Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learningfrom the world's big
thinkers
The right to know: How does censorship affect academics?
When academics and journalists forego sharing their findings, out of intimidation, we all lose out.
13 November, 2019
- Academic freedom is what makes a university space work as a setting to develop students' capacities. It is the permission to think freely, and have contrarian discussions, that leads to new insights.
- There are whole zones of knowledge that we never get to because of intimidation put on academics: "We simply don't know what we haven't even thought to ask."
- Self-censorship, especially regarding sensitive topics, is the dark matter of the academic freedom universe. Out of fear of being attacked, or their families being harmed, some journalists and scholars will forego publishing their findings.
- The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
How can we improve the quality of higher education?
By welcoming various intrepid thoughts, we welcome learning.
06 November, 2019
- Viewpoint diversity describes a community where you have people approaching questions from a range of different perspectives.
- When you have a lot of people asking questions and interrogating claims from a lot of different perspectives, community members are better able to see the nuance in whatever that subject of inquiry happens to be.
- Heterodox Academy improves the quality of scholarship in higher education by increasing open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement across lines of difference. A range of viewpoints are allowed in and are then interrogated on campus.
- The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
Getty Images
- Human beings are psychologically hardwired to fear differences
- Several recent studies show evidence that digital spaces exacerbate the psychology which contributes to tribalism
- Shared experiences of awe, such as space travel, or even simple shared meals, have surprising effectives for uniting opposing groups
The year was fraught to say the least.
<p>Riots in the streets, engagement abroad in a long-fought war, and an encroaching sense that the fabric that knits us together is pulling at the seams.</p><p>Still a single sentence from it all speaks to our ability to come together: "<a href="https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4223/ch9.htm" target="_blank">Thank you for saving 1968</a>."</p><p>Those words of gratitude—standing out against the backdrop of a tumultuous year—arrived via telegram at NASA half a century ago following Apollo 8's successful trip around the moon. But their lesson applies today.</p><p>Emerging research in the fields of psychology and neuroscience <a href="https://bigthink.com/videos/beau-lotto-creativity-is-another-form-of-logic" target="_self">demonstrates</a> that we often need a shared experience of awe, humor, or physical exertion to help transcend our differences. (Think team-building trust falls and rope courses in the woods). Fortunately, it doesn't take a trip around the moon to bridge the deepest divides—even conversation over a cup of coffee or a meal can remind us of each other's humanity.</p><p>What does this mean for free speech? Everything, it turns out.</p>We are hardwired to censor what's unfamiliar.
<p>Our brains' first response to difference is not curiosity but fear or scorn. In a mid-20th century experiment called "<a href="https://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html" target="_blank">Robber's Cave</a>," researchers brought together two demographically identical groups of boys, randomly sorted them into two groups, gave them each a few days to form bonds within their "tribes," and then kicked off a baseball competition. The boys quickly started generalizing about the other team and drawing distinctions that didn't exist.</p><p>Even absent any particular reason to be in disagreement, the experiment reveals that people are primed to sort into 'in' groups and 'out' groups. In the spectacle that politics can be at times, we can see how easy it is for Americans to fall into this trap. The tendency is not unique to any one political tribe. Recent research by the Cato Institute <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/survey-reports/topline/cato-free-speech-tolerance-toplines.pdf" target="_blank">found</a> at least one thing the left and the right agree on. They both want to silence someone, they just disagree on who.</p><p>In light of all this, what we've witnessed in recent months may not feel surprising but is troubling nonetheless. Other examples are readily available from both sides of the aisle: elected and appointed leaders <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/protesters-confront-senator-mitch-mcconnell-kentucky-restaurant-1180129" target="_blank">shouted out of restaurants</a>, journalists <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/ny-times-reporter-receives-threatening-voicemail-the-pen-is-not-mightier-than-the-ak-47-audio/" target="_blank">receiving death threats</a>, and bombs <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george-soros-n-y-home-targeted-explosive-device-authorities-say-n923196" target="_blank">sent in the mail to public figures</a> villainized by radical activists. Relying on intimidation to silence people goes beyond censorship. It's abhorrent.</p>Now take that tendency and add in the emerging digital landscape.
<p>The same technology that has made it possible to connect people instantly across great distances can also compound our divisional instincts. A recent study <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9216" target="_blank">found</a> that when individuals confront different perspectives online, the new information further entrenches their existing beliefs and increases skepticism of the opposing view. It's also now easier than ever to opt into what MoveOn.org board president and digital guru Eli Pariser calls "filter bubbles"—choosing to surround ourselves with homogenous communities and replacing diverse, in-person interaction with digital engagement.</p>So what do we do about it?
<p> The increasing division and polarization our country's experiencing is the result of many factors—many likely not fully understood or even still unknown. The long-term solutions will be as complex as the humans at the root of it.</p><p>But we can make progress in the meantime in surprisingly simple ways. People are full of potential. Individuals can play an essential role in helping fractured communities heal and turning fear to curiosity when encountering other ideas, cultures, and perspectives. We have the opportunity to learn from each other's differences.</p><p>A decade ago on another space flight the crew of the International Space Station gathered for a meal. The astronauts came from different backgrounds: Iranian, Russian, American, and others—individuals who have shared that they may have otherwise struggled to find common ground on Earth. But when they broke (freeze-dried) bread together as they watched the Earth passing by, they experienced a "<a href="https://www.constellation.earth/" target="_blank">profound emotional experience of interconnection</a>."</p><p>It doesn't take zero gravity. Just start a conversation rooted in deep respect for each other's inherent dignity. Be the change you want to see in this tiny, blue dot.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Why the wars America starts are unwinnable
Why do we continue to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because of two big reasons.
24 July, 2018
Danny Sjursen—a prominent U.S. Army strategist and also a former history instructor at West Point Academy—posits that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't winnable. So... why don't we leave? As he puts it: "We have the inertia of a military-industrial complex, which makes a lot of money for a lot of people and keeps a lot of people employed, on one end, and then we have the sunken cost fallacy on the other side, where we say "We’ve committed so much we can’t possibly leave." Danny is brought to you today by the Charles Koch Foundation. The Charles Koch Foundation aims to further understanding of how US foreign policy affects American people and societal well-being. Through grants, events, and collaborative partnerships, the Foundation is working to stretch the boundaries of foreign policy research and debate by discussing ideas in strategy, trade, and diplomacy that often go unheeded in the US capital. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org. NOTE: The views expressed in this video are those of the guest speaking in an unofficial capacity and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Command and General Staff College, Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US government.
Why the World May Be Safe with More Nuclear Weapons, Not Fewer
What's really involved in snuffing out a country’s nuclear capabilities—and is that the right war to be waging?
04 December, 2017
Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong Un.
The United States tries hard to keep nuclear weapons away from countries it considers foes. Given how close the world came to nuclear armageddon during the Cold War, and recent threats from so-called “rogue states" like North Korea, it may seem like an essential goal. But America's strategy for thwarting nuclear proliferation may be reaching a point where the costs outweigh the benefits.
<p>The first nuclear bomb was exploded the same year as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_inventions_(1890%E2%80%931945)" target="_blank">invention of the microwave</a>. Nuclear technology is no longer new, and therefore more difficult to keep from spreading. (Imagine trying to keep microwave technology under wraps all these years.) Developing a nuclear bomb from scratch, however, is much more costly than reverse engineering a microwave. </p> <p>But snuffing out a country's nuclear capabilities is perhaps even more costly. It requires <a href="http://bigthink.com/videos/barry-posen-america-is-preventing-nuclear-attacks-in-all-the-wrong-ways" target="_blank">crippling a country's economy</a> so its government can't invest in nuclear research (of course, its innocent citizens bear the brunt of that burden). It requires destroying factories and laboratories with aggressive bombing or cyber-sabotage campaigns. And it can even require kidnapping or killing scientists and engineers who conduct nuclear research. </p> <p>Iran, for example, is seeking nuclear technology while coldly aware of the United States' military superiority. Likewise, the rest of the world is aware of America's massive nuclear arsenal—and of the fact that it's capable of annihilating any country on Earth at a moment's notice.</p> <p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODM0MTQyNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwMjg3OTAzMH0.o_0_Ozh9Uyr0gZTomjFpWs7KnFPkis3UYBRbbYwABYg/img.jpg?width=980" id="6ceef" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="278afae0db7038ef39f321c67c139daa" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></p> <p>This kind of behavior toward other countries, needless to say, won't engender kindness and cooperation. North Korea knows that developing a small nuclear arsenal has made the U.S. much more hesitant to invade its borders. It's a lesson Pyongyang learned recently from countries without nuclear weapons—Iraq, Libya, Syria—that were subsequently invaded by the U.S. So it makes perfect sense that America's enemies would be scrambling to develop nuclear weapons—not so they can fire them, but so they can also enjoy the benefits of deterrence.</p> <p>So the question becomes: How often is the U.S. willing to wage preventive wars, and with how many countries does it really want this kind of relationship?</p> <p>This isn't to suggest that, for instance, a nuclear-capable Iran makes the world safer for the U.S., but it has to be viewed in the context of relative military power. For instance, take a look below at the sheer number of U.S. military bases that surround Iran.</p> <p>Barry Posen, Director of MIT's <a href="http://ssp.mit.edu/" target="_blank">Security Studies Program</a>, says the U.S. has its guns pointed at aspiring nuclear weapons states in a way that makes them feel even less secure.</p> <p><iframe frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://giphy.com/embed/3o6fJ0mYNTbNpYT2X6" width="480">&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/center&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;</iframe></p> <p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODM0MTQyOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNTA2Mjk4M30.XEueX85XchD94fanOVUi3JqGQ5PK52md4gR0IbFYqTM/img.jpg?width=980" id="e8c5a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="03fef1a5e6f430c10f45c383a518c68a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></p> <p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/foreign-policy-big-think-barry-posen-3o6fJ0mYNTbNpYT2X6"> </a></p> <p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/foreign-policy-big-think-barry-posen-3o6fJ0mYNTbNpYT2X6" style="font-size: 13px;"><em> </em></a><em style="color: #737d83; font-size: 13px;"><a href="http://iblagh.com/en/us-military-bases-around-iran/" target="_blank">IBLAGH News</a></em></p> <p>So then, what should be America's main objective when enemy states develop nuclear weapons? Posen told Big Think that the US should make sure those states hold onto them:</p> <blockquote></blockquote><p>“I worry about not nuclear weapons in the hands of states, but nuclear weapons that are not in the hands of states. I worry about nuclear weapons that are lost, nuclear weapons that are stolen, nuclear weapons that are poorly aligned, nuclear weapons that are sold off the back of trucks."</p> <p>These concerns are valid. In U.S. military history alone, there have been <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-broken-arrow-nuclear-accidents-2013-5" target="_blank">32 nuclear weapons accidents</a>, referred to as “Broken Arrows." Several are still missing to this today. Outside of the U.S., most of the fear about “loose nukes" has been focused on Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.</p> <p>“There have been no confirmed reports of missing or stolen former-Soviet nuclear weapons, but there is ample evidence of a significant black market in nuclear materials," notes an <a href="https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/loose-nukes" target="_blank">article from the Council on Foreign Relations</a>. “The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported more than a hundred nuclear smuggling incidents since 1993, eighteen of which involved highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient in an atomic bomb and the most dangerous product on the nuclear black market."</p> <blockquote></blockquote> <p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODM0MTQyOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDg0MTUxMn0.O1nbaPrah3U0O5RAati92eu7i3R-zqLmEkhwgedtf1o/img.jpg?width=980" id="63564" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2081fbba8a367b8deb91098aca133a45" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><br><em style="color: #737d83; font-size: 13px;">Mark 17 bomb, one of which was accidentally dropped by the U.S. in 1957.</em></p> <p dir="ltr">It's rational for countries to want to develop nuclear weapons, and because the technology to do so is rather old and no longer a mystery, it's increasingly difficult to stop nuclear proliferation. It seems inevitable. </p> <p dir="ltr">This is why Posen argues that the best way for the U.S. to prevent nuclear attacks isn't to wage preventative wars that result in the economic and physical suffering of innocent civilians. Rather, it's to ensure that nuclear weapons stay in the hands of countries and not radical groups. After all, nuclear deterrence loses its power in situations where nukes are wielded by organizations without defined borders.</p> <blockquote></blockquote><p>“...what we want to do is make sure that nuclear weapons that are in the hands of states remain in the hands of states," Posen says. “Any state that has nuclear weapons, we should be talking to them about best practices to ensure that nobody sells, nobody steals, nobody loses, nobody breaks. This requires a lot of application, a lot of organization." </p> <div class="video-full-card-placeholder" data-slug="barry-posen-america-is-preventing-nuclear-attacks-in-all-the-wrong-ways" style="border: 1px solid #ccc;">
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="C6OiPjzf" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="41375905c29e87e36b9fabcdd0e6a206">
<div id="botr_C6OiPjzf_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/C6OiPjzf-FvQKszTI.js">
<img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/C6OiPjzf-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview">
</div>
<script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/C6OiPjzf-FvQKszTI.js"></script>
</div>
</div> <p><span style="font-size: 12px;">--</span></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
