The Problem Of Entrenched Ideology

The Problem Of Entrenched Ideology

39 thoughts on “The Problem Of Entrenched Ideology

  1. If Darwin were alive he also wouldn't have change much. Evolution and the idea that autority have to be justified are still true. Why would he change his mind? Not changing your mind don't mean you are wrong. The guy is smarter than most people since he was 12. Also he is not a philosopher, he is a scientist ad he says philosophy has no importance if we can't test it. And i agree. Now, that fact that is wrong on something does not allow you to dismiss everything he says. He is still an authority on american foreign policy for example.

  2. Well obviously Chomsky has his limits (like most of us). I hold the opinion that he's is not very bright at all and is merely stating and reaffirming the obvious, which he made a stagnant career out of. He is the Freud or Boaz of linguistics… a borderline charlatan.

  3. Can anyone point to anything Chomsky said that is false? I mean historical fact, because everything else is subjective.

  4. Far left libertarianism does not have to be true or untrue.
    It is an ideological point of view that is fit enough to last for Chompsky's lifetime, many of the criticisms and many of the ideas of improvement that he made in his youth are still relevant and gain an audience today. Therefor his ideas are relevant and will be shared by others.

    Different political views are not correct or incorrect, they are just ideas of how society can be arranged, there are relative statements that generally lead to predicted outcomes. These outcomes can be seen positively or negatively depending on your perspective and beliefs.
    There are scientific studies that can fairly well map statistically the general trends of policies and how they effect different parts of society.
    So in my opinion ideology can provide a background of ideas to support directed policies and action which may or may not be supported by statistical evidence that increases the likelihood of an action leading to the effect that the actor wants.

    An issue comes along when ideological objectives come before the truth and actors choose to be dishonest, even about the stated aims of their ideology. (Figuring out different ideological points of view can then become very messy).

  5. Chomsky is a great example of a clueless academic ideologue who assumes the only reason people disagree with him is because they simply aren't as clever as he is. He should have been made to leave school and do some blue collar work for a decade, it would have helped him to grow up.

  6. This is my first video of yours I'm wating and I'm already realizing that I'm connecting this idea to other comfortable ideas I have to make it less challenging.

  7. Chomsky is nothing short of a genius. A brilliant linguist, sociologist and political critic. He is however an IQ denier. And believes in this "we are all the same" nonsense. Unsurprisingly he advocates mob rule through anarchism.

  8. Cultural relativistic rubbish, produced by people who do very little more than make mental masturbation a lifestyle philosophy.

  9. some people delude them selves that they are intelligent by just being contrary. I have seen it. They take whatever outrageous position just to feed their ego. I heard a woman say that they should have let the child that fell into that gorilla habitat just die. Come on, I love the gorillas, especially what a 19 yr old silver back. But I am sorry and I could be wrong, but a childs life trumps a gorilla's life.

  10. look man, Chomsky was an academic,then he found out that academia does not pay very much, especially linguistics. He realized he could make a lot of money by telling libtards what they wanted to hear.

  11. Kinda reeks of shill for the Liberal Establishment to me. I mean, if it walks like a duck and so forth….

  12. Chomsky applied his equalitarian ideology to linguistics and it didn't work out. His UG theory will be completely overturned after his death.

  13. I was under the impression that one of the main criticism of Chomsky's academic work is that he does completely revamp every decade or so?

  14. I thought the same about Chomsky. He does not provide solutions. The problem of Islam issue is due to your own ignorance, attributing causality to religion in place of sociology, economics, politics, and psychology.

  15. I enjoy listening to Chomsky, even though I disagree with him. It's clear he is, on the big-5, high on openness and high on agreeability. He's also an extreme outlier in intellectual curiosity, who's surrounded by lots of smart, driven students at MIT. If everyone were like him, it would make sense to have less hierarchy (people would do things because of their natural curiosity and goodness), to let students do their own thing, to have an open borderless society, etc. Unfortunately, many people are dumb as shit, disagreeable, and tribal. Society has to be structured accordingly. It's a problem of failing to really accept the otherness of other people.

    It's kind of interesting, Judith Butler, "gender is a performative act" is unsurprisingly a lesbian. I don't mean to say there's not some value to that frame, but for most people sexuality is more like a brutal biological imperative. Feminism, similarly makes sense from a subjective female frame. And if we're honest, we can take the same axe to lots of other things. I'm an athiest, but I suspect that it's not really possible to really subtract spirituality from society like Dawkins wants to do. Most people are not rational skeptics. I think this is the deep problem with human empathy, you simulate other people as if they were like you, but they're not like you. The temptation then is to think that somehow people can be 'educated' to be more like you and all problems will be solved. Moreover, subjectively, we experience the otherness of other people as deeply disturbing and disgusting – they must not be human.

  16. However, if Chomsky would have kept the political idea of Minarchism as his ideology for 70 years, would you still have a problem with him?

  17. I think it's because insignificant people will easily join ideological groups that will make their lives significant.

  18. Thank you for this video. You have used your eloquence to bring life to some of the thoughts that I have based my life upon.

  19. I always go back and listen to jiddu krishnamurti when I think I have fallen into the ego/ideology trap.

  20. First off, the, "I'm not smart…" statement is what we humans call being humble. Your attempt to read motive into it makes you look like an SJW.

    This video makes me wonder about MY long held ideas. I have long held beliefs that I can give good arguments for that nobody has raised good counter-arguments for. I also have new beliefs. We could all benefit from examining our beliefs but beliefs don't need to be thrown out simply due to age. I will hold my belief that The Earth is round for a long time and age alone will not make it incorrect.

  21. This was a great take-down of Chomsky. I was aware of how he blew off Everett over his findings with the Pirahã language, findings which ought to be very interesting to the more scientifically minded. And you can see echoes of this narrow-mindedness in his political interviews, Chomsky repeatedly shuts people up and cuts them off by saying, "It's all on record" rather than making a real counter-argument. However, I still appreciate his criticism of illegal US interventions all over the world; at least he used his influence to draw people's attention to the fact that these would constitute war crimes if any other country pulled them.

  22. true, i avoid the stiff ideologies because of this. they are difficult to rely on when they're based not in looking for truth.

  23. Another term for entrenched ideology is "ideological capture," formulated by analogy with "regulatory capture." Take a look at the book "Language and the Distortion of Meaning" by Patrick Degramont, p. 140 and following

  24. This german reporter guy, Tilo Jung, that makes the BPK, (Bundespressekonferenz) was interviewing Chomsky few weeks ago.
    One of the first things Chomsky said was, that the nuclear thread is bigger then ever, and that the media don't cover that fact at all.
    Which made me wonder, at what planet Chomsky lives.
    I hear both presidential candidates, blaming each other to be the cause for the atomic holocaust, all the time.
    Actually, i would prefer to hear less about the nuclear nihilation, that without a doubt, is going to extingiuish us in the next few weeks.
    Without a doubt, only as long you believe the presidental candidates, of course.
    Chomsky repeats himself, over and over and over and over.
    No matter if the reallity has changed or not. Well, maybe there is a crack in the space time continuum, that is limited to the walls of his office, or his brain. Who knows?
    Or the people around him supply him only with old newspapers, to keep him busy.
    Like the secret service did it with Ronald Reagan.

  25. might I suggest factoring ethics in? my appreciation of chomsky's political views doesn't have much to do with what he proposes, much more with his commentary based on his principles. or do equate principles with an ideology?

  26. I wish the video would not feel like just an ad hominem against Noam Chomsky, but would have focused more on what the title promised. And isn't to devalue a person because he doesn't change his or her mind often not also an ideological view?

  27. Your views on Chomsky have always been fairly consistent. Years ago I remember you lauding his work in linguistics but having serious reservations about his political views. My views regarding him are not too dissimilar. He is knowledge about the world and the different power dynamics shaping events but his conclusions about what should be done to remedy the enormous problems we face are faulty at best.

  28. So, if I believe that gays should be able to get married, like I have my entire life, I should find myself wrong about gay marriage automatically, the longer I believe it?

  29. This is why self criticism and the exploration of doubt is so important.

    For instance George Orwell was a Socialist, but his most famous books were ones that critiqued Communism and the failures of Socialism. He pointed out how his ideology could lead to dystopias (1984, Animal Farm) or just fail to mobilize the people it was aimed at (The road to Wigan Pier).

    Whilst I've never seen Stefan Molyneux give examples of how Anarcho Capitalism might not work or could be deformed in certain environments. Progressives never question whether their reforms can work, have worked or should work. Traditionalists simply do not want to think that Atomic Families might not be sustainable in the modern technological age.

    People generally find it to painful to question their beliefs or reasoning. And when they do, it's only because they have something to clearly gain from it. I'm not saying people should let their ideologues and morals flip flop in the wind. I just wish they would remember that all beliefs have a degree of uncertainty, whether you can see it or not.

  30. 11:54 Certainly the rewards of pursuing a feeling of congruence are great and momentary and emphasise the 'now-ness' of convictions – probably supported in an evolved sense since 'the future', 'planning' etc are not so directly connected to survival as 'drive' and the capacity to respond. Thus how we 'feel' about what we 'think' lends itself to this confirmation bias and fixity of belief.

  31. You should have given more specific examples of challenges to Chomsky's entrenched ideology. As far as I see you only offered the one, regarding Daniel Everett, but here you didn't really explain why the onus should be on Chomsky (though perhaps to do so would have required too much technical discussion of linguistics).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *