Athenian principals stress policy that is good for democracy, thinking that it will always lead to what is best for the community. Not all nations can work under a typical Athenian democracy though. First of all, Athens was a CITY not a country; the reason why its members were so involved was because they had public meetings in courthouses in which all citizens were allowed to argue and vote and have a say in the city's political agenda. It would be impossible to have something this engaging on a national level, in which every citizen is expected to participate, or else not bother to complain.  Secondly, not all residents of Athens were citizens, and if you were not a citizen (born in Athens and not a foreigner) then you had no say in the politics of Athens. So Athenian democracy did not look out for the best of its community because its community was much larger than those who had a say in its politics; it looked out for its male citizens and the democracy that upheld that type of government.  Thirdly, Athenian citizens were expected to bring a well-formed argument for their proposals to the table if they wanted to be even barely considered in the courts. So yes, you DID have to know your stuff and your opinion WAS discounted if you didn't, because you had no place giving opinions in things you weren't very well educated in. And even then, those who could convince and sway the most people to their side were the ones who had their agendas voted for, even if, on occasion, those agendas were not to the benefit of the "community" of Athens. In fact, Athenian democracy oftentimes lead to the detriment of the city, when people who should have had no say in its policy were allowed to influence and effect change if they could argue well enough. So before we go on putting one version of democracy on a pedestal above another, let's remember there are flaws in every version of every type of government, and not one has proven to be even remotely ideal yet. 

I enjoyed the way he spoke about the spread of ideas and evolution of memes. Its relation to the spread of a virus is impressive and accurate in many ways. Viruses are dangerous agents which multiple quickly and can be considerably difficult to exterminate in some cases. The formation of a parasitic pathogen is an interesting comparison because, like an idea or meme, it does not need to ensure the survival of its host to remain in existence. He does a wonderful job of observing the similarities when he includes the fact that ideas, like viruses, do not rely on genetic transmittal for dissemination but rather, exist because we exist. As with any other infectious agent, an idea or a meme can be destructive, and may reverse or undermine our more self-preserving processes. 

This can be very dangerous and disruptive to our system. It's unfortunate, because I can why both sides are doing what they are doing, for what they both believe are the right reasons. The President is crossing a lot of borders when he decides to act like this against Congress's will, but when there's an impasse, what else can he do but take action in other ways? And the Congress disagrees with all of his proposals and thinks they would be detrimental to our nation, so what else can they do but stonewall them? Both parties might do better to come to a mutual agreement, but since that has failed to be an option I understand why Obama feels the need to bypass Congress, whether it is right or wrong. 

This is an interesting way to get attention. Though, it does evoke feelings of hostility toward and within that country. Perhaps insulting the nation as a whole would help the defense of the cause, but perhaps it would not. It is like what was said earlier, these can be dangerous topics which need to be presented in clever and informative way. 

I couldn't comment on the highlight under this, but that's exactly what I thought of when I read this, Pascal's wager. It is true, if the cost of believing something is comparably better than not believing it and risking the consequences that you may be wrong, regardless of whether it is true or not, it may be advantageous to us that we've evolved this way. 

When Haidt first began his speech he sounded extremely biased, which was both arresting and irritating, since Ted Talks are generally open-minded. But then he continued on and made some very interesting points which I thought were smartly objective and important for all to understand. It is true that no man ever thinks, once he's made up his mind about something, that he is in the wrong. It takes reason and respect, and moreso the ability to understand their moral psychology, to convince them otherwise. And even then, we all must be open to realizing that we may not be completely in the right ourselves, and that when a collective effort is made to contribute our differentiating positions to society, we can better find a relative medium.

I think the argument he is making is a strong and interesting one. I've never quite heard it put like this but I can't say that I disagree with him at all. The former may be nothing but the better of two evils, which is not particularly desired, but the latter in this instance would be an envelopment of something much worse. 

It makes me wonder if this at all changed how the men in the study lived out their lives, and if they would have done anything differently had they not been a part of it. It had to have affected them in someway, knowing that they would be analysed and evaluated throughout their entire lives. That is no normal way to live. And so it would seem to me that no truly normal conclusions could be drawn. They would at the very least be askew and affected.  

This is a nightmare. The state in which they are made to give life invites nothing but misery and the fear of death. The equipment and care (or lack thereof) that they are provided with is appalling. The entire process is terrifyingly dangerous; no human being should be made to accept these conditions. 

I thought it was great how they took an incredibly abstract concept such as morality and put it to the scientific test. It suggests that morality may be instilled according to upbringing and environment but is inherently biological. It takes what is generally considered to be subjective and makes it predictable within our species (with a few outliers), for reasons we can't even quite understand. Which means that evolution dictates many of our ideas of right and wrong.