@Hmm Well, you went meta with that response. OP argued that those who claim to be victims might actually be projecting abusers. Then you state that those accusing others of projecting might be doing so themselves. Perhaps the next response is that those accusing others of projecting their own projection are, themselves, projecting their own projection. Really going to need some definable standard that all sign up for in order to resolve this. The abusers, whoever they are, unfortunately, aren't going to sincerely agree to a standard that doesn't spontaneously flex to privilege them in whatever position they happen to be in.

@Hmm I don't I disagree with any of those things. Mostly was expressing thoughts I had as a reaction, which were neither agreements nor objections. That aside, I have a small story that may provide info on the feasibility of such codes of "civil behavior". At West Point, in 2008, I had to teach a course on their "respect" program. All the way back then they announced that impact trumped intent. This was pretty much the central message I was supposed to convey. So, it looks like this idea that one's perception of having been abused being all that matters is well and truly baked into the system by now. I think it might be positive, but I think the chances are slim that any major institution will tolerate codifying civil behavior.

@@somexp12 in the uk you can now be arrested for upsetting somebody.. that what will happen in the US if you allow this kind of thinking to pass in to law

yup lotta nada. she loves to hear herself talk more than she likes metaphysical philosophy. As soon as someone says soso is "undebatable" there are "numerous studies" is trying to control the conversation and propagandize folks on what to think instead of educating people on HOW to think critically.

Agreed. She also seemed to try to strong-arm the debate with her somewhat impatient energy while Haidt was trying to be more cool and civil. Barrett also seemed to try to avoid Haidt's main points of contention and seemed to try keep moving the debate elsewhere. I feel like most of us really didn't get many answers or progressed towards a better understanding through this, and I think that fault lies mainly on Barrett, who seems intelligent enough, but didn't help much here.

She will say things that upset people, but her warning that she will say something upsetting is sufficient preparation for them to sit through it. Ok, then given that Milo Yiannopoulos also openly says he's going to upset people and then does it because he thinks it's important speech, she and he seem to be doing roughly the same thing... Except students totally freely ignore him, but they must listen to her and more or less agree, to get a grade.

She said “I feel” a lot

I wonder, and can't really determine from that debate, whether those apparent contradictions reflect her lack of serious understanding or poor presentation, versus reflecting the nature of humans in our chaotic, complex society, to often act irrational or struggle to deal with paradox, and lack of functional mechanisms to address it (made worse by infestation of OCD-ish binary cosmology Abrahamic dogmas, versus polarity process of many forms of Buddhism or Taoism)? One can make a logically valid case based on honest findings of facts, that Facebook, Amazon, most major banks and security dealers, Zionist nations founded by war crimes, and other nations supporting that or rooted in theocratic monarchs expanding nations based on "Doctrine of Discovery", all amount to institutional systems overdue to be shut down as criminals, due to some mix of genocides, frauds, and other wrongs that include customers and social supporters as complicit, if one reviews the actual language and construction of international criminal law. That model for "cleaning up wrongful violence" (not just individual perceptions discussed here) by major institutions, under systems of law favoring destructive penalties, is demonstrably both overdue, and badly dysfunctional or worse. So, the simple, realistic, conflict free answer for that is what exactly?

i agree completely

Imagine if it was Peterson in Haidt's place, then she'll be the Cathy Newman 2.0

just seemed like a justification to get to the end result.. words dont cause harm, your perception of what they mean to you can cause you harm.. felt like a deliberate misinterpretation to reach the end goal of censorship to me and the other speaker was far to restrained in calling this out in my opinion

Amen. Seems to me that the natural conclusion to the viewpoint Dr. Feldman Barrett offers here is "the despotism of democracy" de Toqueville articulated all those years ago.

Because it is crazy

I am not sure how she could consider it violence when there is a speaker that the student could choose not to attend.

@@mikezager3086 exactly

@@mikezager3086 It seems to me like walking into a dangerous construction area without protective equipment on and then claiming that the construction company was violent towards you because a brick fell on your head. If you want to insert yourself into these areas you should be equipped beforehand. The metaphor I think works best is either we can stop building anything so nobody gets hurt, or we equip people with the skills and gear required for keeping them mostly safe and I think it's worth mentioning that contrarian, 'violent' words built our safe society, those construction areas that are so dangerous built those walls and roofs that keep you safe from outside harm. It would have caused slave owners a lot of 'stress' to hear someone say they shouldn't own slaves.

Damn right. I feel like she hasnt really thought through the problem at hand. Shes just saying words of the same area of the english language

I feel like you went into this with your conclusion already made and didn't listen to most of what she said. In her opening statement she literally says that she is not saying that if you hear anything stressful you're going to experience harm. That is a false dichotomy that she never makes.

@@dancorwin9232 the distinction is that despite her apparent trigger warning, no one can know exactly what she's going to say until she says it except her. Additionally in that situation they won't even know what words will potentially cause them mental harm, but she purports to say it anyway. Thus committing the very violence she's apparently arguing against. She is simply contradicting her own argument.

Exactly. Why do we allow a small minority of professors and students who almost always self identify as radical leftists determine who can speak on campus? This small minority of blue-haired bags of fun and acceptance will help us determine whether the invited speaker's ideas meet the telos of the University--truth, education, social change, pick your purpose! Why do we permit this? We don't need the professors to "advise" what ideas we should exposure ourselves to during extracurricular activities such as a public debate--they already determine what ideas are acceptable and worth considering all day long through the syllabubs. Haidt gets it as always. Feldman, for an expert on emotion who authored an entire popular science book on How Emotions are Made, appears to be "expertly" making an emotional argument! She doesn't really answer the question of who is allowed to determine who can be invited to speak on campus. She cannot answer the question safely without hurting the sensibilities of the students. I have read her book and all of Haidt's books. There is one clear distinction between the two; Haidt recognizes that we live in a moral matrix and he is trying his best to step outside of it. Feldman is stuck in the moral matrix. She makes most of her ethical choices on the care-harm moral principal; meaning she cares way to much about causing "harm" to others. This is all to common among those who are left-leaning and boringly typical of a college professor. Haidt, understands that harm is bad, and puts a more balenced weight on that moral proclivity among the other moral proclivities has outlines with is Moral Foundations Theory. However he simultaneously recognizes that humans are anti-fragile; meaning that if we exposure them to a reasonably small amount of harm, they will grow stronger, in analogy to allergen immunotherapy. Harm cause growth. A weightlifter injures his muscles daily to grow stronger over a duration of years. He recovers from injury daily. A teacher for social justice helps a Social Justice Worrier break their bones monthly when a controversial speak comes to campus. Consequently, in the real world the SJW hobbles around with arthritis as they are crippled by their traumas. Everything is an aggression through their lens. Everything ideologically foreign is a danger that requires over reaction like an allergin. But they can rid the world of danger! They are so grandiose to believe that the world should change and conform to them, that their weak and fragile minds can change the world, and that we ought to subvert our Ethics to the mold of their social utopia, that they objectively know what is morally right and wrong. This is beyond hubris. Narcissists.This is the pure narcissism Dostoevsky spoke of in Notes from Underground.

@@erickrossidelafuente8028 100% agree... Excellent rant by the way

You nailed it... 100% right

Very true, I'm sure people like Barrett concerned for students' cortisol levels are much less concerned about the feelings/cortisol levels of a conservative student when they spend the entire semester mercilessly attacking their beliefs/what they hold sacred, or just straight up ridiculing conservatives. P.S. I've been a progressive most my life and now consider myself a moderate/centrist.

The squeaky progressive wheel gets the oil.

Here here👏👏

But sometimes people with the "life is tough" mentality actively contribute to the stress. Life is stressful enough as it is with work, health, or financial struggles. Nobody needs people adding stress to that. I get that people on the left sometimes take it too far with calling *everything* racist or sexist, but a lot of people on the right take it too far in the other extreme and think they should be able to say horrible things without facing any social repercussions.

@@karikling8812 Life is tough is a reality not a mentality. Not saying be an a hole. Much better to experience normal work stress and talk it through instead of running away to be safe.

@@salembuckeye9030 Nobody is saying to run away from work stress. I'm saying people need to treat each other better because life is tough as it is.

@@karikling8812 Retreating to a safe space is running away. It's a symbol of the current far left agenda.

I also thought the 10-20 yrs comment was somewhat of a contradiction of the bulk of the rest of her argument.

she interupts constantly but reacts harshly when her tries to interfere in her endless tirade which only lead into how great and smart she is and what she did. I really dislike the way she acted in this discussion. Not constructive at all.

Can I get another Louis to comment on this?

@@louisnws I'm not a Louis, but I'll comment to disagree with you. Can you cite any examples to substantiate your claims, with timestamps? Where, for example, did Barrett interrupt anyone? Where did she refer to her own "bravery" and "greatness?"

Well said. I'm struggling to find even one positive comment about her here, other than your final words that she is intelligent, but lacking in common sense.

I will agree. I think there's a real arrogance in suggesting the truly privileged students of elite universities should go out into the world and set the standard for how things should be. What gives them that right? Do you honestly think they should pave over the roads others have built because they feel it's their right? That's an extreme arrogance or, shall I say, colonization, no?

hi im verified too

You think she's radical?

Excellent point.

Brain is by default predicting, we need to train brain,which is hard and while doing we need support it's tough , it's full anxiety so much costly

I enjoyed this debate and wish to see more of this kind. It's sad to see the unnecessary tribalism in this comment section where people interpreted aggression where I saw none. 1:06:54 was a gold nugget I bookmarked to remind myself from time to time.

Agreed... I'm not sure that her points about chronic stress help out an educator in the moment in the class room when someone suddenly feels uncomfortable. He seemed to get directly to the point where I found she identified the problems but not so much a solution even talked around the edges of the topics.

Agree! And notice how she conflates different issues together. And it’s so fucked up. How the fudge are you supposed to know who is more mentally encumbered?! How?! By the color of their skin? Are you supposed to be asking every single ducking individual, “are you mentally encumbered?” Lisa is the culprit of how the American mind is being coddled and totally set up to fail. Her data has done nothing but contribute to the mental health epidemic! Stick to your lane, Lisa! But it’s fine. Everyone has the right to speak.

What do you mean, "That explains a lot". Can you explain some?

The essence of her argument is we can't have right wing people speaking at campus because there are people starving in the campus. Really.

Stop confusing leftist with liberal. Leftists killed the Nazis, liberals are offended by words.

Not really. Haidt had earlier deployed a straw-man argument, which I noted as soon as he did, and she responded to it substantively and cogently.

Barrett's statement that brains predict is correct, however, as far as I understand, the statement that brains do not react is confusing. There is a "predictive coding" theory of how we interpret the world whereby our brains have multiple models of how the world (anything that is not the brain) is and that sensory information from the wold constantly updates those models. The larger the challenge to the model, the larger the metabolic cost of updating it. Apologies for the possible overuse of "sufficient" and"significant" in the following paragraphs - I don't have any numbers that come to mind so this is all building from theory. I would implore you to fact check me where possible :) To try and steel-man Barrett's point, let's start with the premise that greater challenges to these models create greater uncertainty, and that greater uncertainty leads to greater stress. If the brains of the students are already quite sensitive to uncertainty, then, compared to a "normal" brain, lesser challenges would create more uncertainty than would be expected. Therefore, certain ideas that may result in greater stress for certain students if these ideas are sufficiently challenging. With sufficient exposure to these ideas, it is possible that chronic stress may develop in these students. From this, I believe that there are three possible options that a university could take: 1. Question the extent to which the telos of a university needs to be modified to allow these students to have a university education. 2. Question the extent to which these students ought to be allowed to be in such an environment until their brains are sufficiently less sensitive to allow them to tackle sufficiently challenging ideas. 3. Question what the university could do to develop the students so that they can change their brains to become more anti-fragile and as a result become more able to deal with greater uncertainty and therefore more challenging ideas. If the aim of the university is to best prepare students to both participate in and make positive changes to the world, then I believe that the third option would be the best one. It ought to allow for the largest talent pool to be tapped into whilst also increasing anti-fragility in students. It would likely also be, however, the most costly. The second option would result in more anti-fragile students on campus but would likely overlook a non-negligible amount of talented students who would have been able to make significant contributions to society. The first option, in the short-term, allows universities to make the most money as fast as possible until the reputations (and possibly purposes) of whichever universities choose to go down this route are left in ruin. This option acts very much like a single iteration prisoner's dilemma. If for some reason you see this, ~7 months after you posted your comment, I'd be curious to know what your thoughts are on this :)

To be honest, she doesn’t seem like she’s capable of teaching at the collegiate level. Her cognitive processes demonstrate a lack of understanding of proper strategies for addressing stressed students

He doesn’t tell these students directly and thing she does outside of his employed university cannot reported as endangering the classroom When he isn’t in the classroom. Basically he saves this stuff for public discourse and scrubs clean his classroom teachings to match political correctness so he doesn’t get fired.

Lisa Feldman Barrett often failed to construct poignant coherent arguments and action statements. She didn't really make an argument about what the university or professors should do, and what policy should be made. It seemed her main argument went like, 'Doing these things tends to have a physiological affect, and we all should remember that.'

Yes but not for long 'cause he knows how to get to a point. Barrett, takes forever to say much of nothing.

Also the arrogance in thinking because you go to an elite college you have the authority to change the world.

It is based on the latest understanding of "how the brain works". If you haven't been research on her area of study "affect", your interpretation might be outdated.

@@sageagbonkhese4091 the problem is that she’s contradicting her own field of research. The literature shows that trying to coddle a developing mind permanently cripples its ability to address issues the person is fully capable of meeting.

@@sageagbonkhese4091 it's *her* own understanding, and as she her self puts it, a very controversial ones. Her assertion is philosophically poor, she mixes up categories: "we don't react, we only predict". Of course we react. The predictions, inferences, are *how* we react.

Really I think Dr. Barrett’s response to that would be whoever gets offended or hurt by the words. I don’t agree with most of her points but any victim will say that you hurt them and you don’t get to decide if your words were harmful.

They don't consciously choose to be tough their parenting their environment decide, how they will be

Nope. Someone clearly had their hands over their ears whenever she was speaking

@@dancorwin9232 I listened to the whole thing. And, while my comment was obviously a simplification, she does not wish to fortify people to the world. She wants to protect them from it.

Spot on. She also tended to counter her own argument at times saying that our brains adapt to stresses yet wants to limit those stresses and yet says she doesn't limit herself in class when discussing difficult topics. Life isn't all rainbows and butterflies

No her point is that some people are coming from background not meant to deal with pressure and for that matter we need to be extra cautious about these students pay more attention to them.Because it's them who need support

Lol!

You say governing the framework of the discussion, I say going off on tangents and conflating things with largely unrelated issues to avoid addressing specific points. Haidts analysis was not a political one, rather it was the product of a multi-variant socio-psychological statistical analysis. He has shown the data behind this in other lectures. IMO his reasoning is sound and backed by solid well accepted psychological theory. In short, he wiped the floor with her and did it in the most polite way possible, to the point where she actually thought she did well.

You can appreciate what a outrageous statement that is, yes? That's not to impugn the quality of UK universities-I've studied in England, at UCL, as well as at an elite U.S. university, and the quality of the education at UCL was superlative, and I suspect Oxford and Cambridge are at least as good-but to propose that the students at your university were smarter than the professors at Harvard, none of whom you have any experience with, is absurd.

Stop confusing leftist with liberal. Leftists killed Nazis, liberals need a safe space from words.

Agreed with the first response. Maybe you were just using hyperbole, but Harvard is rated as the best University in the world. It is just silly to state that tour undergrad compatriots were smarter than the PhD's at the world's best university. Despite all the left-wing tendencies, America does one thing right, college education. Fifteen of the top twenty universities in the world are in the US.

No it did not. And Thunberg's «awareness» led to no commitments at the last climate conference in Madrid. Because most reasonable people understand 16 year olds shouldn't dictate policy. They should be in school.

😊😂

YES. Exactly!!😂

Semi-literate white supremacists are dealt with nicely by leftists though. I think you mean liberals, not leftists. Leftists killed Nazis, liberals need a safe space because words hurt their feelings.

It is painful, isn't it. She caused me harm :-)

Harm in the sense that a person may not feel good about what is said. Not in a violent way. Big stretch between violence and harm. Plus the harm is dependent upon that person's reaction to what is said. No one responds to the same words in the same way

He even gives an example in which speech *is* violence: when it involves intimidation. Like when the left cancels people for what they believe, calling them the r word or the nz word.

He also makes clear in his book that what the universities are doing by teaching to the most sensitive students is causing even more harm.