Jonathan Haidt on Why Public Discourse Has Become So Stupid

In this enlightening discussion, Jonathan Haidt, a renowned Professor of ethical leadership at NYU's Stern School of Business and co-author of influential works on moral psychology, explores the troubling decline of public discourse. He highlights the toxic influence of social media and the rise of 'structural stupidity' in American debate. Haidt advocates for systemic reforms to improve online interactions and empower moderates. He emphasizes personal responsibility and empathy as crucial elements for nurturing constructive dialogue in a fragmented society.

Highlights

• How to Get a Twitter Account
  Summary:
  i think systemically important platforms, namely large platforms, we should think ofit the way tha banks have know your customer laws. i'm surprised that so far people have not objectedt to my libertarian friends being able to use their real name on social media. You can still publish anonymously. Ye can ted anonymously. But to get access to the hyper viralization of a company that has this incredible benefit of section two 30 protection, in order tohe advantage of you have to just get authenticated. And it's not that facebook is going to get your drivers license. It's that they would kick you over to a third party non profit that would do the verification. That would be huge tey
  Transcript:
  Speaker 1
  So the structural changes are, what can we do to make social media less of a powerful tool for intimidation? So there's some little things like, for example, your twitter actually is, i think, kind of trying. It's been really not well run forever, but now they're doing a few things. Like, one is the ability to down vote comments, because thats what a lot of the nastiness is, is in the comments. And so if you can block them, or you can down vote them, so things like that, i think, well help. The biggest single thing that i'm arguing for is that i think systemically important platforms, namely large platforms, we should think ofit the way tha banks have know your customer Laws. Banks are systemically important, and so they can't just take bags of money. They can't do money wandering. They have to know where their customers are. And i'm surprised that so far people have not objectedt i expected my libertarian friends to freak out when i said this, but you no, i'm not sayng you ave to use your real name. You can still publish anonymously. Ye can ted anonymously. But to get a twitter acount, to get access to the hyper viralization of a company that has this incredible benefit of section two 30 protection, in order tohe advantage of you have to Just get authenticated. That is, you have to demonstrate that you are a real human being, not a bot, and that you are in a particular country and that you are old enough to use the platform. And that's a whole another thing that probably is off topit for us is what this is doing to kids. But if you just did that, and companies are coming up in all kinds of ways to verify identity and age. And it's not that facebook is going to get your drivers license. It's that they would kick you over to a third party non profit that would do the verification. That would be huge tey. Know, of course, a lot of people are nasty under their real name, but you know, an awful lot are more trollish because they're totally anonymous. They can make death threats and rape threats. Time 0:29:46

• How Do You Knock Out The Worst Two %?
  Summary:
  How do you knock out s two percentbles? It seems to me that the worst two %, but i perceive on twitter, have real names. And so those are not going to be knocked out by a verification. So here's another idea, which i've bandied about so acountally, and i's not fully baked, but something along these lines. What i'm after is te systemic change, so that people are rewarded for nuance. They are punished or ther for lose social credit for complete lack of nuwance.
  Transcript:
  Speaker 2
  How do you knock out s two percentbles? It seems to me that the worst two %, but i perceive on twitter, have real names. And, you know, perhaps there's the worst two % of intonsic people, just like speing absolutely vile trets and murder frets and so on. But those wha, ndomnate b twitter, i bet makes it a talks a place to be n deeply unpleasant. But the vilest people are he ones who have names and have platforms. And a one level above that, and an will just completely smear as petby torat on the left, anybody disagrees, exactly. And so those are not going to be knocked out by a verification.
  Speaker 1
  That's right. So here's another idea, which i've bandied about so acountally, and i's not in my articles, not fully baked, but something along these lines. What i'm after is te systemic change, so that people are rewarded for nuance. And they are punished or ther for lose social credit for complete lack of nuwance. So the idea that i'd love people who know more about this to develop be something like this. Suppose that every person, you can even have a ide of this bet, rated for two things, nuance and hostility. Nuance means cognive complexity, or let's cal it that cognive complexity, that is the ability to have two conflicting ideas in same tweed. Time 0:34:13

• I Don't Want Your Bile
  Summary:
  If we all had that, where you could set it in that way, you can say what you want. It's not censorship. Most of us could then actually express ourselves on twitter without knowing that we'll be onsulted horribly. And most importantly, this would put pressure on people to not be assaults. Cause if yo're n asole, more people block you. Yet, as social scientists, we're trying to create a space in which and people, mi ow, I don't want your bile. Rather, i don't want bile, period.
  Transcript:
  Speaker 1
  But what if i could sat it so that in the publics where i only want to hear from people, and i only want people to see me if they are not zero on cognim complexity and they are below three on Aggression, i don't menoh soms o, five on aggression. I don't want them in my feed, and i don't want them to even be able to see me. And if we all had that, where you could set it in that way, you can say what you want. This is not sense, ranm. You can say what you want. But you know, wat this publishwere is so importan to public discourse. Why should we all have to drink your urit? Why should we al hae to drink your bile? I don't want your bile. Rather, i don't want bile, period. So this is viewpoint neutral. This is ally neutral, ideologically neutral. It's not censorship. But most of us could then actually express ourselves on twitter without knowing that we'll be onsulted horribly. And most importantly, this would put pressure on people to not be assaults. Cause if yo're n asole, more people block you.
  Speaker 2
  Most people, take for example, f a defalt setting, which says, accounts that just mostly attack most vile i don't want to see. Then if you become one of those accounts, suddenly most uses don't see you.
  Speaker 1
  You become exactly so that change right there, that change would have an enormous impact on people's behaviour, ond the quality of what we read.
  Speaker 2
  And there perhaps we're starting to get to where structural change in individual behaviour change into act.
  Speaker 1
  Yet, as social scientists, we're trying to create a space in which and people, mi ow, Time 0:36:02

• Do You Think I Got It Right Or Wrong?
  Summary:
  i think that in the post bable world, the average isn't that important. We don't know what the average is. And look, the average person hates all this stuff. So this isn't about the average thi is about the dynamics. Most people are very reasonable. Most people sick and tired of this. I've spoken at many high schools and colleges about the colling te american mine. Now i talk about the prolemse of genzi. Can we get a democratic system in which the middle 80% actually has like 50 % of the voice? That is a possible outcome.
  Transcript:
  Speaker 1
  That is a possible outcome. And mirmaridley telling me that, ecause he wasn't like, the oldest baby fromrecevas, iust born in the early fifties or something. And remember him telling me that in xties, you know, when all of a sudden everybody went hippy, you know, you see this in high school year books, like, 19 65, short hair, 19 68 bom, everything Is like, crazy hair. He said that a few years after that, people his age, you know, were like seven years behind the oldest or something. People his age thought like, this was silly, and they kind of moved past it, and the man hippy face kind of faded. So something that is possible. My first thought is that what you're doing here is look at what the average person thinks. And if the average 13 year old is different from what the average 16 year old thinks, maybe the that could happen. But i think that in the post bable world, the average isn't that important. We don't know what the average is. And look, the average person hates all this stuff. So this isn't about the average thi is about the dynamics. And what i've found when i speak about these issues is, right, most people are very reasonable. Most people sick and tired of this. Most people hate this stuff. I've spoken at many high schools and colleges about the colling te american mine. Now i talk about the prolemse of genzi. And i alwas asked afterwards, c i've said some critical things about your generation. Do you think i got this relargy right or wrong? And you know, it's either a hundred % say that i got it right, or if there are those who think i got it wrong, the conformity pressures are such that they won't speak up i don't know. But they said, what i find is that genz, they know they've got, they know that this stuff is damaging them. They know they've got terrible anxiety at depression problems. So i think the way to think about this is not, oh, can we hope that the next generation rejects this? It's rather, can we empower the middle 80 % everywhere, like kids, young adults? Can we get a democratic system in which the middle 80 % actually has like 50 % of the voice like that would be incredible. Before social media, i presume it's always been the case that the most politically active are the people in the extremes. Time 0:48:09

• Social Media Is Hyper Viralized
  Summary:
  In two thousand nine i believe what happened is the far left, eight %. The far right, eight percent. On th hidden tribe, study the far left and far right, they go zooming up. And so do trolls, and so do russian agents and other foreign agents a look the c i a. My views. Ind i two. For all we know. So four groups become hyper empowered by the hyper vyralized social media, and the remaining eight % of the population lose his voice. That's what happened to us after two thousand nine t two thousand 12. And you know, it's either a hundred % say that i got it right, or if there
  Transcript:
  Speaker 1
  Do you think i got this relargy right or wrong? And you know, it's either a hundred % say that i got it right, or if there are those who think i got it wrong, the conformity pressures are such that they won't speak up i don't know. But they said, what i find is that genz, they know they've got, they know that this stuff is damaging them. They know they've got terrible anxiety at depression problems. So i think the way to think about this is not, oh, can we hope that the next generation rejects this? It's rather, can we empower the middle 80 % everywhere, like kids, young adults? Can we get a democratic system in which the middle 80 % actually has like 50 % of the voice like that would be incredible. Before social media, i presume it's always been the case that the most politically active are the people in the extremes. And so we have a kind of u shaped function where participation is lower in the middle and higher at the ends. If you'are oin to always have something like that, you never gan have a flat line, where each point on the line, every one participates equally. And when social imunity becomes hyper viralized, in two thousand nine i believe what happened is the far left, eight %. The far right, eight %. On th hidden tribe, study the far left and far right, they go zooming up. And so do trolls, and so do russian agents and other foreign agents a look the c i a. My views. Ind i two. For all we know. So four groups become hyper empowered by the hyper vyralized social media, and the remaining eight % of the population lose his voice. That's what happened to us after two thousand nine t two thousand 12. Time 0:49:21

• Social Media Is Hyper Viralized
  Summary:
  Before social media, i presume it's always been the case that the most politically active are the people in the extremes. And so we have a kind of u shaped function where participation is lower in the middle and higher at the ends. So four groups become hyper empowered by the hyper vyralized social media, and the remaining eight % of the population lose his voice. That's what happened to us after two thousand nine t two thousand 12. On th hidden tribe, study the far left and far right, they go zooming up. And so do trolls, and so do russian agents and other foreign agents a look the c i a. My views.
  Transcript:
  Speaker 1
  It's rather, can we empower the middle 80 % everywhere, like kids, young adults? Can we get a democratic system in which the middle 80 % actually has like 50 % of the voice like that would be incredible. Before social media, i presume it's always been the case that the most politically active are the people in the extremes. And so we have a kind of u shaped function where participation is lower in the middle and higher at the ends. If you'are oin to always have something like that, you never gan have a flat line, where each point on the line, every one participates equally. And when social imunity becomes hyper viralized, in two thousand nine i believe what happened is the far left, eight %. The far right, eight %. On th hidden tribe, study the far left and far right, they go zooming up. And so do trolls, and so do russian agents and other foreign agents a look the c i a. My views. Ind i two. For all we know. So four groups become hyper empowered by the hyper vyralized social media, and the remaining eight % of the population lose his voice. That's what happened to us after two thousand nine t two thousand 12. And so i think the hope for reform is not, oh, well, may be the youngest s are going to save us in ten or 20 years. I think its you know what?
  Speaker 2
  We're all so sick of this. We're all so exhausted. We all hate this.
  Speaker 1
  By all, i mean the middle 80 %. So can we have a political movement for the middle 80 %? Time 0:49:44

• Can We Have a Political Movement for the Middle 80 %?
  Summary:
  Can we have a political movement for the middle 80 %? We're not afraid of the extremes. Maybe, maybe, some innovator, you know, there are all kinds of alternative platforms being invented. So i've no idea really what's going to happen. Even i i'm very pessimistic, listeners should take this with a grain of salt and probably be more optimistic than i am.
  Transcript:
  Speaker 2
  We're all so sick of this. We're all so exhausted. We all hate this.
  Speaker 1
  By all, i mean the middle 80 %. So can we have a political movement for the middle 80 %? Can we have platforms for the middle 80 %, where we're not afraid of the extremes? And maybe, maybe, some innovator, you know, there are all kinds of alternative platforms being invented. Maybe one of thm will catch on. Maybe one will get a millionaire who likes them and will support them. I don't know.
  Speaker 2
  So i think we've gotten through this conversation the pieces of what a positive future would look like. But perhaps you can put the pieces together if ten years from now, you write an equally viral article saying, you know what? Everything was stupid there for a decade, and then things started to improve. What will that history say?
  Speaker 1
  That's te great question. From reading phil tetloch and having worked with him, i know that efforts to predict the future are a fool's game. And i do have to here inject my note of tetlockian modesty, that while i trace out these trends, and if these trends continue, then i think our country will fail catastrophically and Become like an unstable latin american country. However, will all of these trains continue? Probably not. Things will happen that change things. So i've no idea really what's going to happen. And even i i'm very pessimistic, listeners should take this with a grain of salt and probably be more optimistic than i am. Time 0:50:53

• The Righteous Mind
  Summary:
  i wish i had ended with so much more of this is that we do all have agency in our own lives. The first is cut our social imediate usage by 50 to a hundred%. Be very careful what you post. And the other is just go easier on each other. We evolve for hypocrisy, which i must read for orlesses on a good fight. Iam, giving you your home work. If you've never read verita's mind, please go and do so. Thank you yasha.
  Transcript:
  Speaker 1
  Sure. So even though you and i have focused mostly on structural sorts of reforms, and yet we're both social scientists, we think that way. But the thing i wish i had said in the essay, and i only hinted at it, i really houd have ended with so much more of this is that we do all have agency in our own lives. And this system keeps going because we feed into it. We post stuff. We provide the content that the companies need. And so there's a lot we can do. The first is cut our social imediate usage, especially our posting, by 50 to a hundred %. Be very careful what you post. Yo not post things to praise people and publicize good work, but opining, like twitter, is just the worst possible place to opine, to offer your opinions. So cut back. If you're outraged about something don't feel you're helping the world by expressing your average on twitt or r other platforms. It doesn't make the world better, so t cut back. And the other is just go easier on each other. If we are moralistic, we are hypocritical. This is one of the themes of my book, the righteous mind.
  Speaker 2
  We evolve for hypocrisy, which i must read for orlesses on a good fight. Iam, giving you your home work. If you've never read verita's mind, please go and do so.
  Speaker 1
  Thank you yasha. If you read that book, or if you study moral psychologyif you understand people do things and that we don't really know why we're doing things, often we would end up going easier on each Other. So my first book was the happiness hypothesis, finding modern truth and ancient wisdom. And i have a whole document of quotes from marcus aurelius and epictetus telling us how to use social media, because they understood social life. So here's one from marcus aurelius. The things you think about determine the quality of your mind. Your soul takes on color of your thoughts. So you know, if you hang out on twitter, you'll get poisoned by nastiness. Time 0:57:34