Why Liberalism Is Increasing on Campus | Jonathan Haidt & Jordan B Peterson

it’s really useful to understand that there are actual reasons why people see the world differently and that you can’t just easily say that one is right and the other is wrong because the Liberals are correct when it comes to borders that if you thicken them too much and diminish the information flow you risk making the society so static that any radical environmental transformation will sink it it’s the case but the conservatives are right in that you pay a big price with regards to newcomers and new information with regards to risk to exposure to contaminating Welty contamination period but also to contaminating ideas and so then I’ve always thought you know the the environment itself moves back and forth like a snake in some sense and what we’re trying to do is stay on the center of its back and the only way we can do that is by people by having people pull to the right and say be careful and people pull to the left and say well yeah but be open with that dialogue and the the exchange of information that that dialogue allows we can maybe specify the center of that moving target and stay and stay well and stay on the back let’s yeah okay so that’s a really complicated metaphor with the snake but I think it’s a perfect way in to what’s going on on campus and to YV point diversity is so important because that’s I agree exactly with what you just said and so what I the view that I’ve come to in study moral psychology is that we is that humans are ultra social apes we we evolve to live in these small groups that are fighting with each other we evolved to have these low-level animistic religions that’s our steady-state that’s the way we were for at least 100,000 years or much more close are a million in some form so that’s sort of our design that’s what we were designed for in a sense and in that sense where as individuals we really kind of stupid tribal creatures designed to do post hoc reasoning but if you put us together in the right way with the right checks with the right the right systems the the whole can be vastly smarter than the components that go into it which is true of the brain – the brain is composed of neurons each neurons really good I have a stupid little switch we can put them together in the right way and you get something really brilliant and in the same way I don’t know all the history here but my understanding is that science begins or the culture of science the scientific revolution begins in Europe in the 17th century as you begin getting you get the printing press so people can share their ideas but you get communities of people who are challenging each other’s ideas and that’s what makes it so brilliant is that is that people have to do their best we’re really bad at disconfirming our own ideas it’s very hard to make it’s very hard to do that but you put your ideas out there and then everyone else is motivated to challenge them and so if you put us together in the right way the truth comes out and so adversarial systems of law journalists know this they have to listen to both sides scientists know this social scientists should know this okay what happened well the Academy has has always leaned left in the 20th century but leaning isn’t a problem so people think Oh viewpoint diversity we need we need everybody we need Nazis we need every beep no we don’t need everybody what we need is no orthodoxy that’s what’s fatal orthodoxy so if you have if you have to feel like sociology or social psychology in which it’s two or three to one left to right that’s totally fine with me that’s totally fine because if someone makes some claim that’s just like ideologically blind someone will say uh you know common sense other evidence that you’ve missed and then the system works but what what I learned when I started down this road in 2011 I gave a talk it’s a big conference of social psychologists I gave a talk about this problem that we’re losing our diversity that I could only find one conservative in the entire field and I gave a talk on this and and so what I’ve learned since then is that the ratio in psychology was between two to one and four to one left-right all the way up to the early 90s we’ve gathered together all the studies we could find so all the way up to the early 90s it’s only three or four to one left or right which would be okay but then between 1995 or four and 2010 it goes to 14 to 1 you do you have any idea why and why that time yes so so you get the same story whether you look at Republican Democrat ratios or liberal conservative they’re they tell the same story so the to the big things going on there are one is that the greatest generation which had a lot of Republicans so a lot of men go off to World War two they they’re on the GI Bill they enter the Academy in the 1950s a lot of them are conservative or republican so you have a lot of them but in the 60s and 70s one of the main reasons to go to grad school in the social sciences is either a to stay in school to escape the Vietnam War draft or B to fight for social justice and against racism so in sociology and psychology in particular in political science maybe I’m not sure you get a huge influx of left-leaning people who are there to pursue social justice so you know the motives are fine and if it was balanced to be totally fine but as you get these young junior people on the Left come in in the 70s and 80s and then you get the older people that are more politically balanced retiring in the 80s and 90s by the time you get to the late 90s it’s all baby boomers and so do you get a do you get a positive feedback loop developing in there like you said it’s like three to one it’s okay but maybe when it hits four to one it goes to like twenty to one then you said exactly so you so then you start getting hostile climate so I wrote a review paper on this with with Joe Duarte and Phil tetlock and Lee just some Jerry Crawford and and we so we reviewed everything that we could find and we concluded that most of what’s going on is self selection that is people on the Left and we’re open to experience they’re always gonna get self selection but then there’s really good evidence that there’s also hostile climate I mean it’s it’s undeniable now that if you are not on the left in a grad program there’s just constant little subtle or not so subtle reminders that you don’t belong and look in the Academy we’re all about saying hey if there are subtle hints here and there you can’t succeed right I mean that’s what we do for a living is we say that little things will stop people well little things are put in the way of anyone who doesn’t fit politically and so you do get hostile climate you do get over discrimination evidence of that [Music]

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. I'd argue that the so called liberals on campus aren't liberals but a weird progressive/Marxist form of conservative.

  2. Who in the hell said we were closing the borders so tight that even information cant cross? I want to close it so tight that people not welcome here cant just sander in like they own the joint.

  3. Funnily enough i believe that 1994 marks the year that UK University Education was not free. Worthless Sociology (and other) degrees followed and a devaluation of the Degree in general. A degree used to gaurantee a job but no more. Children were sold shoddy merchandise.

  4. "Thicken borders too much and diminish information flow to the point that any radical environmental transformation will sink it" Is this meant to be a general point, or is this specifically referring to ideological glass houses?

  5. young people tend to lean left (rebellion against the old parwnts, rules, establishment, thirst for freedom, chaos, etc), and until now, becme more conservative as the grew older.

    nowadays,they want to stay young forever and so their maturity and change of world view is delayed as well

  6. Oh, Mr. Peterson – a bit of disappointment at the beginning. I'm typing this on the Internet. Maybe we needed porous borders for information flow before this tech, but pretty much we can do this over the 'Net and/or temporary conferences and have them go home. Also, life does have right answers and conservatives tend to have them more often than liberals, which explains why older people tend towards the conservative.

  7. Okay, it took you years of study to notice what Christianity tells you 30 seconds in? That we're fallen little creatures tending towards infighting and in desperate need of both religion and improvement? "We evolved to be a mess in a small group" is not functionally different than "God created us and we fell."

  8. It's not the "Greatest Generation". (Doubt you'll see this, but oh well.). That pegs you as a Boomer. My WWII grandparents ("The Greatest Generation") would have been extremely uncomfortable with such a notion, and well they should. Every generation has it's flaws and sins. The Boomers don't have the bestest parents ever (although I liked and loved my grandparents very much) and we're not living post bad historical events.

  9. Whats sad is that the University has become so open, so inclusive, so subjective, that its become an orthodoxy unto itself:

    The tyranny of the victim – and in a most fragmented, condtradictive, nihilistic, orthodoxy, too.

  10. Just one point I'd like to touch one, on which I haven't fully made up my mind yet.
    Concerning women in STEM for example, my position is that there is nothing substantial that is holding women back to go in that direction, that the observed gender gap is mainly an act of choice, and that ok, maybe, there is, as can be in any field, some threshold because the majority are men and the dynamics that come with that, but that isn't really anti-women, that's just a majority social dynamic. This can give subtle problems, but overt discrimination always is/should be possible to be remediated.

    In the same way, I feel compelled to think that an overwhelming imbalance between left and right minded professors isn't a problem persé and right leaning staff "not feeling welcome" shouldn't be a valid excuse for not speaking out. As long as overt discrimination is possible to be remediated.
    Which well, with the antifamob isn't really the case but yeah…

    Any thoughts?

  11. Psychology is about helping vulnerable people who cannot help themselves, ie why they need a psychologist. The liberals slash left are focussed more on the societal responsibility of helping those that are disadvantaged because of their socio economic background. So it makes sense that psychology would, and should lean to the left. Conservatives slash the right are more focussed on self earned money and individual responsibility to contribute as being the solution to the vulnerable underclass. The problem with conservative psychology is that it forgets that the people that need help the most aren't anywhere near the level of being able to contribute to society. It takes years to claw out of severe depression and anxiety, and most who face this can't recover without some societal support. Tax the rich and give it to the poor is a liberal idea, and it works even better for conservativism long term because after the underclass is educated and fed, they become functional members of society. So the psychologists role should be to help people out of their hole from the liberal perspective of altruism, with an eventual aim of individual conservative self sustainment

Related Post