely has a mild left wing bias. It's not over the top, and I'm not faulting him for it because it's natural, but it's something to keep in mind when you read his books or listen to him speak.

[@usinglogic]

@@walterlippmann6292 it’s not a mild left wing bias; it’s strong; however as a professor it’s good that he admits the academy is like 20 to 1 leftists. It’s my experience after 6 universities across the globe over 20 years that in any field where answers are less than concrete such as engineering, that leftists will dominate it.

[@usinglogic]

Kate I agree. And Glenn called him out on it, and rightfully so. Dems will have to regroup after fall 2022 and it will be good for them. Let’s hope they come back to the center for the good of the country.

[@erikaoliver2591]

Yes, I've thought the same thing. Lately, his bias has been showing. He's wonderful, his body of work is great, but he's human too.

[@michaelcabezas8883]

He didn’t say the ideas or platform or behavior isn’t insane. He’s pointing out that Manchin keeps the insanity surface level - thus not an insane party. Manchin has stopped much, Trump seems functionally unchecked. I think…:

[@VincentWeisTheThird]

I concur with the comments that say Haidt has a blindspot in his political analysis here. I take his point, that ideological homogeneity is not indicative of a productive civic framework, but he's reading the Democratic conflicts as "debate" and Republican consensus as the shooting of moderates. The Republicans have had a split between social conservatives and civil libertarians for a long time. The fact that, from the mix of views emerged a consensus that was both rooted in federalism and strongly united against attacks by Democrats (not merely the woke left) on civic institutions, such as threats to pack the Supreme Court, is not a sign of structural stupidity by his own definition, it's the sign of the opposite. It's a sign of people with otherwise conflicting views being able to come through dialogue to a common framework they can agree on, rooted in federalism, a focus on individual expression and liberty, property rights, and so on. The fact that they don't let things like tariff policy fragment the party like Democrats do on substantive issues isn't a sign of stifling debate, it's a direct consequence of previous open inquiry. AOC, Sanders, Warren, they aren't debating policy, their grandstanding forces an acquiescence by the moderate left, and the fact that Haidt has to point to the exception, Manchin, who makes headlines for being that exception, doesn't help his point. It suggests to me he hasn't read the room correctly, even if it doesn't invalidate his broader argument about the role of systemic interactions in framing broader issues.

[@VincentWeisTheThird]

@Somewhatskeptical I can't tell if you're on the same planet as I am. I don't deny there exist some people who vote Republican who wouldn't mind state-enforced creationism and so on, but to characterize the party as ultranationalist reactionaries is to betray that you dont listen seriously to them, unless you think that any degree of patriotism is indistinguishable from ultra nationalism. Key parts of the platform for many in the GOP include limiting (not dismantling!) the administrative state, appointing justices to SCOTUS that believe in judicial restraint and federalist judicial deference. They would have been called socialists before the New Deal, and after it they would have been called moderate for wanting Chevron deference to go, and wanting abortion to be federalized, rather than outright illegal nationally. Even social issues like gay marriage, they've taken distinctly federalist views on, that marriage should be a state issue, much like it is otherwise, where states can abolish spousal privilege if they so choose. To characterize the entire party based on whatever strawman you have in your head that vaguely represents Trumpism is, only tells me you're not seriously trying to engage with their arguments. Look at how much press DeSantis is getting; there's a conscious and active push away from Trump, most conservative think tanks and voters aren't Trumpists. They voted against Hilary, not for him, and you're evading any serious engagement with them. Sanders and Warren talk about their normative views on what should be done, but without any engagement with dissenting views. They can give lip service to deliberation, but they don't act on it, nor can they politically, their strategy is to increase turnout in their own bases, not to extend the olive branch to independents. Warren isn't signaling any compromise on having the CFPB be made more responsive to the executive branch. AOC isn't trying to compromise when she says that capitalism is irredeemable. Sanders might be the only one who can be said to plausibly be trying to compromise at all, but he hasn't shifted from any substantive policy stance, and that conversation starts and stops at whether or not MMT is a valid basis for economic policy. He seems to think so. But he's decisively alienated a lot of economic conservatives by taking Stephanie Kelton seriously. You don't appoint fringe economists unless you have fringe ideas, any more than I'd make conservative friends by hiring Richard D. Wolff as an advisor. You do not have MMTers as your economic policy advisors if you're trying to seriously engage with moderate liberals or conservatives. Meanwhile, when Obamacare was still being contended with, Republican reps made good faith efforts to compromise, like Romneycare. Medicaid reform, keeping regulatory bodies but making them more responsible to legislative bodies, funding compromises on school choice bills, and indeed, even hot social issues like gay marriage and civil union changes, these are all things the GOP has debated internally and externally. These are not signs of structural stupidity, even if you think they're wrong.

[@VincentWeisTheThird]

@Somewhatskeptical Trump didn't say Mexicans are rapists. He made an argument saying that the self-selective group of people who immigrate are disproportionately criminal. That's a debatable claim, but he didn't call Mexicans rapists, that's a willful misunderstanding of his words. His words: "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best... They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." The "Muslim ban" is a funny way of referring to a policy that merely continues Obama-era restrictions on immigration from particular countries that happen to have a large concentration of people of that faith, but may also have a more distinct concentration of people who want to kill us. The policy didn't forbid any Muslims from the UK coming in, for example. Again, the policy itself may be wrong (I think so), and indeed it is debated internally within the GOP for that reason, that it may be redirecting focus awat from internal threats. But saying that the president misused his executive authority is not the same argument as saying the GOP is an ethno-nationalist party or that he banned immigration by religious affiliation. There's a difference between "Great Replacement" in a conspiratorial sense of working towards a minority ethnostate, which is both wrong and rare as a claim, and simply listening to Democrats when they talk about their political strategy, that an increased number of naturalized citizens from the south may sufficiently change the demographic composition of southern states to swing them blue or purple. That's explicitly stated, it's not conspiratorial, it's a common, accepted part of liberal political science. It is not ethnonationalist reactionary politics to simply take Democrats at their word. This has come up ON THIS CHANNEL before, explicitly. Glenn talked about it with Carlson himself. As for your last set of claims, the army isn't part of the administrative state. Unlike the CFPB, for example, it is subject to direct control by the president, consistent with the Constitution. To say that conservative justices only take part of the Constitution seriously is only an indication that you're not deeply acquainted with the differences in Lochner-type liberal jurisprudence and contemporary originalist thought. There's a world of difference between debating ideas in good faith and resorting to character assassination. Cry witch all you want. You're willfully conflating the perceived excesses of an admittedly controversial and extreme president with the views of a party that is able to aggregate the votes of tens of millions of people. You can tell yourself you're just "pointing out the obvious". I could equally confidently say you're a liar. The "obvious" would depend entirely on what is known and factual, and your claims may be well known, but they're not so factual.

[@The_Remnant86]

Glenn, you're my hero. Ive watched many interviews of John. As a conservative leaning independent, I appreciate pushing back on some of his views.

[@tdkuehl9192]

I first heard of Micro-aggression in graduate school course on multicultural counseling in 2008. Required text was by Derald Wing Sue along with White Privilege and Peggy McIntosh’s essay on White Privilege. As an adult with over 20 years working in Human Resources with BS in Multidisciplinary (Industrial Psychology, Statistics, Economics, and Management) and Masters in Labor Relations I pushed back on against these materials as being the core readings for the course as being obtuse and ill conceived lacking substantive research. I also had issues in ethics class with material that what I considered a biased representation of an appeals court decision on religious accommodation under Civil Rights. Left the Counseling Psych program as to concerns about freedom of criticism of materials used in curriculum .

[@dominichorsley512]

Fantastic conversation gentleman!

[@gnlout7403]

Loury and Haidt. Two of my favorite minds together. Awesome

[@paulclifton0691]

I was so hoping to be able to listen to this on my drive to work! The snippets were great!

[@marcusaxel3425]

Please do this regularly, that was an excellent back and forth.

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Great talk, thank you both John and Glenn, that was a good opening for further conversations.

[@Swatta637]

Super happy you brought on Haidt, Glenn. You both were superb! Thank you!

[@bcazz5202]

Excellent Conversation.

[@nickt2822]

two amazing minds having an amazing conversation! thank you both.

[@ParadigmReptiles]

I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation

[@caseyspaulding]

Great reasonable conversation. Thank you Glenn

[@NoName-zn1sb]

"I'm not gonna give a long preamble..." I laffed out loud!

[@bigguy6982]

It's always great to hear both of these men speak.

[@arishillermusic]

Thank you for this piece of sanity, gentlemen. Continue forward with your bravery and sincerity.

[@dizzymagic]

Awesome. I love both of these guys, both are so knowledgeable and so experienced. Seeing them challenge one another to deeper thought and explanation was remarkable. I hope they do it again.

[@lnb29]

this is the kind of thing that makes youtube worthwhile. thank you glenn

[@mikem4984]

Really respect Jonathan Haidt. Great conversation, Glenn!

[@smitty923]

Outstanding interview. Would love to see more of you 2 together. Thanks!

[@gregmckenzie4315]

Two guys who really enjoy hearing themselves talk.

[@cestmoi4532]

Thank you for the great conversation!

[@denniswilson8258]

Any guy that intelligent….a professor no less….that wears a t-shirt like that is a hero to me!

[@americanaforever6725]

Fantastically relevant conversation about the most pressing social issue of society today

[@yuukotombo6578]

Wonderful to see Janathan Haidt in conversation with Glenn. I've really appreciated some of Jonathan Haidt's insights into our religious evolution, and how nature to think based on our emotions. Its helped level my own judgement and open myself to conversation where I'm less intent on proving myself right to them, as I am in considering if I'm actually right to myself. Wonderful episode!

[@sampettineo]

Thanks to both of you! Awesome conversation.

[@RoderickGMacLeod]

@The Glenn Show Great conversation gentlemen.

[@manaloola2018]

It’s such a relief to hear 2 people making sense

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

And very few people will hear it. How do we get a Kardashian to tweet this to their 50 million peasant voters who know nothing outside their strangling information bubbles

[@resilientrecoveryministries]

26:00 what impresses me about Glenn's rants is that he speaks with emotion and logic. When I feel strong emotions, I can't think or speak well. So watching him is like watching an athlete at the top of their game. He's the GOAT.

[@sx0lx012]

Professor Jonathan Haidt was on point. This was a great exchange video. Thank you so much and BRAVO!

[@starkeyshelbyj]

So, so grateful to have found Dr Loury. Thank you sir. ❣️🙏🏼everyone you interact with is just so enlivening and there’s hope😉

[@spambone]

What a phenomenal way to put it, Prof Loury: I hope not to have abandoned my reasoning faculty in the midst of my emotional expression. Would that everyone could emphasize the same humility and commitment.

[@scotshaver5947]

Hard disagree with the point about the right turning away its moderates… I mean.. he followed up that by talking about how he is center left (moderate) and now is being considered by them as right adjacent. Feel like he negated his own point with that. Overall good convo. Thanks Glenn.

[@unnecessaryapostrophe4047]

its* moderates

[@amorfati4927]

John has some very good insights on some subjects and on others you just discard (this is the case with pretty much everybody, and that’s perfectly fine). At the end of the day he is still by and large a “leftist.” You will hear some of his talking points and it shows where his influences come from. I was listening to some other podcast he was on and I think they were talking about “misinformation” or something along those lines and literally the only example he gave was Russia (and it was a 5 minute part of the conversation). I’ve heard him talking about visiting a museum in 2020 with some of the verified race hustlers and talking about feeling their pain and how real it was. Some of his solutions tend to be quite authoritarian in nature. Plenty of other examples. Like I said before, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have great insight that people shouldn’t take and use.

[@scotshaver5947]

@@amorfati4927 agree agree

[@MidWestCon]

I thought the same thing! It also happens within the congress as well. Let me know the last time someone swayed from the group and didn’t get shunned. They attack Joe Manchin constantly

[@JLP4444]

Also, how can he make the claim that Democrats are structurally smarter because of viewpoint diversity and then not be willing to look at the policies that have resulted? Even just looking at outcomes doesn't support his thesis.

[@GOBLINKOGOBLINKO]

This was the most eye opening of your discussions, this structural argument makes a lot of sense.

[@vals2498]

Johnathan's book The Coddling of the American mind is probably the best book I've ready in a very long time, It's a must read! I'm grateful for his work and this was an amazing conversation. Thanks Glenn!

[@mrobert2707]

Haidt’s quote from Madison really highlights a central problem today. Thanks for taking the time to provide this type of content to get people thinking Glenn Lowry. Also, i agree wholeheartedly with Haidt’s praise for your passion.

[@lindontilson471]

How did I miss this? Great conversation

[@michaelweber5702]

I'm sure glad hearing a conversation between Glenn and Jonathan , two fine thinkers ...

[@kieranmoriarty8366]

Great conversation please do again !

[@xitlallicommentstoday2169]

This was well worth listening to.

[@cristinalacoste2062]

Another great conversation!

[@CBMcKinley]

Thank you for doing this, gentlemen. For all the great work you are doing in the world today. 🙏

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

Very insightful people and their arguments have almost zero impact on society. The Kardashians dwarf these guys' influence on society. Taylor Swift can write a tweet that gets 1,000,000x more social impact than anything these guys have to say.

[@nightsyrkahcum]

Love the conversation. Hope for the round 2!

[@wristygymnast1384]

Haidt’s elephant taking control is great, it proves his theory. Big fan, but no one’s perfect

[@dianecobb5568]

Thank you, Glenn.

[@Shibby27ify]

This is one reason why I prefer people such as Haidt and Coleman Hughes, they really see the meta, when most political pundits are believers and fall into rants. Some of us are growing beyond being believers in party or sides. Becoming more "Integral"

[@parkerj1776]

I love you Glenn, my God brother, you have spoken to my heart and mind, I cannot thank you enough!

[@frustratedatheist9885]

Great talk, thank you both!

[@leftybelle7022]

Wow another fantastic discussion. Thank you both.

[@Andantalas]

Good conversation.

[@rogerflack415]

It is a great conversation. Two different approaches to the same problem and clearly respect there.

[@c.stanleymorton4278]

Excellent interview! Glenn you are upping your game! But of course nothing tops the foundation - you and John.

[@pythonjava6228]

Jonathan is right. What we're doing on trans is definitely wrong. I've been following that issue and its definitely a social contagion amongst young people and the medical trensition treatments are just dangerous. I cant see a way to defend them

[@DanielHubb360]

23 mins in Glenn breaks bad! Thanks man!

[@imperfectious]

Glenn is such a beast. Love it. Thank you gentlemen.

[@Axcellaful]

Much love to both of you. Keep it up.

[@user-oi9iz9jr8y]

Right on Glenn! Powerful rebuttal to john

[@cjahlgrenjr]

Great talk!

[@fern10011]

I love Glenn for his rants too!

[@malikshabazz2065]

this episode rocks!

[@b_risky]

two of the greats!! love you guys, keep up the good work

[@archetypalmuse]

If there's anything I remember from my social psychology course, it's the phenomenon that is groupthink. And it just might be that social media reinforces that phenomenon on a massive scale more easily than ever before. And here we are, with dissent having become morally reprehensible from discourse. Even nuance needs to be carefully brought up. I'd never put two and two together, but Haidt just really made that clear to me. That there are group psychology forces operating in the dissemination of ideologies as we see them today. What an amazing point to bring into the dialogue, because it might just point to solutions as to how we fix this mess.

[@archetypalmuse]

@Somewhatskeptical That sounds reasonable to me!

[@nyestrovicpenchkofferberge3407]

@@archetypalmuse Bah...I can't see Somewhatskeptical's response....I don't believe "groupthink" is a phenomena though. (It's really pretty easy to understand...though I might lack the ability to communicate it simply...if at all really. But I'll try...and I'm aware you didn't ask, and you're probably not a dullard that hasn't reasoned this out for yourself, but I'm trying to figure out a concise way to communicate this, and you're my guinea, thanks!) When you break down how people are socially constructed, and the impact strong personalities can and do have on people's development it's pretty easy to figure out how the world was created into the mess it is today. Those strong (relatively speaking) personalities are the keys. Consider how you developed, and the people you mimicked growing up. Or mirrored is the correct word perhaps. Where vanity is concerned we don't really have an identity other than the one we create for ourselves. Some people grow up around thugs and decide to mimic their behavior because they see strength in the personalities surrounding them. Some might mimic shit kickers if that's what they're mostly exposed to. Etc etc. Those are very vain and basic examples, but it illustrates my point. That was during the day when we were physically exposed to a relatively small amount of people. And we mimicked the most exceptional of those we were around. Now you have thousands and thousands of "influencers" with their copy/paste spoonfed opinions. They're attractive, eloquent, and vociferous. It's very easy for young and impressionable minds to be manipulated and essentially weaponized when you are being fed by charismatic and visually attractive, and quite passionate, people. And they are being created in droves by these under-informed people. I watched an interview with Tucker Carlson and Jon Voight and he said he deals with liberals all the time in the movie industry and when he expresses a view that is contrary to the Hollywood acceptable narrative sometimes people will voice their contradiction to him. He will say, "Let's talk about it" and invite them to his trailer...he will start listing out all of the details and facts or stats of whatever it is the topic is concerning and in about a minute the person will get up and say, "Look Jon, I really don't know much about this stuff" and scuttle on out of his trailer. That's the status quo for these fanatics. It's the same with just about everything that's a huge talking point for the leftist media...evil is everywhere. If that's all you're looking for, you're going to find it. But what you're seeing is negativity and cynicism being reflected back at you. Yet it validates their view because that's what they want to see. For the most part anyway. I used that anecdote with Jon boy to illustrate how these people are weaponized with an absolute minimum of information and used in the public sphere to push a specific "agenda"...Who is pushing it? Why? I couldn't say...but it's there, and it's real. Anyway, social constructing for these kids is an absolute mind fucking beyond anything anyone from my generation (Gen X) ever experienced. Though with the advent of social media during my generation I fell into some traps myself. I learned about how media manipulates you by...yep, you guessed it (by conservative media, yeah, they are dirtbags too), being manipulated myself. I had already experienced enough in life to decipher truth from fiction with a minimal amount of research...these kids today aren't so well versed in the ugliness of American politics though. The sad part is that many of them will be very very slow to reverse course. Admitting you're wrong and that you've been deceived and manipulated and used as a political tool, not to mention the relationships you've destroyed during the course of your lunacy, is extremely difficult. They will awaken eventually though. But sadly, there's a new crop of cannon fodder getting pushed through the system, day by day. I didn't really talk much about social construction....oh well, just some thoughts.

[@africkinamerican]

The science of human persuasion, group psychology, and direct mind control is over a century old and most Americans know little to nothing about it.

[@danielskaluba5520]

Great show

[@stephenp.5377]

These guys are great.

[@theheebs100]

Jonathan, I teach All Minus One in my AP Lang & Comp class. it's a fantastic work.

[@monkeytime9851]

Haidt needs more and more public exposure. He's a great thinker, soft spoken, and not a blowhard whatsoever.

[@tomasvillarreal8956]

Really wish I could like this more than just once

[@danepaulstewart8464]

Great talk.. almost. WAY too short, gentlemen! 👍👍

[@persnipoles]

Thanks for getting around to this! Felt like newish stuff from JH... And I don't think I'd heard quite so much posed to him.

[@nathanngumi8467]

Very interesting!

[@MooseheadStudios]

Thanks for the insight as always fellas

[@davidthompson974]

Two minds unique in our time because they can thinking critically about both left & right. We need more of this type of thinking

[@hectorcruz3337]

FANTASTIC!

[@Arouete]

Thank you both for an absolutely brilliant conversation. I thought conversation was more More dead than God. I love the way Glenn challenges Jonathan. What are razor sharp mind this guy has. He rants with surgical precision. And no matter how sophisticated his opinion is it’s all common sense. It’s admirable to see the way Jonathan teaches. I especially admire his patience.

[@earlmcmanus194]

The GOP has "shot its moderates" and yet by Haidt's own admission not two minutes later the Overton window has shifted significantly to the left in recent years and decades, what a curious position. I applaud Professor Loury on his vigorous rebuke of this nonsensical notion by Haidt.

[@DirkSorensby]

Exactly. I was thinking the same thing. It seems like a contradiction. Also, Heidt goes on to clarify that he was referring to politicians in congress. But that can be proven false just by the vote record. Other than two single votes on one bill, the Democrats have all voted lock-step, every one. There are almost always several Republicans who vote on Democrat bills. Height revealed some partisan bias.

[@siggyincr7447]

Yeah, I'm not buying Haidt's characterization of the Republican party. Who are the moderate Republicans that have been forced into submission by the far right of the party? Later he even states that when he goes to conservative events differing opinions are far more well received than at "progressive" ones. Silencing the moderates is very much a lefty thing in recent history.

[@deadpoolrp]

I completely agree. He says there are no moderate conservatives and then basically says he gets accused of being a moderate conservative. People on the right love him, yet somehow we're not accepting of moderates? Tulsi Gabbard is endorsing Republicans, but there are no moderates? Most of Trump's policies are similar to Bill Clinton's, but there are no moderates? Come on. He should know better than to listen to and trust the legacy media so much.

[@earlmcmanus194]

@@deadpoolrp , "Most of Trump's policies are similar to Bill Clinton's", Bill's neoliberal economic policies and true bipartisanship wouldn't fly in the party today.

[@deadpoolrp]

@@earlmcmanus194 I mostly meant that in Bill's day it was still okay for Democrats to be patriotic and for border security, etc. It's good to get away from neoliberalism, and Trump tried to he bipartisan (and sometimes succeeded, like with his criminal justice reform stuff), but the Democrats mostly refused to even try. He would talk to and negotiate with anyone!

[@Ryhoperanger]

Fantastic listening.

[@schnoonsdad]

Positively brilliant! These two guys really brought it out of each other. With so much stupidity and unseriousness in the it is refreshing to see such genuine intellect, wisdom & common sense on display. And GL's brief rant re why he and so many others vote Republican despite the party's shortcoming, at roughly 41:00, was solid gold. I hope they do it again soon.

[@margaretwinson402]

Yes, sanctimonious! Hits the nail on the head.

[@ronaldbeachy]

Glenn speaks truth. This guy dodges it. Glenn has integrity. This guy speaks in word salad to avoid losing face. Glenn confronts reality. This guy lives in a fantasy. Glenn is a serious intellectual. This guy speaks in cliches.

[@edwardmiddlebrook5919]

Wonderful discussion, thank you very much to both of you. (Mr. Haidt, the fact that your eyes are looking at the left of your screen makes it seem like you're looking at yourself talking instead of with Mr. Loury)

[@richardjohnston-bell476]

what a great conversation. I think Haidt and McWhorter would be a great convo also. Though for some reason I kept wondering why Haidts mug had the handle broken off lol

[@MrAbs9986]

I wish John would discuss what we as individuals can do to help

[@randallfowler9348]

Glenn👍great counterargument.

[@MV50916]

Minute 34 or so - In listening to the discussion about Canada and the anglosphere, I have found myself having the same observations (an analytical hunch based on my own social science and discourse analysis graduate-level training, without having researched the phenemonen myself)... I have also been noticing some ideological or discursive differences between anglophone and francophone campus, social media or media environments. Some of us who are francophone living in anglophone majority provinces or regions are stuck in the tension or pull in both directions, or lean in one direction more than the other (in terms of culture war discourse). I also observe the impact in Indigenous discourses here depending on the colonial language used by different nations and perhaps even in anti-colonial discourses taking place in French or English. The anglophonic pop or media discourses often generalise francophone discourse as racist. However, recent media or social media have been reporting on these discursive instances but tended not to examine internal debate, anti-racist, or other discourses taking place in French... and this seems to have become more pronounced in the last decade and accelerated in the last 6 years and even more since... 2018. I find this very unfortunate, especially at the crossroads of linguistic and cultural heritages, seeing a potential for deep understanding but an apparent preference for anger and fingerpointing without a complete picture of the other (or Other's) thinking processes.... This is very eye-opening. Thank you.... I will keep listening. (And I remember the yoga misgivings, which I believe was an issue at University of Ottawa just down the road... changed to intentional stretching rather than yoga).