Peter Boghossian: How to Have Impossible Conversations, a Very Practical Guide

all right hello everyone my name is Hannah Noor and I'm a first year medical student at the University of Central Florida College of Medicine and I'm also a critical thinking fellow at the ion heresy Ali Foundation which is a non-profit organization that works to protect women from honor violence General mutilation and forced marriage with an overall emphasis on Liberty for all the ion heresy Ali Foundation specifically aims to advance freedoms both in the United States and around the world which as a critical thinking fellow I help facilitate now for today's event we are in an age where differing opinions are often equated with ill intent an age where extreme polarization has stripped us of civil discourse in today's event on how to have impossible conversations we will be we will be working to bridge the moral divide and rekindle the art of civil discourse today's speaker is Peter burgosian Peter is a founding faculty member at the University of Austin and the director of the national progress Alliance he has a teaching pedigree spanning more than 25 years that focuses on the Socratic method scientific skepticism and critical thinking his dissertation explored increasing the moral reasoning of prison inmates and aiding their desistance from crime his most recent book how to have impossible conversations and his most recent writing can be found in the New York Times The Wall Street Journal Scientific American Time Magazine National Review and elsewhere his work is centered on the tools on bringing the tools of professional philosophers to a wide variety of contexts to help people think through what seems to be intractable problems without further Ado Pierre begosa [Applause] uh thank you everybody thank you for coming I I appreciate it I know that there could be other things you're doing tonight so hopefully I'll we'll have some fun I I tweeted out something let's see on every time I look at this it still makes me laugh on February 7th I tweeted out whether you agree with him or not Biden is on point sharp funny period shows that the senility slash dementia talk is BS within one minute of me tweeting that out I received an onslaught of hate my Twitter feed was filled with people calling me every every conceivable manner of nastiness and within two minutes people have very good friends of mine would text me things like uh well one of my friends texted me on uh tweeted at me he said uh have you been drunk tweeting and a very one of my best friends texted me dude what the um so so it seems that so so when I watched that talk I thought that Biden was actually just that I thought that independent of the policies I thought that he was sharp I thought that it was a good talk he engaged with people and I had been hearing so much talk that he was a a blithering drooling fool that I thought that countered that narrative extraordinarily well but there's something about audience capture and there's something about a kind of tribalism that we see in our society now that you can't say you can't say a positive thing about someone if you're perceived on being across the aisle or on the other side of divide and we have to stop that we have to change that if we want to have civil discourse and not turn into another Iraq then we have to take some steps to change that so tonight here's the plan for tonight here's what we're going to do so I'm going to give a brief talk usually these are an hour but I'm going to shorten it to 20 20 or 30 minutes depending and then I'm gonna do this is called Spectrum Street epistemology Street epistemology come on in plenty of seats plenty of seats come on in uh it's from my my book in 2013. I'm going to show you how to calibrate your beliefs to the evidence and to speak across divides normally what we would do if we had more time is I'd run you through a process to show to show you how to collaborate on various topics but we literally just had the room and we were rushed in so we couldn't do that so we're going to take the claims in the back so so if you want you can just get up and write on the board any claims you want and then we're going to do this so I'm going to give you the method and the model for what we're going to do here one of the most difficult things when you speak across a divide or someone with whom you have a substantive disagreement is that you think you know what they're talking about but you actually don't know what they're talking about this is an extraordinarily easy problem to get around all you need to do is to say is to put the burden of understanding on yourself so this is the strongly disagree line so I'll stand over here is to put or I'll stay on the disagree line is to put the burden of understanding on yourself so I think I understand this but let me make sure I understand not you are unclear not the message wasn't conveyed well but put the burden of understanding on yourself okay and then what you want to do is you want to repeat that back to somebody and you want to say is this do I have this correct notice how I put the burden of understanding on myself do I have this correct in the ideal World from a hostage negotiations hostage negotiators look for two words they look for that's right if you ever ask someone a question and they say that's right boom you got you nailed it now that won't happen very often people will say yes good enough or yes if they say no then watch the framing all of these words are parsed out in the literature I talk about this in my book um say okay all right thank you what am I not getting what what don't I understand and then ask them to do it again and then repeat back again what what you heard so it is it might seem like it's a little laborious but it's truly the most important thing when you speak across the vibe in fact people have written entire books about how to listen and how to actively listen okay so let's say that they say to you yes that's that's what I mean or you have that right or what have you so in this case people will be standing on it's like a likert scale people will be standing on a line whether they agree with the proposition most of the time when you speak to someone who has a different opinion you have your opinion and they have their opinion and you're each delivering messages to each other the literature is pretty clear on this although it's not Crystal Clear it's clear enough that we can say that providing facts and evidence isn't enough to sway someone particularly as the ideas spill into the moral domain so well so so you have a situation you've now understood you're asking people why they believe something or you're about to ask someone why they believe something but what you don't want to do is you don't want to start with your opinion first you want to ask them why they believe it now this may seem obvious and to an extent there is but there's a danger there if I'm on the agree line if someone is on the agree line and I ask them why they believe something the vast majority of people particularly if you agreed to come down and play the the thought game in the first place are going to tell you why they agree the problem with that is that they will raise their confidence in their beliefs because they hear themselves articulate their own reasons to them to themselves so I know that this is a kind of a Harris a heresy if you will the professors in the back I know this is kind of heresy but think about it like this instead of saying why do you believe that here's an another alternative question that I that I ask everybody all these games are the same and at the end of the evening I'm going to have people do exactly what I do so pay attention I will say every time what would convince you what evidence reason or argument would convince you to move one line to the right or one line to the left in other words you're not asking someone why they believe something you're asking them what would it kind of a disconfirmation question what would it take to disconfirm your belief most people live their entire lives they never ask this question they're simply never asked it scientists are somewhat trained to a certain extent when you test hypotheses Etc my own belief is that this should be asked to literally everybody as the foundation of K-12 education why do you believe it what would it take to change your mind let's talk about what the evidence is for that okay so there are only so many things that people can say to this dick so usually usually but not always you get the response if someone stands on the strongly agree or if they stand on the strongly disagree line not always certainly not always but the mode more often than not they'll say nothing nothing there's literally nothing you can say that would move me to the disagree line okay so that's one thing we have you will get that if when people stand other places as well but it's just more common when people take an extreme stance and the other thing that people can say to you is uh well they'll give you piece of evidence this is the kind of evidence I I would need to change your mind so evidence the third thing people can say to you is geez I I really don't know I have no idea what it would take me to change my mind and most of the time people will say that because no one's ever asked him that before they always ask them why they believe not what would it take to change your mind the response I always give when someone says I don't know is that's a great answer I don't know it's always a great answer that way that people don't pretend to know something they don't know and in classes when you teach I always make it a point to say I don't know something when I don't know something okay the final thing someone can say is they can give you a wild wildly disconfirmable statement like um so you know something like the the famous uh example is how do you know what would it take for you to not believe Jesus died for your sins and the quintessential example for that is the bones of Christ because if you had the bones of Christ then Jesus wouldn't have resurrected and gone to heaven so the bones of Christ would be a disconfirming um an instance of a disconfirmation statement however there's no possible way I could provide someone with the bones of Christ that's just that's ludicrous but but it is something that someone can say so only four things that people can say about this okay so now let's go back and Center it on the game so there are people are on the neutral line we've gone all around the world and done this and we're about to go to just got back from Puerto Rico we're about come on in guys plenty of room oh this is my Jiu Jitsu coach hey coach this man is a black belt jiu jitsu [Music] is he really a black belt Jiu Jitsu too hey coach uh come on in plenty of room okay so um so here's he so so here's one of the things when you do this long enough with enough questions here's one of the things that you realize after you've done this a significant period of time people will stand on a particular line not necessarily because they have evidence for standing on a line but because that's the line they think they should be standing on let me let me repeat that because that's that's really important people do not formulate their beliefs for epistemological reasons they form in other words they do not formulate their beliefs on the basis of evidence and then examine how they know something as a reflection of that evidence they formulate their beliefs on the basis of what it means to them to be a good person so here's the syllogism I am a good person good people believe X I believe X when you truly drill down on this game the overwhelming majority of times people will when you really drill down like you have someone on this and you're just asking them polite questions pretend 15 20 minutes at base is um a kind of moral motivation for standing on a particular for calibrating their belief to a certain degree and they it won't be necessarily evidence that we'll move them like I don't know or this kind of evidence it will be a conception of self and it will also be a community because when you change your belief when you go from Line to Line one of the dangers of that is that you will lose the moral Community James Lindsay and I call that an ideologically motivated moral community in other words you're ideologically motivated to hold certain beliefs because people in your community hold them and when you like if you look at the literature on cult exiting one of the reasons people don't leave culture or afraid to leave cultures because they leave their communities behind similarly Mike Warner told me something he did a study on um uh religious membership in particular religious affiliations and he said that I can't remember the exact statistic but it's a certain number of friends over a certain period of time that I'm the time I remember I don't remember the number of friends but over six months I also haven't read the study but the idea is that you develop a community of people and those the community of people in religious religious context hold a certain belief and so you would calibrate what line you're on according to the belief there's one more piece of that and it's this idea that you would leave the tribe in uh Jehovah's Witnesses call it disfellowshipping um you you would somehow a scientologists call it uh you'd be a squirrel you know you leave the faith there's something about leaving your community when you repudiate the belief system okay is this clear so far everybody clear okay so let's let's cycle this back and bring it to the back to the game and we'll do a quick review and I'll throw out some some more things so um everybody starts on the neutral line so here are the rules of the game everybody will start on the neutral line I'll read the claim which Reed is currently writing up at most of these we made up or people filled it out as we we came in so there's no like there's there's no gotcha claims or anything they're all whatever people want to talk about mostly lately it's been aliens and marijuana um so so we'll do the claim and I'll read it and then I'll count down five four three two one move and it's very important that everybody move when I say move and the reason for that is we don't want the person in the front to influence the people in the back we want everyone to make their own independent decision of where they want to move and the only other rule of the game is you have to commit to a line so if you kind of a little change your mind that doesn't work nor can you do this nor if you agree more than strongly can you stay can you step off of the off out of the game field so the game is very simple and now I want to tell you a few things what I hope people get out of this tonight if you ever work with anybody if you ever teach if you ever work with kids if you want to help them develop their thinking abilities this game is ideal anybody can do it and it's completely free Reed is the president of Street epistemology International it's a non-profit I have a non-profit one of the goals is my non-profit is to help people communicate more civilly this isn't proprietary anybody can use it literally anybody can do it we've seen this done people have done this at Town Hall meetings when they want to select candidates to see why the candidates believe what they do and how they differ on issues so literally anybody can can use this okay so let's let's take a step back and situate what I said in the game so start on the neutral line count down from five you move I ask you uh why you believe it ideally someone would be on a different line and then I would ask them I'll ask you at some point what would it take you to move to the left what would it take you to move to the right if someone is on another line I'll ask them if they can provide that information if we don't have someone with on within a line we can help it's more difficult but you can help calibrate um people they're called disconfirmation questions and philosophical defeasability questions or how do you disconform the belief um I'll always put the burden of understanding of myself this no gotcha questions there's no trick questions it's incredibly straightforward okay so let's take a pause how's everybody doing good is this clear so far all right Reid how are we doing in terms of time okay do we have time for Delphi technique or no good let me read those let me read these out in case folks can't see them toxic masculinity is a big problem rejecting one's biological sex is natural naturally detrimental to one's mental health there was an objective standard of Art and Beauty God is the only objective criteria for truth di Department should be abolished at UCF wokeness has gone too far reality is a simulation we are being visited by aliens every time that manages to get on there isn't it funny how that works every time all cultures have equal moral worth UFC is systematically racist some people are born in the wrong body it's okay for drag queens to perform for children nothing controversial about this list um trans transgenderism is a social contagion Equity is a worthy goal Americans blow up the Nord stream pipeline I should say why don't we can compose a list of one two three uh five fifty three fifteen why don't we compose a list of 15 things nobody should be able to talk about except the aliens one all right so this is a little technique I use this all the time I published a paper about this a few years ago this is a way to build community consensus among people who ordinarily wouldn't agree it's a version of this thing called a Delphi technique it's pretty cool you can use if you're a professor you can use I used to use this in my classes for what questions would be on the exam it's used to use in prisons it's pretty cool okay so what we're going to do is we'll do a few iterations of this now they're about I don't know how many people there are here but um and then we'll take votes uh in this first round everybody will get two votes the questions that will remain we will then play the game with the highest ranked questions so first iteration everybody gets two votes of the things you want to talk about so this is an honor System only two votes oh not that you agree with it yeah not that you agree with it but you just want to see it play out across the Spectrum Okay who wants to see this conversation topic toxic masculinity is a big problem zero rejecting one's biological sex is not naturally detrimental to one's Mental Health one two three four five six seven eight eight there's an objective standard of Art and beauty one that's okay don't be shy don't be shy uh God is the only objective criteria for truth two three four five is that a hand hold on everybody up again one two three four five six six uh Dei Department should be abolished at UFC a UCF UFC see there I go again UFC I'm thinking ultimate flying shots one two three four wokeness has gone too far that was the Oxford debate thing with uh Chris kissing and Lindsay one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven eleven reality is a simulation one two strongly you would strongly agree uh we are being visited by aliens one one uh all cultists have moral worth equal more worth got one two three four five six seven eight nine nine you UCF is systematically racist one two two some people are born in the wrong body zero it's okay for drag queens to perform for children zero transgenderism is a social Contagion one Equity is a worthy goal two Americans blew up the Nordstrom pipeline look two okay so uh this is this is how you do it so there's no there's no uh set prescription for what comes next it's basically how I do so this so immediately we can eliminate anything with a zero because nobody wants to do it but the next cutoff would point would also be a one Let's do let's do the zeros and ones before you do twos so that put that two back okay so this is what we're left with now um now you have to make a decision whether or not you want to do the twos does it hurt to do the twos no but they probably won't get that many votes so you have a choice we could do three iterations or we can do two now only because we don't have a ton of time I'm just going to do one more iteration and as a general rule when you do this to build consensus when you first start give people multiple votes and then shave one off each time like what technique do you want to do you want to do a Kimura you could do this and that okay so let me let's dump the twos let's dump the twos unless anybody has a passion for keeping the twos anybody like gung-ho you want to keep the twos which one of the twos do you want to keep all right we'll keep that anybody else want to keep one of the twos all right let's keep all the twos keep obviously keep balances keep balances all right now we're going to reset these again uh but when you reset them you reset them back to zero the tallies aren't cumulative okay so this time everybody's gonna get one vote and then we're going to use in order we're going to rank order these and do these so depending on how much time we'll have we'll either do two of these or three of these and at the end of the night uh one of you is going to do this is going to facilitate the exercise okay so one vote honor System rejecting one's biological sex is naturally detrimental to one's Mental Health three all cultures have equal moral worth eight UFC is systematically racist you you oh my God okay UCF UCF you see how you watch way too much fighting okay I just I'm I'm just I'm trying to get my black belt right now that's all I'm thinking I watch that's all my YouTube videos I watch are about Jiu-Jitsu okay UCF is systematically racist zero okay so we already know this is not going to be discussed right we already know it's a zero God is the only objective criteria for truth okay one two three four five six uh I forgot to mention it but the camera guy secretaries anything when I do this in the prisons like the the secretaries give everybody gets a vote here Dei Department should be abolished at UCF okay one two three four four wokeness has gone too far one two three four five six seven seven reality is a simulation one two two Equity is a worthy goal one two three four five Americans blew up the nordstream pipeline zero okay all right so dump the zeros everybody needs a read in their life okay okay now can you read can you place those in in order just for so the first one we're gonna do is that one and then the seven one okay so uh the ideal number of people is four so one of the things okay so let me just say one more thing about this we're constantly changing evolving mixing this up testing it seeing what works seeing what doesn't work uh and and making an accommodation that way one of the things that we've changed about this since we've started is we'll do fewer people to start and then if everybody goes to one line I'll ask if if there's someone who sincerely disagrees and then will populate the line that way it's just much easier when you speak across a divide but we just started that we just came up with that over over dinner a couple nights ago okay so who would like to volunteer raise your hand for all cultures have equal moral worth one two three come on down come on down okay so you stand on the neutral line at the end you just hear it neutral line at the end face this way and you stand in the front and you stand there the reason I put them that way is it goes by height and it's just it's a camera thing it's not a discriminatory thing yeah just like that okay so let me just review the rules real quick um you can move lines at any point you just have to commit to a full line so you can't do that and uh wait I'm going to count down from five four three two one and the same move and if you ever uh forget the the claim I'm going to repeat it a lot but um uh it will be on the board now for everybody in the audience one of the things I want you to do it gets a little tricky to keep this stuff in your head but read is going to be typing on the board claims that people make and reasoning for the claims and you can trace the reasoning and remember what the objective of this is the objective is to see if the lines people are on are the lines they ought to be on according to their own reasoning that's the objective everybody got it that clear okay all right so we're going to do the claim all cultures have equal moral worth don't move until I say move five four three two one move okay okay this is almost the worst case scenario but that's okay does anybody sincerely uh does anybody have the sincere belief that they strongly agree or agree uh yeah agree okay well that's okay we can still do it okay tell us why oh and uh which was Travis so I need this okay cool cool can you hear me okay cool uh tell us why you strongly agree that all cultures have equal moral worth so I think when you go to Mom relatively system and you try and prescribe some form of reality to every single culture you have to eventually you're gonna have to start making excuses or turning a blind eye and do some pretty heinous actions that certain cultures commit okay so now I'm going to repeat back to him so the reason you believe the reason you strongly disagree that all cultures have equal moral worth that when some cultures do certain things that are considered give it to me one more time so when you go to more relevant relativism where you're trying to say we should respect the morality of how certain different cultures um function you're going to eventually run into a situation where you're going to have to cover for some pretty heinous moral things that Syrian cultures do okay so there you believe a moral judgment can be made about certain actions in certain cultures correct okay so I got that right yes okay so do you see I now that he said correct only then do I move to the next person because remember someone's going to have to do this by the end of the night okay so tell us why you disagree I think put most simply since all cultures don't have the same moral systems they can't all be morally equivalent since all cultures don't have the same moral systems they can't be morally equivalent but they could be morally relative um well everything is relative to something else I don't know what you mean by that statement well you can't be both um morally relative and morally equivalent can you define what morally relevant means in this context um well I was thinking I was kind of riffing off of what he what he was saying when he mentioned relativism if if a culture is relative if morality is relative then there's there'd be no way for cultures to be equal because they're because there's no stand in order to say they're equal there has to be some standard yes there has to be um yeah in order to judge anything there has to be a standard by which it's judged off of um so even Everything's Relative to something so in this situation it'd be relative to The Standard okay cool can you tell us why all cultures have equal moral worth I why I disagree with yeah why why you disagree um I think not I don't know if that's part of the criteria piggyback on some of the other no that's fine that's fine there is no right or wrong uh that relative you know just relative relativism you know goes to some pretty heinous places and if I had to kind of to find why I disagree um try to be put simply is like just the results you know it's kind of impossible for me to say they have equal moral worth when um you know some of them just have just so so so much different results and um you know regardless of what those morals are there are some that are um you know we most people share in the Civilized or I don't even know if that's the right term but you know uh infanticide there's certain things that across the board it's like there are some cultures that they condone that and then um you know I can't say they're they're equally morally but I also think you can learn from even the most reprehensible culture there's something we can learn from there so that's why I'm not okay cool so this is this is so normally I wouldn't keep going back to the audience but I just want to explain to you what what's going through my mind when I do this so um we have there are two choices that I have now I can ask what would it take you to disagree and then I can come here and I can say what would it take you to move one line to the slightly agree or one line to the strongly agree and then I can ask if they're confident that the line that they're on is the line they should be on and if you ever want to test yourself on this there are two questions that you'll ask people at the end one question is uh should I have asked you something that I didn't did I leave something out but the most important question you can ask somebody especially if it's you feel it's not going well is what line do you think I'd be on and then you walk to the line you're on because it if you say what line in an ideal situation they'd say all over the place or they'd they'd say what line you absolutely would not be on so when you do this you have to maintain your neutrality as much as possible okay this is what I'm going to do this time I'm going to reset this claim since everybody is on the same line so you guys walk back to the neutral and I'm going to reset the claim from all cultures have equal more worth to some claim that he mentioned in the beginning about moral relativism and I think I'll use the claim morality is relative all morality is relative to culture okay does everybody understand like why I did that when people are on the same line it's just not as it it it's not as challenging for them the most challenging thing is when somebody is on opposite lines and they're pressing them and then you're you're moderating it so I'm moderating it so nobody goes you can minimize the likelihood that someone's going to go crazy okay so all morality is relative to culture five four three two one move or you don't have to move you can stay at neutral do you need another second in other words there's no objective right or wrong it's just whatever the culture says okay okay okay no no cheating no cheating okay so you strongly disagree that all morality is relative to culture tell us why tell him why particularly okay um I think there are uh objective standards of morality and so if a culture violates those standards then I would say they're less moral how do you know that there are objective standards of morality well um I pull mine from my faith and I would uh like to think that the standards I use are the correct ones if your faith was false would all morality still be relative to culture well um if there's no standard in there I suppose is no morality so if I was false then hopefully someone else would be correct and that standard would be correct so then uh there's not really much point to existing on this Earth is there okay uh tell tell them why you disagree that all morality is relative to culture uh because I believe that there are certain things that transcend cultures that need to be said as a moral standard particularly negative rights which are rights that government cannot take away from you that are Nate to human beings I think some of which are enumerated and unconstitution such as life liberty Pursuit happiness uh Second Amendment to defend oneself and property uh freedom of religion freedom of speech okay how how Okay so all morality of roles of the culture how did you come up with those rights um so one to just uh just to I think you need before you set an objective standard for what morals are you must look at all cultures first and you see what things transcend the ones that continuously have positive human progress and that's where I kind of transcribed mine from uh would that be circular because how you def how one could Define progress would depend upon the standards that you invoked I guess it could be interpreted as circular um so possibly is there a way to rationally derive the fact that uh so if you you're on the disagree that all morality is relative to culture is there a way to rationally derive your view in terms of one that I can personally enumerate in a way that sounds logical I can't at the moment um I believe that studying of those who came before especially the Enlightenment thinkers is a good way to chip away at it but I personally if I had to sit here and try and rationalize it myself I don't think I'd do a good job at it okay so if you don't think you do a good job at it then why you want to disagree as opposed to the slightly disagree so I think um because the way in which others who are more intelligent to me have enumerated I think that they based on the credibility of based on themselves on other propositions and the general information which I understand about distinct human morality that transcends cultures that I can kind of pull from The credibility I have from them my basis understanding of what they're saying and think to it to be true okay aren't there other people who are equally intelligent on the other side of the issue who argue for opposite things that argue the moral relative case yeah so I would also they would say that they they make coherent arguments um I'm currently in a senior seminar with a uh the postmodernist one the professors uh post-modernist and also relativists right and she very much pushes development to the thing so I'm constantly hearing those arguments on a daily basis and I think that when she makes these arguments of being more morally relativist and not saying one more also transcending the others some pretty heinous things kind of get like slipped by into a kind of cover for them um and I just don't figure that I don't think that's the right thing to do okay okay so before you tell me why you slightly disagree did anything that they per se were you on slightly disagree before or did you move I was from disagree that all culturals have equal Worth to now I slightly agree that morality is relative to culture or all morality so I did move yeah I was on disagree did anything they say move you um let me try to think take a time what they actually uh said um yeah yeah please look at that if that's gonna help absolutely God is the objective stand of morality was the argument the guy on the strongly disagree made these lights lead to progress the guy on the disagree and they are rationally drivable um I wouldn't even say that I disagree with any of the like further down on the chart those individual statements but going back to the the original statement I couldn't say that I uh I I disagree I strongly agree with that um I do uh subscribe to a faith and a standard of morality personally um and I do think ultimately like there is some objective um in terms of like our shared experience and then like certain things like fantaside or just just these these things that I don't know child marriage yeah yeah that like it really is on the fringes I think you could say across the board in the world even though the the world does have some heinous stuff but in terms of actual culture but um I also recognize that like I've studied different I subscribe to one Faith so to speak but I've studied other ones and I think I do think they kind of derive sometimes at the same place you know there's all sorts of analogies in terms of like you know we're all different parts of the elephant but it's one big elephant you know we don't really see the picture so those individual statements I I agree with them in terms of I guess being in the disagree statement but I do also think Beyond like those certain subjects in a culture like there is a huge spectrum and I'm willing to recognize that and I can disagree with them but uh you know I don't think that I don't it's it's a smaller list I guess of things that I think are just like truly objective in terms of uh morality okay okay cool okay real quick uh and then I'm gonna wrap this one up what would it take for you to move to the from the strongly disagree to the disagree what what evidence reason could you have to hear would someone have to say to you um I'm fairly confident in my position here um I don't necessarily think uh I could be moved from the concept of there being a standard um I guess the only way I could move would be the standard changing so like me agree me prescribing to a different standard than I am currently um but I do hold to the idea that there is a standard okay so let me make sure I understand this so if there's nothing if there's no evidence there's so there's no evidence that would cause you to move to disagree right um well I guess the best way to say is um there's no evidence that I can think of that would make me move to disagree but perhaps there's something that hasn't occurred to me um so yeah okay okay uh what would cause you to to move to his line to strongly agree strongly disagree sorry um I definitely think a confirmation of a Divine being I'm sort of kind of agnostic in my theistic beliefs um not to get sidetracked but more kind of the Aristotle on move argument right but that aside if there's a theist if there can be a confirmed theistic being who is omnipotent or powerful who can then dish out the um correct morals for the universe in a rationalistic way then I would go to strongly strongly disagree um but even if that was the case you'd need to know that God wants you to do what he wants you to do correct so I think there would have to be um some sort of divine intervention for that too okay okay what would it take you to move to the slightly disagree I'm not sure to be honest that's a great answer what what would it take for you to move one line over to the neutral so the neutral because anything he could okay okay what would you okay then what would it take you to move to the disagree or the slide thing they could tell you or you could hear to the right um I guess the same answer whether it's neutral or even going further down um I was thinking just in terms of uh experiences with cultures because my experience in terms of the cultures in the world is Puerto Rico yeah Puerto Rico where I've lived you know is a very small portion of the world so I think that could also make me go the other way but but um definitely more um negative experiences with with a culture prop might make me go to the right um but it it could go the other way and just kind of in general I guess more to strongly disagree the more interactions I observed between cultures if I kept seeing a definitive result or a clear you know like hey this is the this is the truly objective standard then I would be pushed that way but um okay he had gotten those experiences two two final questions um in terms of your relation with your close friends is this question a deal breaker to you like if you're a close friend if you're if you had a close friend standing on the strongly agree line would would you no longer be her or his friend it would not be a deal breaker for me would it be a deal breaker for you probably not no would it be a deal breaker for you um in general no if they agree with the statement but if I saw it expressed in certain ways where they're just like yeah and I can do whatever then then I it would be absolutely a deal breaker if I if I don't have the same morals as somebody to the point where I think they have no morals um but if they just said I strongly agree with the statement itself I I'd be like cool okay what what line do you think I'd be on um I'd say you are probably on agree or uh strongly agree from what I know of you and your work I would say I would say slightly disagree okay I just met you today so just from the questions I've asked Etc where do you think I'd be I have no clue okay that means it was successful right okay thanks everybody thanks give him a hand give him a hand [Applause] uh okay so you see how that the mapping the arguments helps people to um what's amazing to me we did a tour of the country I can't remember how many colleges were 9 10 I can't remember how we went to but uh I would I asked people a Dartmouth and Berkeley Etc I would always ask them a couple of questions um I would ask them um has anybody ever asked you what it would take to change your mind about a given proposition and of all the people Travis and Reed and I asked not a single person said that so they went through four years of an IV education and literally nobody ever asked them that question flabbergast I was flabbergasted by that truly I was like you know the other thing in Psychology that I would ask people have any of your professors told you about the replication crisis not a single person said yes and all of the I was shocked by that okay moving right along let's do ah an excellent topic wokeness has gone too far who wants to volunteer come on down if you want to volunteer let's see one two three one two three we're good at three let's see let's see where they let's see where they land let's see where they lands against go to the neutral uh you in the front this time and you in the back good four all right we got four if you haven't seen the Oxford Union debate on this I would highly highly recommend it it's a couple months old now uh Constantine kissing and James Lindsay's talk in particular okay wokeness has gone too far five four three two one move okay okay now we're gonna do something fun okay so I got a lot of variables in my head okay you come to the strongly disagree line no no no no no no you go back go back you come to strongly disagree you move to the slightly agree you two move to the disagree haha okay so this is we're gonna do we're gonna change the game a little bit pretend in your head that somebody really smart with a sincere person believes that they have good reason for standing on the line that they're on okay get in your head what kind of arguments and reasoning they would have and what kind of things they would say okay okay so let's start with you since I'm standing next to you and I know you don't agree with this I know so what would an intelligent thoughtful person have to say about for why they slightly agreed that wokeness has gone too far tell him yeah so we live in a society where we are constantly self-checking ourselves and self-checking other people by wish if you're going to live in a society where it surround us the idea of freedom we had to allow ourselves to be free to meet mistakes and to experience rather than just constantly fixating ourselves or fixing other people how they live their life if we're trying to be able to live our life in a more natural way and wokeness prevents people from living their lives in a more natural way indeed because it's a very broad term of many different things that happen in our society that can either be trying to politically correct People based on the way they are the way they behave the way they live their life religiously politically and Etc so it threatens people's freedom excuse me it threatens people's freedom indeed yes okay why do you why would someone who stood there what would their argument be tell him what would their argument be for why for strongly disagreeing that wokeness has gone too far um so first I think it's important we Define wokeness uh this is how I closely do it and if you feel free to disagree I Define it as a mix between post-modernist philosophy and critical theory and I think why in someone from this side would consider it necessary is that there have been many people who have done heinous things in the name of Freedom who propelled to be objectively supporting morals and freedom and that when we try to if it's tough um but you know if we don't correct people from uh from from heinously uh cause and harm to other individuals then we would never break the cycle of violence okay so tell him what someone is standing on this line who is smart and thoughtful would say what's an argument they would use for why they disagreed that wokeness has gone too far there is a history of discrimination within this country and many others and uh that discrimination's effects are still being felt today and so it's important that we as a society acknowledge that and work to correct that and how does wokeness correct that witness corrects that by uh uh increasing tolerance within the society uh yeah I guess yeah yeah okay so you you're on the disagree what would someone a thoughtful smart person say for why they disagree with wokeness has gone too far I think wokeness is just an awareness that Injustice exists and by becoming more cognizant of that fact you're better able to uh I guess improve society and everyone's role in that Society okay so this is a key question not did you agree with what they said but did you understand the reasoning they have for why they're on the line they are I agree and I under I don't agree entirely but I understand what they're coming off based on what they're explaining okay did the three of you not agree with him but do you understand why he made the arguments he made like you understand his reasoning okay is the reasoning that they gave does it align with with the lines they're on in other words they gave reasons some of those are one of those is up there um they gave reasons do you think the reasons match the line or should they be closer to your line based upon the reasons they gave are you satisfied with the reasons they gave personally I think there could have been a more argued and more stronger reasoning in my opinion if that's the reasoning that I think they should be more slightly to the degrees what what reasoning would they have to have articulated for them to be like what didn't they say that they should have said and what you'd be more comfortable that they were on the correct line for me personally I'll be more uncomfortable with the idea that when someone mentioned about how um it protects like the legacy of awareness which makes sense however there's always good every good thing can also lead to a greater cause enough costs in my opinion where it's like if you're going to aim for a goal there could be a costly aim for that goal and very important that we self-refled where we are a society and how we can move towards in a way that does not feel Force but relatively natural because at the end of the day we're going to need a consensus of people to understand how to go about approaching being politically correct or wokeness but in my opinion I don't think there is a consensus entirely on Brokenness so I think and just does not move me okay all right cool is there anything I should have asked that I didn't or any anything you want to say that you think someone who would stand on that line who was intelligent and thoughtful would say um I think when using a term as Vegas wokeness it would have been better to give a definition first I agree yeah it was a mistake so other than that I think it went pretty well uh anything you want to add of what of what someone who was on this line would say that's a great point that we should have defined it up front I I would say that wokeness by itself is divorced from things like cancel culture and outrage culture so that wokeness hasn't gone too far but maybe the things that people tie to it are or are adjacent to it uh are they go too far but wokeness by itself is not all right you have anything else you want from this perspective I think someone like the argument this is not done out of some type of authoritarian malice they would say to the platonic notion that why we may disagree we were both trying to improve the human conditions we just had vastly different ways of knowing about it a final question um if if somebody is on a line other than the one go back to your original lines if somebody were on the opposite line would they be wrong what do you mean like um here move up for those so let's say the question is wokeness has gone too far if somebody strongly agreed excuse me if someone strongly disagreed with that would that opinion be wrong like would there be a way to say that's wrong here's why boom boom boom yeah I think in terms of empirical evidence of how Wilkinson has gone too far I think there's a myriad of different um ways in which one can articulate it I think one the greatest way that we can see today is that people are actively discriminating to try and fix discrimination and pass us on that even Max candy has said that we must use discrimination today Equity yes the equity line Sorry equity line equity line and I think that's a self-propelling cycle of hate that hate today does not fix hate in the past right okay um are you here turn that way are you confident that the line you're on now is the line you should be on yeah are you confident the line you're on now which line should be on yes are you confident the line you're on now which line you should be on no what line do you think you should be on oh what caused you to move to the disagree because I given listening to the argument of what they said earlier it feels my belief on this question a bit more because at the end of the day wokeness is the idea that I feel like can be very subjected to people's understanding of what the word is and people understand the word wokeness can be scrutinized and can be radicalized easily and I feel like if you put ourselves into a position where we don't do proper research or understand how people approach to a certain issues and worse than we would definitely we'll have a hard time progressing as a society so was it one of the arguments that they made when they were on that side that caused you to move I think it where someone mentioned about the importance of awareness I think it really continues I feel like witness is a more it's a word that tends to be used in a way that tend to bring fear into people and although we live in society where we're constantly at the end of the day the goal is to remain people aware and sometimes people may have be that term but at the end of the day the cause is still there okay all right cool thank you thank you thank you all right cool I don't think that clock is working because I'd be astonished if it were two o'clock let's see 8 48 oh what time we have the room to hand it we have the room to nine is that where 9 15. okay cool um so that's something else you can do if you do this with classes kids you're if you're a TA you're Med at school you can ask people to switch lines uh at any point one thing that we haven't done a lot or I haven't done that much of is resetting the lines if you have something that's interesting you can just reset the line as many times as you want okay um so would you say we have this till 9 15. all right well yeah let's see and what time is it now we do two more can I do one more and then all right let's do one more and then after we do this one somebody else will do it cool God is the only objective criteria it should be Criterion Iowan for Truth uh who wants to one two well let's see we go ahead of you before who else one we had you before who else who hasn't done it two awesome come on down come on down by the way so why two things why they come down come on down why is it better to have two because if they have one I you don't have anybody to play off of right if you just have one if you have two okay so hard to say who's taller so just go on the neutral line it's a neutron a couple things uh do you remember when I asked that question was that a deal breaker to you in a friendship so the the one of the things when I do this is my golden rule for asking questions is I will only ask someone a question if I genuinely want to know the answer so I was genuinely curious if that was a deal breaker to people especially in 2023 I was hoping that they they would say it wasn't that they said it wasn't okay so um and again in the back uh just you know watch watch the screen uh question uh question reason and counter um and we're going to start which I should have done last time with the definition so before you go don't move yet how do you define God uh a non-dependent pure existent reality okay how do you define God I don't know that I've ever like defined God but probably a pretty typical like Christian sense of God Omni everything sure okay so I just want to make sure I'm clear like when when you say a reality what do you mean I mean I can stick with the typical abrahamic Faith monotheistic God that's fine too oh okay but I want to make sure you're comfortable before we like we have to agree or else the question won't make any sense so you cool you cool with the Omni everything yeah so Omni everything you're cool with that okay read I can't see ah no God is the only objective Criterion for truth five four three two one move okay oh [Applause] this is what we live for okay tell him way down there why you strongly disagree in my opinion there is a difference between a fact and a belief tell him tell him and I think that truth can include either of them um but for it to be an objective criteria for truth and for God to be the only objective criteria for truth is not something that I agree with because I would think that things that you experience that aren't necessarily directly connected to God like what like eating a hamburger speaking to you or standing on this carpet um I don't really need God to say anything about that for me to know that it is true okay so for you and then make sure I have this right for you it's um a direct personal experience of something does not have to be mediated by an omni everything being okay so you're gonna tell her not me why do you believe God you strongly agree God is the only objective Criterion for truth so there are multiple ways of getting the truth rational methods scientific method Etc none of those lead to an objective source of Truth the only one is something metaphysical which would end up being some sort of organized religion which also respect to this idea of God what about math itself I mean there's debates on that um then we'd have to figure out is math a belief or is it a truth if it's a Truth where is that ultimate source coming from is it something that's part of this I mean that's why we talked about this Omni everything or non-dependent reality if God is looked at this Omni everything then those mathematical truths are being sourced from him and not from not from science or not from math itself or you know it's not rationally just understood separately so I want to I'm going to take a little extra time to make sure I understand this because it's such a complicated issue so 7 plus 5 equaling 12 or make it even I'm not a math guy so I'm just going to say one plus one is two one What a Sad statement that was um One Plus One equaling two let's say that there were two universes in one Universe there was a universe with a God and one Universe there was a universe without a god and we didn't know which one we were in how would one plus one equaling two look different what would one plus one equal in a universe without God you're saying what would one plus one equal in Universe without God yeah so my understanding and based on the definition of God is that a universe without god without the source it's impossible to have any sort of Truth in the first place and because so that's the part I need to connect draw a line to that so I can understand that why so if one plus one equals two is an objective Source my whole claim is that God is an objective Source For Truth there has to be some sort of standard outside of the reality itself that puts these standards into place like the rules have to be sort of set rules for engagement so to speak right why can't the rules for engagement just be definitional so even definitional truths if you're understanding the axiomatic truths will what makes them true in the first place so I'm just I'm sorry I'm just just just just help me a little more I know I'm a little slow so axiomatic truths by definition aren't mediated by anything because they're axiomatic so the whole idea is okay so whether something's definitionally true we'd say okay why why do we even believe in something like the law of identity a lot of non-contradiction they're usually defined as axiomatic or intuitively true right so those propositions if somebody just claims that they're true in and of themselves like okay but base the question would be based on what based on what for me my understanding is that there has to be some sort of non-dependent reality which allows for all these kind of truths to stick okay one more thing and then and then I'm gonna try to give it to her just as good as I'm giving it to you why could that let's say everything you said was true just accept by Fiat that it's true why couldn't the thing be something other than God like an infinite regress why couldn't there be an infinite regress well why couldn't an infinite regress be the source of Truth as opposed to God so if we're assuming that there's some sort of reality that does not have a God and we're yes we suppose that there's hypothetically some other way of ascertaining truths so using that method let's just say somebody says all right there's a rational method to uh to to get to this rationally is infinite regress uh of cause as possible and then depending on your philosophical position one would argue no it's not possible so let's say it is let's say it is because I actually believe it is but let's say it's possible why couldn't we use the same method of reasoning uh an infinite regress is the only objective Criterion for truth like because an infinite regress would be grounded in in this correct me if I'm wrong but the same method of reasoning could be used but God could be a placeholder for the infinite regress if I didn't articulate that clearly let me know I'm going to go on to her yeah could you just explain that again yeah so why does the thing the only objective criteria for truth have to be an omni evident Omni everything being why couldn't it be something else that exists why couldn't it be an essential nature of the reality itself without being in the reality like why couldn't it be subspecy eternitatis uh from the beginning of Eternity to the end of Eternity why why would you need a kind of anthropomorphized omni everything being to confer that truth and so I wouldn't I don't agree with an anthropomorphized version of God okay um but the ideas so you're going back into if I'm understanding the way that you're explaining it is that you to presuppose some sort of reality that can either infinitely just just be there that you know the sort of God in the Gap questions like first cause Etc et cetera like okay well is that philosophically possible or not so you're uh what you're I guess uh positing is that no assume that it is possible I mean I I it would be like me assuming that a is not a is a possibility right law of identity non-contradiction so I I it's tough for me to agree with like you know rational axiomatic truth being you know possible impossible if if it is like that if chaos is possible then there is no Truth at all so the one plus one is two doesn't matter anyway you're just stepping into post-modern territory like that okay okay there's a lot to keep in your head here okay first of all did anything he say convince you to move to the disagree I wouldn't say so but I also don't necessarily disagree with what he's saying if that makes sense like I see where you're coming from um it makes sense to me I think that we are looking at this question kind of on different levels um I if I understand correctly I feel like you're taking a more zoomed out View kind of than I I think so would you is that fair yeah I I think so so I was kind of thinking more along the lines of like let's say God makes us and does not provide an exact script of everything that we say I could still say something that is objectively true and that's not something directly from God even if we're saying that God made me and God gave me the ability to observe that truth so if if you say I'm gonna touch your hand okay if if you hold this in front of your face and you say this is a hand your claim that's GE Moore's claim your your claim is that nothing mediates that there's a kind of immediacy from the hand to the cup fare to the Head and and you don't need like any interview yeah I would say that that's how I see things yes oh okay so one more question and I'm gonna go so okay no I'm not going to ask you another question I'm still I'm still caught up in some of the things you're saying so so so so can I touch your hand yeah so so this is a hand you perceive that I assume you perceive that as your hand her claim and if I've mischaracterized this let me know is that there's an immediacy between this and she can know that that's true without any kind of divine intervention divine presence kind of extra Supernatural metaphysical reality how would you respond to that tell her how you'd respond did I characterize that roughly roughly to tell her what your response to that claim would be uh so I think the way that you explain that maybe this whole zoomed out zoomed in like where we're explaining I think that's probably the issue so yeah if somebody you know me or you believing our hand is our hand like we're perceiving it first person perception and intuitively I know that and a person you can imagine an atheist doesn't believe in God also said yeah I don't need God to tell me that I have a hand or I exist or one plus one is two or anything like that the the reason I was zooming it out to say yeah that ability for you to say and make that objective claim needs to be sourced somewhere if there is not some sort of non-dependent reality that allows us to make these objective claims then we are defaulting to what ended up happening with the Enlightenment and everything else and just end up in a postmodern phase where no everything then becomes subjective because all I can really know is my own perception maybe this is a hand maybe it's a guy's hand you it's a girl's hand maybe I'm fluid who knows what I am maybe because I've done this for 12 hours today but why does it have to be sourced like I don't I'm missing that draw help me figure that out so I'm a fundamentalist right meaning that if you don't have a grounding for where your truth pains are coming from then there's no scaffolding so then there is no truth oh you're saying you are a fundamental you're a truth fundamentalist yeah and that fundamental bottom of the the pyramid so to take the triangle goes to some metaphysical reality which I'm naming right now is God if the so the claim is God is the only objective Criterion for truth let's do this let's reset um I'll read you just took it away ah yes truth you know think in your head who I'm asking this for right don't move until I say move please truth requires a fundamental grounding five four three two one move okay now I'm confused why why did you stand on the slightly agree for truth requires uh a grounding fundamental grounding tell them tell him actually because I mean some things are not true you can lie and that's obviously not true and some things are true and also not true like if I believe something is true like say I'm experiencing psychosis and I say something and I'm like there is a dragon over there and to me that is true but to everyone else like that's not true so I would say that it does require a fundamental grounding but it's not going to be the same for everyone all the time which is why I slightly okay hold on why wouldn't the fundamental grounding be reality because I think like you were saying before you know you are perceiving your hand you have to experience things through your brain so so that would be reality to you okay if I told you I saw a massive rhinoceros up there uh so you don't see a rhinoceros up there right correct okay so the fact that you don't so there's no convergence of opinion if I asked everybody to vote on if there's a rhinoceros up there so we we would achieve the consensus based upon the re based upon reality well if you really saw a rhinoceros up there like if you meant that when you said that then that would be true to you like it would be true to you right right like we're saying it'd be true to me but it wouldn't be objectively true it would be objectively true that you see a rhinoceros up there do people have their own truths in that case you would it would not be objectively true to say there is a rhinoceros up there but it would be true for you to say I see a rhinoceros up there if I tell you seven plus five is if you have two people one says seven plus five is fifteen and one says 7 plus 5 is 27 is someone wrong yes and how do we know someone's wrong they were both wrong but how do we know someone is wrong because you can count so in matters of fact must someone be wrong not someone be right but in matters or fact must someone be wrong if two people have conflicting beliefs about the same objective phenomenon and a matter of fact must someone be wrong there's of perception that it's more based on your own personal truth but in matters of fact I think it's fair to say that someone could be wrong okay so we'll wrap up pretty quick because I want to make sure someone hasn't did you have a good question or a question I was wondering I don't know if we're allowed to ask questions but um it's a free country Sunday well if you if you're in the situation let's say there's only five people on Earth and they're all experiencing uh group hallucination they all see the Rhino there there's no the convergent point of view is that the Rhino is there and there's no conflicting point of view what in that case would be well some someone so some so some somebody in in that case someone would still there was either a rhino there or there's not well what if everyone saw right everyone who exists right and so there was either a rhino there or there's not and true so truth isn't a matter of consensus or vote right it's a matter of fact and that's why I was curious about the claims from initially if the fundamental grounding um and correct me if I'm wrong with words in your mouth so your argument to the initial claim was that the fundamental grounding had to be something outside the reality itself like a metaphysical entity or realm or what have you that conferred the um the the ability to have true or false in the first place right and absent that grounding we wouldn't have truth or falsity correct Okay cool so uh all right good I'm I want to get one more in or I would normally ask a few more questions good thank you very much thank you appreciate it thank you thank you that's a good one good guys good job everybody all right uh we have time for one more uh what's the next one read Equity is a worthy goal one of my favorite topics um who wants to participate in equity is a worthy goal are you want to participate come on down come on down if you want to participate when you come on down come on down come on down come up we had we got let's see we've got come on okay five come on down one two good good because one of you is going to do it okay hold on here let me get a pen um yeah we've got to find a facilitator Okay Okay who wants to facilitate raise their hand s you want to facilitate all right I was going to write a random number down okay here you go okay so so before we do this I want you to do the whole thing including the rules so if you ever do this on your own I want you to remember the rules so you know don't do this uh and make sure everybody moves at the same time line everybody up by height ask them why they try to keep it moving if you want look behind you uh if you forget the claim that goes for anybody uh Reed can also give you hints and stuff if you want a place to go with this yeah that's read right there yeah look look for the orange to the to reset it if people go on different uh uh lines make sure they speak to the person across the line got it you can do it I'll help I'll jump in if it's a problem and make sure you hold this like this got it so line them up in terms of height we'll do the whole thing you're the boss was it okay okay [Music] um so I think we have to do the lineup and all that stuff first right okay so okay ideas or race do that yeah okay go on the lines so it stops in the back right the boss in the back down get out of the way okay okay so before we start we want to clarify the definition of equity is that what we're doing trying to do right that makes sense okay um should I provide one and see if they agree or should I try to feed it get it from them uh get get it from them get it from them okay I think you were mentioning something right um put the microphone up to him up to his mouth I think it'd be more interesting to uh to have us answer with regards to both Equity with regards of things like race as well as Equity with things like ideas so I think it'd be best to keep it Broad and allow both topics to happen so already you're saying that Equity is a different meaning when it comes to race versus or his idea so you're saying that there's a different definition for you for both the word Equity has the same definition in both cases but I think though what is that um Equity uh uh rather than I guess having equal outcomes so like let's say you have 10 voices in a room allowing all 10 to be heard equally not based on their Merit but just ten percent of the time ten percent of the time 10 percent of the time ten percent of the time so quantitatively equal does that mean equality or Equity that would be Equity I believe and then equality would be starting like if you're all starting a race starting at the same starting line would be equality and then Equity would be if the all finish at the exact same time does that make sense so you're talking about uh outcomes any quality of outcomes risks I would define equity as a quality of outcomes and equality as a quality of your starting position opportunities right okay so going equality opportunities Equity is outcomes right everybody okay with that one yeah we're good okay okay so they're all standing the way they should we got a definition remember you can't be in the middle of stuff you have to go to a line wait till I say five four three two one that's the idea you got it okay all right five four three two one okay uh where to start now oh whoa whoa whoa okay okay and just to make sure we're saying excellent Equity is a worthy goal and you strongly disagree with that you disagree with that you're neutral and you agree that Equity is a worthy goal I think you were up here before did you start last time or I can't remember where you started it doesn't matter dude I usually go to one of the ends one of the ends yeah okay so Equity equality oh Equity meaning equality of outcomes is where they go you do not agree with that you strongly disagree yeah okay so why so what's your evidence because not everyone is equal in their ability and not everyone is equal the amount that they put in the amount of skin they put into the game not everyone is going to be working 70 80 hours a week to get ahead not everyone has equal levels of intelligence it's as simple as that we're in terms of and should we have all have equal rights of course but do we all have the same equal ability no and we shouldn't we shouldn't draw back from those who have extraordinary ability and give um pedestals to those who do not Okay so if I understand you you're saying that because people have different temperaments different skills some people are better at certain things than others because of that skill set that someone does or does not have that's going to lead them to certain outcomes and if I'm better at something like better at certain types of jobs that earn more money then I'm going to earn more money somebody who doesn't have that same skill set they should be able to earn as much as money as I do because they don't have that same skill set correct okay uh keep going yeah okay so is there anything you agree with him like same style or something different um yeah very very similar I would agree with uh most of what he said like I believe in a meritocracy um uh and I yeah I mean he didn't elaborate on that but one big factor in this was just like uh in my opinion or at least the data that I've you know I've seen because it's kind of a broad swath that like giving everyone the same will actually lower the the standard of whatever that is um the efficiency versus letting the cream rise to the top um I wouldn't yeah almost everything he said I I agree with but I I do always like to position myself a little more uh in the middle because I do recognize like certain subjects like for me it's a little different some subjects I think like Equity is like uh having that Equity mindset is is good and then some is not like you know I think some some factors really are a disadvantage uh more than other factors um so I do like to you know for example like disabled people it doesn't you can't really argue that they have the same ability it's literally baked in you know with that label so I don't I think they shouldn't be just left to the curb so I would go to that strongly disagree but everything he said I would stand but they don't deserve the things that the most able-bodied people who are highly intellectual like that person and a disabled person don't shouldn't get the same outcome um say that one more time please so we were saying you're giving examples of that there's clear skill differences which you mentioned too one extreme example with somebody who's let's say physically or mentally disabled right or they have some sort of illness or impairment or something like that now if you have somebody let's say fully you know have whatever they have mentally physically able-bodied or like creepy the crop so they're able to attain a lot more in life so you're saying that that person who's intellectually amazing and a disabled person should not there shouldn't be something pushing them to give them the both the same thing um outcome wise I mean I would say economically like I could be more nuanced with that I don't know if that that's exactly what you're asking but like like for example culturally like I think a disabled person should be there should be that Equity quote quotient in the sense that yeah they're just as important as uh Lebron James but economically no or you know in other aspects of society so um I don't think yeah a disabled person would deserves the same as uh you know the top performer of any field but I think they should be respected as such I don't know if that counts in the equity so maybe like a bare minimum no I think beyond the I mean that again I don't know what what a bare minimum is I think a standard of living um what's the term uh dignity you know that's how again definitions are hard to Define but no I don't think they should have subsistence uh I think they should be um able to enjoy their life as much as we can we can provide um but uh yeah yeah but I don't think they should they necessarily deserve we don't deserve I don't I don't think we should hurt the economy or the you know Society aggregate to make them be exactly the same giving like a yacht or something just for just for being disabled but I definitely think they should have the means to live a dignified life that's funny I was thinking of a yacht in my mind too I was like you want to give it yeah yeah I don't know why we jumped to that right away yeah you are neutral uh yeah explain that okay so with regards to some things I think Equity is useful and good and with regards to others I think it is not useful I would say I'm with regard to basically everything he said I agree with but I think that the place in which the help for individuals are disabled uh should come from is within the community they're embedded in I think it's a much healthier way to go about it versus like mandating it from like a gun to the Head government level but the reason I'm staying in neutral is because I I feel that in the realm of ideas and Academia Equity is important so I don't necessarily uh with regard to just hearing different ideas I don't think that they should be less or more heard based on their Merit necessarily I think it's important to give an equal field with regard to ideas specifically uh uh equality so like I said earlier if you've got 10 ideas I don't think the best idea should get 90 of the air time and the other nine share ten percent I think each should get 10 of that air time so for example like if you're hiring professors I think it would be even if let's say we came to the conclusion one specific and many people do come to this conclusion one specific political affiliation is superior to the others and then you start hiring based on that I think that's problematic I think it's important to keep a wide range of ideas so if let's say a host of a session got more air time than the participants is that a good thing or a bad thing like in terms of equity um uh uh I would say that's probably a bad thing uh it would depend on the situation like if the participants ran out of stuff to say and the host continued talking because that was their job then that would just be a result of the circumstances but I think as long as there's something to say I think it's important to give equal time two ideas so if let's say you have people with clear intellectual differences which you agree with right but they were saying that there are people with different skill sets you have somebody let's say PhD expert in their field that is doing doing research for 10 15 20 30 years and then you have a bunch of people who are Bachelor students do they all deserve the same space to explain their ideas on the same subject yeah but I think it's also important to construct contextualize what they're saying so um if there's no pH let's say you get one subject with the the PHD individual and one with the grad student individual um then yeah I think they should get equal time but I think it's also important that you acknowledge where they're at in their careers now it would be better to have two people who are on equal footing just for the sake of the quality of whatever debate you're in but I do think it'd be important to give them equal time so yeah this hypothetical example is that you have people at extreme sides literally like student and master that kind of idea in most other regards like I mean we have the martial artists over here right and student over there so should the students have equal time and let's say doing moves or should he take time teaching them which is obviously going to take more time oh well okay so I was referring to in reference of the sharing of ideas to begin with so if you were to take two teeth so he's a master at what he's doing he's gotta I'm assuming all right so he's gotta explain his ideas and if he gives equal footing to all the other students that are there is that actually gonna work because it's a sharing of ideas on what's the best technique in this and that if everybody else jumps in and says oh this is my idea this is my idea about the best whatever I don't know what do we do BJJ right okay I don't take down or whatever best way to Grapple get out of it like does that is that does that make sense would you something you agree with well I think in that situation um uh okay let me restart so he's in the situation the teacher and he's got students I think each student in reference to each other student should have equal time but he as the teacher these students are paying I would assume for his class now if there was a situation where there was two teachers and it was marketed as there being two teachers and both had equal amount to say on this subject even if they had different points of views then I think in that situation it would be important to allow both of them to speak okay is there I should do the oh yeah before you do that so check out what Reid put on the back there now you have some choices so uh but before you do it you should definitely do him quickly so make sure that he at the very least that that he gets hurt but so you have some choices you can either walk to the guy on the agree line and ask him should creationism have equal air time as evolution in elementary schools or you can ask him some other insane question to try to get him to Ascent to it and then relate it back to whether or not that's Equity so you can do that or you have a choice but either way you have to go to him next because he hasn't spoken it or you can reset the line you can put everybody on the neutral again to one of those things up there to one of the three things because that those were three things that people said during the discussion three yellows you mean right correct okay all right so let me jump to you okay how you doing good um well face the other and face the cameras okay so now you for him you want me to try to he's one of those or just get his ideas first and then push one of those questions um I would to that so this is if I would so you're the boss you can do what you want but I would jump to the I would jump to the creationist question and related to Evolution um or I would just said why do you believe that and then I'd reset okay and you said I can either use that one or use another sort of yeah probably one okay uh do you think that when let's say in public schools they teach about the horrors of the Holocaust and World War II Nazism should they give equal time to teaching the positives of Nazism and fascism like that um and you really think about that question my free time but if I have to can you repeat your question please uh I mean if I'm going to oversimplify it should racists and anti-racists both get the same air time let's say in public school where normally it's an anti-racist institution I mean it's debatable obviously but let's just say that we're taking that as an assumption that they're teaching a certain ideology racism's bad fascism is bad that kind of stuff should the pro side of that also be taught pro-racism or pro-fascism things like that um die of the very great um answer because it can't really be a black and white but I would say that yes in a sense on its approach of how you present a topic if you present in a more objective way in a sense of how it been brought throughout history if you're going to Simply disenfranchise an entire piece of history or or like experience thinking to encourage students to support in a way that is not healthy and that's why we get to some of unfortunate disaster that I see that we see in today's society where we see people not researching away they should have research in school and how certain information are not being presented in a way that is being taught so if you're going against history in a way that gets history also present the bad history as well because at the end of the day you should trust how you're teaching it because if you're trying to aim for a particular side then you're not really showing or presenting history of what's Happening Okay so we've got a we've got a cut because we're on a time but so the last two questions you would ask if we had time were um uh is there anything I should have asked that I didn't or you mean one more you know what would it take you to move and then like you'd ask you'd go over here and you'd ask him um you know what would it take for you to move one line and you'll you know you'd see what he'd say and then you'd see if the other person can give it and then you'd so for him too there's no one on strongly agree so you'd ask him what would it what would it take to move you and then the final question you'd ask and I'm curious I'm going to ask for you what line do you think he'd be on I can't tell you I think I'd be on disagree you don't have to answer that if you don't want to oh no hold on equality of outcome is a worthy goal I'm gonna guess where you'd be uh I I think you'd say either I'd say you'd probably say disagree or maybe strongly so I think that the definition has to be beat down a little bit more yeah because if you say Something like Happiness it's a very vague sort of goal then fine I think most people would agree yeah everybody deserves and they should get some level of Happiness yeah but when you start going down the specifics like okay what what makes me happy is a yacht or two Yachts or whatever like okay hold on getting into that requires a bit more let's say skill set Etc so no no no I don't agree with that necessarily okay okay cool all right thank you I appreciate it thank you thank you all right we are uh wrapping it up thanks man thank you thank you thank you appreciate it thank you all right did everybody get something out of this tonight do you see how you could use this in a wide variety of of sources and contacts um so we live in a country in a society at this particular time where people simply are not talking to each other they're not speaking across the divides and much of the time is they just don't know how to do that um I set out a little template in the beginning listen repeat something back to somebody ask them if you have I understood this correctly um one thing this so this is kind of a scale so one thing you can always do if you don't have a physical scale you can just say to someone hey on a scale from one to ten I love this I use this constantly this is unbelievably helpful on a scale from one to ten how strongly do you believe in that with one being I don't believe at all five being maybe seven being yeah I'm pretty sure and ten being absolutely positive and if someone says I don't like the scaler I don't want to use the scale then that's cool just don't Don't Force It or don't push it one of the key things is you never want to create adversarial relationships because people change their beliefs and when they feel psychologically comfortable and psychologically safe so someone doesn't want to use the scale or you can say okay you don't like you know one to ten let's use one to one hundred or I actually had a guy say I will only use an alphabetic scale okay great A to Z if it's a being that's that's fine too um okay so you can basically ask them to put it on a scale they put the beliefs on scale ask them what it would take to change their minds speaking across the Divide isn't particularly complicated I mean I just gave you a very very very brief overview of the first two chapters of the seven in my book that but it should be enough to get everybody going and it should be enough so if you're a professor you can use this you don't need the carpet you can just use tape or if you have kids or I use a version of this with my own kids and I think they they turned I think they turned out pretty well okay so thanks the AHA foundation and thanks for Hannah for hosting us I appreciate Alex thanks for your help and thanks everybody I'm going to be around hanging out for a few minutes if anybody wants to chat and I appreciate everybody coming thank you thank you thank you

Channel: AHA Foundation

Views: 924

Keywords:

Id: Z63WS8f_y6E

Length: 102min 30sec (6150 seconds)

Published: Sat Mar 18 2023