But, as in all kinds of scientific things, people don't stop looking. And in the 1960s, 70s, a revolution swept earth sciences. And I make an aside and say that the revolution was driven by our exploration of the ocean floors. Geologists put all their data they had been gathering on the nature of the floor of the oceans together in the 1960s. That was fundamentally based on looking at the ocean floor, looking at the distribution of earthquakes around on the earth's surface. And what they understood was, in fact, the crust of the earth is a femoral. And in the oceans, at least, it's made along the ocean ridges and then recycled into the earth's interior. And I'm going to store a cartoon of that. So here's a nice ocean ridge with some ocean above it. We're making new crust, letting the mantle decompress, make new crust. That ocean crust can be taken, and I've made a very compressed view of this, to a deep sea trench, and here we have another volcano. This would be a ring of fire type volcano. This is a mid-ocean ridge. Ignis rocks, basalts are produced here, and they're also produced here. But the extra complication now is the ocean crust that you've made at the mid-ocean ridge has been exposed during its lifetime on the ocean floor, which can be the order on average of 100 million years, from manufacture to destruction, 100 million years, and water gets into this new crust, both at the ridges and elsewhere along the ocean floor. So suddenly we've got a complication in terms of, oh, the oceans and atmospheres are a one-way trip through degassing of the earth's interior, and once they're out into the earth's surface, they never do anything else. They just do their own little cycles at the earth's surface. But now we've got the potential for water to get into the ocean crust, and in fact the carbon dioxide that's dissolved in the ocean also makes new minerals in the ocean crust. So you have both hydrated minerals and carbonates going down into the interior of the earth. The question becomes, of course, well, how far down do they go? Some of them get released, so now we've got water and carbon dioxide being released into this part of the earth's mantle, overlying the subducted plate. Release of those volatiles into the mantle triggers melting. You make new magma here, you've made magma here, you're now making another kind of magma here with a lot of dissolved volatiles in it. You take that magma to the earth's surface, the gases that are dissolved in the magma, which ultimately come from the oceans, get released when you depressurize the magma, and of course those gases go up in the atmosphere and come back down again. Well what I've described for you here is the grand cycle of volatiles on the earth, and it's no longer a one-way trip. What comes out here can go back in, and as I said, we don't know how far down it goes. It could be that some part of this, and there are many people working on this, because the problem is not solved, what fraction comes out here and what fraction goes into the earth's interior?


Lunara connect here in San Francisco and you brought a really cool device right here. What are we looking at here? Okay that's one is 10.1 inch display but that kind of display has a very good feature that can connect to 96 board directly so you can see here is a 96 board almost and all the family of 96 board can hook up to this display and they can utilize the CPU power of the 96 board family. And it's it work with touch? Definitely. So it's 10 point touch. 10.1 inch? 10.1 inch yes. Is it like a full HD display or? Yeah full HD. So it's IPS nice display 10.1 inch with a slot and it's easy to open it up and put some other ones. How does it open? That one already screwed but it should be easy to open. Swap put another one in yeah and usually the 96 boards have all the the USB and HDMI and stuff over here. Yeah that one is that one uses something else a little bit more than the 96 board. It has Ethernet port added by us but definitely all the other 96 board can be compatible with this display. So you have a full-size Ethernet on yours but so you call it developer board 4 right? Yeah. With a 410 on board yeah. 410 on board. You also have a solution with 820? Yeah coming. 820 is coming. End of this year. Alright so here the Linaro connect you've talked with the Linaro and with some other some other people to bring this to the market right? Yeah an Aero that is our distributor. So with Aero this is gonna be available and you right now discussing about the price right? Maybe it's gonna be very good price? The launching date the price also the product line based on 7 inch 10 inch 13 inch etc. Nice this could be very great for the what you call it the digital signage market right? Yeah for a lot of a vertical market digital signage kiosk post winding machine etc. So what do you think about Linaro and the 96 boards what do you think about that? Linaro connect is a great one that I get a lot of the information that I feel are very confident for for the future of 96 board. Cool and maybe you can be a significant player in that industry? Yeah definitely we want to be that. Cool


Hi everybody, Joe for Jaspy's casewrakes.com coming at you with another Jaspy's NFL Draft Mixer Giveaway Mystery Crate. Number six, first letter of their last name is how we're doing it. A lot of the value of this break tied into that big mixer spot, almost a $1,200 value. So I guess there's five hits here, the four cards, and then the mixer spot. So big thank you to this group for making it happen, appreciate it. There are the letters right there, and we'll generate a number a little bit later for the case number. Five out of five, ten times for names and letters. One, two, three, four, and five, six, seven, eight, nine, and tenth and final time. Five out of five, ten, the hard way, seat birch, down to seat and flat. Five out of five, ten the hard way for the letters. One, two, three, seven, eight, and tenth and final time. After ten, we've got T down to D. All right, seat birch with T, Trent with R, G plus H, seat birch with W, seat and flat with M, seat birch with A plus F, Jesse with J plus K, Diego with P, Kobayashi with L plus S, seat birch with B, and seat and flat with D. Order these alphabetically, and we're going to pause the video just for a few moments. We're going to see if there's any trades. When we come back, we'll generate a number to see which mystery crate number we're going to do, and then we'll see what's inside. Jaspy'scasewrakes.com, I will be right back. Stick around. All right, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. No deals were done here on Wednesday the 27th, Mystery Crate Rake Number 6, so that list remains the same. Now let's go back to ram.org, actually, and let's generate a number between one and ten. That'll be the box we're new. Box ten. I don't think we've done box ten yet. Here is the crate in all its glory. It's a good-looking crate, right? Got our big logo right there. Got some mysteries inside. It is the box within the box. Box ten. That's what we generated. That's the one we're going to do. Good luck, everybody. All right, first one out of the gate is, are these all graded cards? Some of them don't have graded card. It looks, feels like it's all graded cards. Diego wants a Zaza Patulia. Let's see if we can find one for you. All right, good luck. First one, PSA9. It's Bobby Whit Jr. From 2020 Bowman Chrome, green refractor, 41 out of 99. W, Steve Birch, future star here, we're hoping. Good start. Next one, I think there's more baseball. PSA9, Wander Franco, 334 out of 499, Bowman Chrome baseball refractor. Letter F, Steve Birch with the A and F combo. What else have we got here? We've got more baseball, I think more baseball. PSA9 from 2018 Bowman Draft, that's Casey Meis, 5 out of 150. Blue parallel, Bowman first, PSA9. All my fantasy team injured at the moment, but hopefully the former number one overall pick. We'll get back on track this season. It could be a breakout ear fring. M, Steven Flatt with the letter M for Meis. So, the Stevens hitting, Steve Birch, Steve Flatt. The final one, I think we've got another baseball here. Oh, this is nice. PSA10 from 2014, Tops Update Baseball. It's my guy right there, Mookie Betts, rookie Mookie Betts. I've battled a lot of, had some hip injuries issues last year, but seems to be healthy this year. That's a good thing. B for Betts, Steve Birch, nice job for the Steves. All right, nice mystery crate. We got another one in the store, ladies and gentlemen. Not too many left, so get into it, because this is the best odds that you're going to see on the site to try to win an NFL Draft Mixer spot. That's almost a $1,200 value. Let's gather everybody's names here. New dice, new list, and only one winner, fingers crossed. But great odds here. So thanks for trying. We're having a two lucky seven times. Name on top after seven, one, two, three, four. There's four, five, come on, Ram.org. There's five. I said seven, right? Two more times. Six and seven. Six, and seven in final time. After seven, Kobayashi. There you go. After seven times, you didn't get anything in the break, but you got the fifth and final hit, the Mixer spot. That's a $1,200 value. Check out the details of the Mixer on jasby'scasebreaks.com. Hey, and high rollers out there. There's still some full spots available as well. Thanks for watching. Thanks for breaking with us. I will see you next time for the next mystery crate and eventually that NFL Draft Mixer, jasby'scasebreaks.com. Bye-bye.


Welcome back to the channel. In today's video, I'm going to show you how you can write better code that can be used by people who will come after you or even yourself 6 months from now, where you have a code that is funky and you don't know what happened along the way. So on my screen here, I have two pieces of code. Both of them are working and you can see from this that we have this particular plugin that I wrote in some video before to show you how you can query external APIs and bring in information inside your WordPress theme or your WordPress site using a plugin. And on this other side, I have this very code that has been jumbled up and it's funky. You have this argument starting from here and then it's ending here and then you have these arguments that should be in this particular function by their way down. So it's a little bit harder to read and find out where some errors could be hiding. And yet when you read this code, it's a lot cleaner. You're able to see what's going on. You're able to tell what is going to happen in the near future. So one of the challenges I had was when I was submitting a plugin to the WordPress repository and I got a report that told me, hey, you have so many things that are not up to the coding standard that we do have. And then I realized this could be security issues. This could be things that hackers could use to get into the plugin or into someone's site. So today we're going to learn how to use the WordPress coding standards and we're going to do it via GitHub to make it easy so that once you publish your code to the public or in a private report, if someone wants to send you a pull request, then it would require them to format the code into a standard that you do appreciate. And this could be the WordPress coding standard or any other coding standard that you might come up with along the way. So let's jump into this and we're going to make this code look a lot cleaner and make it as funky as probably as this is. So let's get this particular link and once I'm in my editor, I'm going to come to the plugin section. I'll open up my terminal inside my editor and I'm going to say git clone and I'll add the link for the repo and we're going to clone that down. And you will see that we're going to have our funky code right here but at the end of the day when we are submitting our PR, we're going to get stuff that will help us to make sure that this code is actually clean in whatever we do according to WordPress coding standard. So the first thing that we're going to do is we're going to look at the turn up GitHub action that is available and that is open source and that is free for you to use. And what does this look like? So I'm just going to go to my browser right now and I'm going to go to github.com and I'm going to go to slash turn up. And in the turn up you're going to look at the repositories that are available and we're going to be looking for the WordPress actions. And there is this particular block that we're going to go into and you will see that turn up has outsourced so many actions like one of deploying your plugin to the WordPress repository, one of updating the particular assets like your burners and so on or just changing the readme so that you can concentrate on writing your code via github and then everything will be pushed to the WordPress repository. But what I'm really looking for is this particular one which is for linting. And linting in simple form is basically just making your code look a lot neater. So what we are looking for here is this particular documentation that they have and they tell us that we are going to have something that looks like this at the end of the day. So first of all, we need to write a file that can be named anything but it's going to be a yaml file and it's going to be inside the .github, workflows, folders. So in our plugin we're going to say we want a new folder which we'll call .github and inside it we're going to open another folder which we'll call workflow. And inside this workflow file we're going to create a file which we shall call maybe coding standards for short. And I'm just going to prefix it with WordPress to be WordPress coding standard and I'll say .yaml. Now this is a file that will be recognized by .github and what we're going to do is just copy what we have here and then I'll explain what goes on inside this code. So we'll copy and we'll paste this here. Now what's going on is that this yaml file needs to have a name of this .github action. This WPCS check is the name of the .github action that's going to be running every time that we check whether our code meets the standard that is actually there. So I can choose to change this. I'll make this a bit more expressive by saying WordPress coding standards check. And then what happens is that we have this rule that's going to say on every pull request we want to have the coding standards checked. So this on is an event that can be anything. It can be on pull request. It can be on merge. It can be on a number of events that available inside .github. So we say we want to have this job. So we shall say this is going to run on the latest version of Ubuntu. So we are basically saying our server for our WordPress is going to be an Ubuntu latest. And then we're going to say every time we are running this coding standard job, we want you to use the 10 up WordPress coding standard actions stable release that is out there. Now this is all stuff that you don't really need to memorize. What is important is the next part that we are going to look at. Now in here you will see that we have some additional variables that can be passed. And if you look at this, we're going to start with this part that says with. I'll copy everything and you'll see that this is well documented. But I can show you how you can change a couple of things and make it do more stuff for you. For example, right here by default they tell us that they are going to turn off the warnings. So you will see when we turn on the warnings to true. And you will see the errors that will keep on getting back in the particular pull request that we'll be making. Now we also check to say that all this PHP checks should start from the root folder. And this particular dot or period is really really important to say. Start checking from the root of the particular folder or this particular repo that we're working in. Now we have this part that says you can exclude particular folders. So you're able to add them when they are comma separated. Let's say you'll have something like let's say node or you'll have something like tests or you'll have something like assets where you can be able to skip whatever is going on. So that is a possibility. But I'll show you a better way of doing this using a different file. And then here we can choose to say we want to use the WordPress coding standard or we can use these other options that are available like the WordPress core standards or the WordPress doc standards or WordPress extra or we can even use the WordPress VIP go or WordPress VIP minimum coding standards. So there are very many options you just need to switch out what is here or you can use a number of them in one go right here by putting them as a comma separated value. So we'll leave this blank and then we're going to say the repo branch we want to work with in this case is going to be the main branch because I've named my particular branch right here as main. I don't have any other branches. So I want that to work whenever we make a pull request to the main then this particular coding standard check should go on. And then we have this final option that says use local config. So right now this is turned to false. But if we change it to true, it gives us an option to work with a phpcs.xml file and we shall see how to use that. But for now let's save this. I'm going to right click this and open this in an integrated terminal. And I'm going to say git add dot. I'm just going to commit this and say we have added our WordPress coding standards action. I'll clear that and I'll say let's git push this. And when I push this and I go back to my repository, I'll reload it. And you'll see that now we have a new folder with some actions and we have some WordPress coding standards check going on. So the first thing that we're going to do since we said let this work out on the pull request we're going to go back to our code right here. I'm going to say git switch dash c and I'm going to create a new branch which we shall call wpcs for WordPress coding standards. And what I'm going to do here is just add some more space down here. And once I'm done with that I'm going to git add git commit. And then I'll say added some white space and then I'll git push this let this go to the origin which is my remote and we'll say let it go to the wpcs branch. So once I push this I'm going to go click on this link. So once we push that I'm going to go back to our folder here and you'll see that git have automatically tells us that there is a branch with some changes. Do we want to compare and make a pull request? So I will click to compare and we'll see that there was some changes of some spaces that was made and what I'm going to say is here in the comments I'll say I added some white space to test the coding standards. So I'll hit create pull request here. First thing git have checks is to see if I have any much conflicts and you'll see that nothing is going on. So we expect our actions checks to happen here and we'll see that that's nothing is going on. So I'm going to go back and check and we'll see that we made a little typo. This is supposed to be workflows and not workflow alone. So I'm going to go back to my main branch. I'll say git checkout I'm going to go back to the main and then I'll change this to workflows I'm going to rename it to workflows then I'll git add git commit and I'll say correct the workflows folder name and then I'll git push this to my main branch if we come back here and look at the code we'll see that this is looking fine as it should be if I go back to my pull request here it will not run because I've not made a new commit so I'm going to go back here and git checkout and say let's go to our WPCS branch and I'm going to rename this as well after renaming this just make a few more adjustments add some more white space here I'm going to say git add I'll say git commit dash this and say add some more white space and then I'm going to git push this to our branch and then if I come back here and reload you'll see that the check for the merge conflicts is done away with and that's finished but now we have our coding standards check starting to work out here so if we want to see what's going on we can click here on details and we'll see that there is this particular check going on for the WordPress coding standards you briefly saw that running and you'll see that this is now marked red all these other jobs are ticked meaning that they run well but if we click on this one you'll actually see that we have quite a number of errors showing up so we'll see it's telling us there's a missing art package tag which should be in the file comment it is going to tell us that they're opening parentheses that are missing in the different things you'll see that there's white space that's found on particular lines what we have here is just one file and it's just maybe less than a hundred lines of code that we do have but if imagine you had written a plugin that has hundreds of files something like wukamas and you've not been writing this it becomes so hard to manage that plugin in that you would even give up on working with it other people will not be ready to contribute to your plugin because it's so messy now we can decide to work on one line at a time so we might need to reduce all these errors that are happening but it is also possible for us to fix all these errors really really quickly if we started by looking at maybe let's say the last line which is on error line 77 it says they are empty lines empty lines are not allowed in the multi line function calls and this is on line 77 column 1 so what we're going to do is come back here to our code go to line 77 you'll see it they tell us in this particular function these multi lines are not allowed so I'm going to delete them and then I'm going to also make this one line of a function I'll save this and I'm going to say git add git commit fix line 77 I'll press enter here and I'll say git push let's go back to our pull request and you see every time we make a commit this particular action is going to be run you'll see that right now it's running brown here and you'll see that some checks are actually happening because we've added a new commit to our particular pull request and when we wait for it to run of course in the background or if we choose to go and look at the details you'll see that all the jobs are running we still have errors going on that's expected but if I scroll down to the last line you're going to see we no longer have line 77 in our errors it's no longer going to be that we don't have line 77 right now we have line 73 and it has only two issues it says expected one spaces after the opening parenthesis but zero was found and then here it says expected one space before the closing parenthesis zero was found meaning that there is supposed to be a space here under space here so if I save that and say git add and git commit fix line 73 git push that will go up to the server if we come back you'll see that there is now a new check going on for the commit that we've just pushed you'll see that we have a new commit here and there is going to be new checks going on right here we'll go to the details section you'll see that we still have errors going on but if we scroll all the way down you'll see that we fixed line 73 and you'll see that now the next line we need to fix is like 68 then we'll go 67, 66 all the way up now I've chosen to go from the bottom coming up but you could choose to start from the top going down there is no problem with that but now we've been able to fix this according to the word press coding standards we might decide to say I think this is too much I want to make sure that when I'm fixing one rule I've fixed it for the whole plugin and not just only one thing so you might decide to say ok now let's change the rules a bit I'm going to git checkout and go back to my main and we're going to go to our work flows inside WPCS and we're going to say ok we're now going to use a local config file that's going to help us setup the particular coding standard that we want so I'm going to change this to true and that means we now have to come inside our plugin here and we're going to create a PHP cs.xml file and there are several ways you can actually name this but I'm going to go again to github I'm going to go to github.com I'll go to the wordpress and then I'm going to look for the wordpress coding standard's repository and inside here you'll be told how you can actually make your PHP cs.xml file much easier and in here you can be told about particular rulesets that you can add to that particular file so you can call it PHP cs.xml.dist and here we actually have a particular example and they show us what will happen so it's basically an XML file that has particular rulesets and in here you can have the description of that particular file you can exclude particular folders from being checked let's say you don't want it to check the CSS because this particular thing is going to work with PHP so CSS does not get in any way interacted with rather it might cause problems for you if you have a minified version of CSS and this is going to cause your particular PHP max time out to happen so if you get an error when you're having a run time max out check whether you need to exclude some particular folders now we're going to add some of those and then we're going to look at some of these particular rules that we need to have and what we want to do with them so let's first look at how to exclude some particular files so I'm going to copy this and then I'll copy the exclude pattern and I'm going to come and paste it inside my file here you'll actually realize there isn't much apart from the standards that are being stated and then we have the name plugin project we'll call this plugin project custom set of rules to check for coding standards in our WordPress project and so let's say we have a folder here I'm going to rename this and say maybe this is called style.css and this particular file is going to be inside a folder which is called assets so inside assets we'll have our style.css now what we're going to do is come back here and we're going to just say let's ignore everything inside assets so we're going to say ignore assets and we can do just the folder called assets or even just naming it as assets we'll put a slash to say this is assets and we shall say ignore everything inside there but this is a lot cleaner for me so I'm just going to say let's leave it at that and say this is going to be closing the rule sets let's go back to this particular error space let's say we want to ignore this rule that says let's remove all the white space at the end of the line let's ignore this particular rule so I'm going to copy its name from the source here so we'll go back to the documentation in here and we're going to look at the rules that we have here so we have this rule and we're referencing the particular coding standard we want to work with and so I'm going to come back here and say in this rule of course we need to close the rule and we are working with the wordpress coding standards for now so we want to say inside this rule inside the wordpress coding standard rules we want to exclude this particular rule where we're ignoring this white space so I'm going to copy this and it comes from the source right here we're going to open this up and say exclude exclude and we'll say the name that we want to exclude is going to equal to what we copied there and then we're going to add this as a solve closing tag and say let's ignore that particular rule so I'll come back here and say get add and then I'll say get commit and we'll say exclude this particular rule I'm now going to push this to my main branch I'll say get push so that we can exclude this particular rule I'm going to get check out WPCS and inside that we don't have all these other things but I'm going to just for once reduce some space and say let's remove this space save this I'll say get add get commit remove white space I'll get push this and once I do that and come back to our particular pull request that we made I'll reload this to see that we have the remove white space here and we'll see that we have some much conflicts to fix so I'm just going to quickly resolve this and say we need to have this as true we're going to use a local config file I'll mark this as resolved I'll click merge and you're going to see that our checks are going to actually run we have no much conflicts but if we go inside the details again and you'll see that this is telling us that there are some issues that are happening we've installed the paths correctly checking of the warnings is disabled and it's telling us we need to pass a particular file to run at this point we're going to go to our main branch again and that is happening because when we were adding our php.xml rule we did not tell which files this should run through we're going to have a particular rule here which is called file and we're going to say run from the root folder but ignore this particular rule ignore the assets as well so I'm going to hit git add git commits and this is all happening in the main branch and I'll say add root folder git push and then I'll git check out to my wpcs branch where we are trying to run or we are trying to make a pull request I'll remove one line and I'll say git add all git commit remove white space again git push and we'll see this is saying it has some issues that need to be sorted out I need to git pull to make sure everything is okay into my branch I'll say let everything I'll work out as it's supposed to be then I'll git push again so git push and then we shall go back to our checker you'll see that we have a number of commits that have come in running we shall quickly run to the details and you'll see the jobs are setting up everything is setting up well because we provided a root and you'll see that all the errors keep coming back as before if we decide to check the logs and look for this rule that we pasted you'll see that the end line is not anywhere in the logs because we chose to ignore it so you might decide to say there are so many errors let me just get a number of rules and ignore them and start with only a few and then at the end of the day I'll make sure that I have all my code working and looking nice as it's supposed to be so that I have fewer errors so this is one way you can keep your code best clean you can have better code that is in most cases going to be bug free because you run it through the coding standards and you're making sure that everything is well escaped the database queries are prepared well and you're not having SQL injections coming in so you'll tackle so many things like security and making the code look cleaner and easier to read in maybe in a few months to come or for a junior developer to work with and this is one way you can also solve issues of code reviews you might not have to be that not so nice manager or person who is always reviewing people's code and saying you missed a little space here and whatever and it's nagging to the people who have written the code because in most cases we do not separate ourselves from the code we take it personally but such tools and such things like this particular GitHub action can help you reduce some of those issues and tensions in the workplace and yet making your code look a little bit better we're going to go back to the particular code that we had that was a lot cleaner and once I get to it I'm going to actually just copy it all I'll get its raw form I'll copy it and I'm going to paste it inside our WPCS file here and see how many number of errors we're actually going to get so I'll save this and I'll say git add and I'll say git commit and say add cleaner code and then I'll git push oh, I made a typo there I'll say git push and once we push this and go back and look at the action again so I'll reload this to see if we have any much errors you'll see we have a new commit here coming in with cleaner code I'll look at the details you'll see we still have a few checks that are failing and when you come back here you'll see that we have just a few lines of code that need to be fixed maybe a few things that like tab indentation that needs to be done we don't use spaces I'll add a missing add package in the comment so we need this code we need to see the logic operators that are prohibited from being used in line 14 so we're going to go and fix some of those we'll come here and say add package and I'll just copy this right here and say the package is going to be called underscore query query APIs that's our package I'll quickly move down to line 14 it says logic operator is prohibited mmm this is a bit tricky it has a missing doc function for this particular function so I'm going to come back here and quickly look for it you'll see we have a doc block so I'll add a demi doc block here and say this function gets and displays so gets data from api and va dumps it that function what else can we solve here they said we need to tab indent each array item in a multi array declaration must end in a comma so we come back here I need to add a comma here at the end of the day I'm going to select this and I'm going to change this to tab indentations using my code editor I can make things a little bit easier for myself so this changes as well I'm going to come back here it says spaces must be used for midline alignment tabs are not allowed this is on line 34 so I'll come back to line 34 hopefully that has not changed I don't see that line 34 meaning we're going up here I'll press enter to make sure that's working get add commit and say more fixes and I'll get push and we'll go back and see what's happening here I need to reload this first so that we see more fixes is being checked we can click on details and we'll see the jobs that are running we'll see that we still have a few errors we have three lines of things that are failing so basically that's how you set up github actions for your WordPress project and this could be a theme it could be a plugin but this will help you solve and fix so many errors it will make your code more readable and better to work with so if you enjoyed this video please give it a thumbs up don't forget to share it with your friends help us, your senior managers make sure they are looking at this and writing better code and making it easier for you to progress making your projects shorter in the amount of time you use to develop making them last longer in terms of their lifespan don't forget to like, subscribe or leave a question in the comments otherwise enjoy whatever you're coding


Hi, everybody. Thank you so much for coming to our panel on political correctness. I'm Molly Ball, a national political correspondent for Time Magazine. And we have a terrific lineup of panelists assembled here. Stephen Pinker, professor of psychology at Harvard, author of many bestselling books, including the forthcoming Enlightenment Now, which argues sort of against the grain that things are actually getting better in the world in all kinds of ways. Parvati Santosh Kumar, who is based in Chicago, the director of network learning for Strive Together USA, which facilitates large-scale social change to advance opportunities in education and social mobility and is here as part of the Global Shapers program. Lonnie Bunch, the legendary historian and founder of the new Museum of African-American History and Culture in Washington, DC, which, if you've tried to get in, you know, is the hottest ticket in DC, still difficult to get in. But if you do manage to, just an incredible experience, this was a, I would say, lonely crusade that you waged for many, many years, a dream finally achieved to a spectacular effect, and it's also a beautiful building. And So Young Kang is based in Singapore and is here as a young global leader. She's the founder and CEO of Nobi, which is a mobile learning platform for enterprises focused on mobile micro-learning. So a very cool diverse array of perspectives, which is kind of the point of what we are talking about, right, is how people with diverse perspectives can communicate in this world rather than just tearing each other apart, which is a dynamic I'm very familiar with as a political reporter. So this idea of political correctness, you know, famously we have had on campuses, particularly in the United States, campus protest speakers being shouted down and uninvited. This, these have now become sort of buzzwords, microaggressions and trigger warnings. And these are real things, liberal professors that I know at universities all over the United States actually do sort of live in fear of their students and the microcontroversies that can turn into really toxic situations. And then you have provocateurs like Milo Yiannopoulos, who have exploited this dynamic to become sort of, to deliberately provoke the so-called snowflakes and create these confrontations. And if you watch, for example, Fox News, you would think this is the leading problem facing America, the so-called censorship or the oppression of free speech by liberal academia. So, and I would argue that this dynamic reached its sort of absurd conclusion in the 2016 election, which actually pitted a social justice warrior, Hillary Clinton, against an internet troll, Donald Trump. So let's get into this. I wanna start with, we had a sort of perfect case study just this month that Steven was involved in, a social media controversy involving something you said on a panel, in fact. Maybe if we're lucky, we'll get one today. So Steven, can you tell this story in your own words and how it came to be that you were the subject of a headline on the Nazi Daily Stormer website that said, Harvard Jew Professor admits the alt-right is right about everything. Right, followed by a New York Times article called How Social Media Is Making Us Stupid. This is, there was a panel at Harvard University, excuse me, last fall, on the topic, did political correctness help elect Trump? Everyone on the panel argued that it did. And my own argument was that political correctness by treating certain facts as taboo helped stoke the alt-right by giving them the sense that there were truths that the academic establishment could not face up to. Therefore giving, and by alt-right, by the way, I don't mean torch carrying skinheads. I mean the highly educated, mostly men, often in tech who find each other on the internet, often highly literate, these are not knuckle dragging brutes of the kind that we saw in Charlottesville. So let me just wanna be clear of what I mean by the alt-right. I know they exist because I have seen them among students at Harvard University. They tend to stay under the radar because they know that they would be in professional jeopardy. But to people who say that there aren't any intelligent, literate people on the alt-right, I can testify that that is false. And what feeds them is the hidden knowledge that certain facts are just taboo in respectable intellectual circles and that only increases their own sense of agreement and superiority. Moreover, I think it stokes the most pernicious interpretations of a number of these facts, such as gender differences, such as differences between capitalist and communist countries, such as differences in statistics on crime among ethnic groups, where if those beliefs are allowed to fester in isolation, then people who are aware of them can come up with a most, can descend to the most toxic interpretations of them, whereas if they are out in the open, then they can be countered by arguments that put them in perspective and that don't allow them to become fodder for some of the toxic beliefs of the alt-right. So the talk that I gave was on how we're inadvertently feeding the alt-right and what we ought to do to try to starve them. And then this, the remarks when they were put on YouTube, were then doctored by some of these alt-right sites so that the parts where I said, well, they discovered these facts that are true or in the record was not followed by, but yes, but that they have this perverse interpretation of them. Then that led to a, once it was, there were some alt-right sites that use this doctored video to rather perversely argue that I was in favor of the alt-right movement that I absolutely loathe and which the point of my remarks being, what can we do to combat it? Then I became the target of internet trolls on the left saying, well, this shows that Pinker was sympathetic to the alt-right all along and he's shown his true colors. Fortunately, it was a controversy that was pretty much confined to social media and a number of excellent articles came out in the Times, in The Guardian, in a number of blogs setting the record straight, so I didn't even have to say anything about it. I'd much rather be kind of attacked by social media and defended by the mainstream media than the other way around. But it is a sign of how quickly even a kind of a meta discussion of the phenomenon of political correctness can be turned around by some of the political correctness police to further distort and mighty and indeed make debate stupider as The New York Times put it. So, but I guess the counter argument to the point that you were making would be, do we really need to be discussing whether the Nazis have a point or whether the arguments for racism have any legitimacy to them? I mean, in this day and age, ought there not be points of view that are taboo, that don't have a place in discussion? And do we to some extent legitimize those points of view when we engage with them? I mean, Lonnie, maybe I'll open this up to you because so much of your work is about presenting perspectives and points of view and history that perhaps the dominant culture would prefer not to engage with. So what do you think about this question? Well, I mean, I think that if you look at this notion of political correctness, it's an interesting evolution, right? It evolved from a way for people who were anonymous and voiceless to demand a freer and fairer country. And it's evolved into this weapon that allowed people to sort of tamp down the debates and discussions that are essential for a democracy. My notion is as reprehensible as, you know, the Ku Klux Klan is to me, I really feel strongly that we've got to find the space to allow those conversations to happen because I look back in the 1960s, there were few opportunities for African-Americans to raise the issues that were at the core of who they were. Suddenly, you're allowed to have Martin Luther King or Malcolm X or Muhammad Ali on campuses at the time when many of the university hierarchy said that's not the direction we wanna go. So I worry about saying there are certain things that are taboo. However, I feel strongly that debate and protest are at the heart of what we should be doing. So when in the National Museum of African-American History, for example, some from the alt-right left nooses to sort of talk about, to suggest that what we were doing was politically correct. And my notion was let us take those nooses, let us write about it in the op-eds, let us use them in the museum, and use them as points to basically argue that we need to understand our enemies, but we need to be able to contextualize it. And that's what I really try to do with my work. Well, and Stephen, as you mentioned, so much of this does take place on social media, on the internet, where, as you said, Lonnie, the empowering or the giving of a platform to so many people who previously might have been kept out by the gatekeepers of institutions is disturbing to people, perhaps, in power. So, Young, I'd like to hear your international perspective on this issue for one thing, but also as someone who works in social media and technology, whether you think that those are a force for good or evil in this regard. No, I think it's been really interesting, I think, especially with technology, social media, this whole topic of political correctness. So I'm actually American, so I'm Korean American from East Brooklyn, New York, and I moved to Singapore seven years ago. And I think now living in Singapore for seven years, what I'm realizing is I don't think I had as much freedom of speech as I thought I did in the US because of political correctness, because there are so many important topics that need to be discussed and debated, but are shut down and hushed because they are sensitive. And so what I realize, actually, even in terms of religious freedom, I find more religious freedom in Singapore oddly enough than I do in the US because you have mosques, churches, and temples all literally next to each other on the same street, and people are very free to talk about those things. So when you talk about social media, I think part of the challenge we have is that technology has unintentionally dehumanized people. And so what ends up happening is that your soundbite then equals you, the person, the character.  So I think part of the challenge of social media and with Twitter and soundbites is that you don't have the person. It's not a human being that you're talking to. You're debating about a certain point or something taken in one context and then you actually make judgments. So my big, I guess worry is around how people are equating a point of view with the person and technology is actually fostering that. So I wonder if there's an opportunity to start, I don't know, to rethink how we engage with humans and understand that your point of view does not equal all of you. And I can disagree with you and it's okay. I can respectfully disagree and still like you as a human being where it's so difficult to do that today. Even when you know people, there's so many friendships that have been broken up because of different political views. 20 years of friendship, 30 years, that's absolutely ridiculous. Your views don't form who you are. And so I think with social media, it actually just compounds that. So then you have that kind of continuing and then it's overnight, right?  You've gone from a liberal minded person to an all right supporter because of one comment. And I mean, obviously you're not right. So it's just the craziness of I think all of that. And so Parv, I wanna ask you sort of the opposite question as someone who works on the ground with vulnerable populations. Is this a debate that's sort of, I think this often can feel to me like it's not a real problem, right? Or it's sort of a first world problem. And for people who are actually struggling with poverty and inequality, does this debate have any impact or is it somewhat divorced from their reality? Yeah, it's a really important question because this often to me feels like it's own form of work avoidance where people instead of actually addressing the root causes of inequities that exist in our country and actually talking about things like systemic oppression or institutional racism are talking about the words and the language we use instead of actually talking about the real issues. And so if we can instead get people to get past the debate about language and have conflict at the language level or at the personal conflict level and move to a place where we can actually identify what's the shared result we actually wanna achieve for our world and how can we actually work beyond our differences and work across lines of difference to get there. And that's the work that I do at Strive Together, a national organization where we're working in communities to help people across different sectors come together around common goals for ensuring that every kid has a path to economic mobility. And so instead of saying, instead of arguing about whether people of different sides of the political spectrum have different perspectives about whether every child can succeed, we kind of help people work through that and whether from places that are urban like Progressive Portland where people are talking about race and inequity very openly to places like rural overseen where it's not as talked about, we're coaching leaders through the process of actually working through having productive dialogue about this in a way that gets to action and results for kids and families on the ground as opposed to having a theoretical debate about what this is about. And if you are in the audience and you have a burning question that's eating you up inside feel free to wave frantically at me at any point but I do plan to open up for questions toward the last 15, 20 minutes. So be thinking of smart questions that are questions and not speeches when we get to that point. But yeah, Steven, you had something you wanted to say here. Just to actually exemplify my argument. Molly, the way you even kind of framed your first question I think is although you're obviously meeting to elicit discussion but it itself I think exemplifies the problem. You say well should we really be discussing whether Nazi opinions deserve to be debated? Now an example of the kind of point that I made that is often taboo in academia is whether the sexes differ, whether men are indistinguishable from women. And I'm gonna state as a fact, men and women aren't identical. There's a lot of scientific evidence that that's true. There's a lot of common sense evidence that's true.  I think that's a pretty robust sex difference. We know that some men, many men do. Now is that a Nazi opinion? If it is, to say that to acknowledge differences between men and women is a Nazi opinion. First of all it removes all credibility because it so defies both common sense and science. And also for impressionable young people who don't know any better. It's saying well geez I guess I'm a Nazi because I believe that. So part of my argument is that that kind of equation that certain beliefs for which there is an enormous amount of evidence are so taboo that we're going to call them Nazis, Nazi beliefs is only going to encourage young neo-Nazis or the alt-right more generally. So one of the many reasons that we should be mindful of excessive taboo and demonization of particular opinions is that it could backfire by both sapping the credibility of academia and journalism. If there are certain things that anyone with eyes can see are true but you're not allowed to say. And perversely emboldened exactly the kind of people that we want to marginalize. Okay but you work on a campus and one of the arguments that I've heard about this is that this is just college kids being dumb as college kids are want to do. And it doesn't, outside the borders of liberal academia, which has always been a punching bag for the right. This isn't a real thing. It's not just students, it's also professors. And in fact, the professors are often encouraging the students. The students do take their cues as to what they can get away with. And there's actually not so much professors but the student life administrators, the kind of middle management that's kind of taking over the university that is encouraging the suppression of speech and the conspicuous outrage. But the reason that it's not just college kids is that it casts into doubt the entire scientific and scholarly enterprise. So I'll give you an example. I do talk to influential people on the right who say things like, well, I know that all you scientists say that climate change is caused by human activity, but everyone knows that the academia is infected by political correctness. So why should we take that seriously? And the thing is that if they have a case in certain propositions where there really is squelching of debate, where there is demonization of people who are proposing quite reasonable hypotheses, it corrodes the credibility of the university institutions on the whole. And that's a second pernicious effect of political correctness together with encouraging the toxic elements of the alt-right. But of course the most obvious one is that if only certain hypotheses can be discussed, there's just no way that you can understand the world because no one a priori knows the truth. It's only by putting hypotheses out there and evaluating them that you could hope to increase your knowledge about the world. Yeah, Sam. Yeah, because I think part of, and I totally agree with you, because I think one of the challenges is just because we don't talk about it or allow it to be spoken, it doesn't mean that those beliefs don't exist. So what ends up happening is you could say, yeah, don't talk about your point of view because it actually, I detest your point of view. So then we just kind of stop the conversation. You're gonna go off and go develop your own point of view and go talk to people who feel the same as you and then we'll further polarize kind of different communities, which is exactly what we're seeing happen today. And it's not gonna change just because we don't allow people to talk about racism. It still exists. So I'd like to get to the root cause and allow people to talk about uncomfortable situations and be a little bit uncomfortable. I think we're so pressed on being happy, happy and comfortable all the time and smiling with people that deep inside I know have completely different views than I do. And I kind of would like a little bit more honesty and a little bit more integrity and authenticity to say, if you have a different point of view, like I'd love to hear it. Let's have a conversation. I will not attack you, please don't attack me and let's have an honest dialogue. One of the social experiments which I am actually planning to do, still planning to do it, is actually to apply to the Ku Klux Klan and to go in. And one day during all the selection I was going through and clicking the sites and then I happened to see an article. So of course Facebook is immediate. As soon as one like positive article comes off on the right, all of a sudden all my Facebook feeds are kind of all right. And so I clicked on and I went to the website and I actually went to their code of ethics. And why did I do that? I spent the weekend doing that because I want to understand what do they believe? What are they saying? That's so different from my point of view and how different, is it really that different? And what I was shocked to find is I said, I kind of understand what they're saying. And I understand why their appeal is so big, right? Because they're being kind of demonized.   And then you start to kind of facilitate that. So I think it's really dangerous when we start to actually prohibit any kinds of speech. And I almost encourage people to be intentionally uncomfortable.  How do we grow? I think we grow from discomfort. Part of you wanted to- Yeah, I think part of the challenge with what you're talking about, right, is that people don't necessarily have the skill set to be able to have those uncomfortable conversations in a productive way. And so part of what we have an obligation to do as leaders is to help figure out how do we empower people to have conversations and get uncomfortable in a way that doesn't continue the polarization. And so particularly because there's such a tendency for people when they're having conversations, you're listening not necessarily to learn, but to win. And so to avoid this dichotomy of having people just having a conversation, to get listening only to say the next argument, but to actually get to a place where people can have real authentic conversation about what's actually behind your belief system, that's where we need to do. And so things like helping people understand how to slow down your cognitive process, like use the ladder of inference as a tool to say, well, what's behind that belief that you have? What's the data? What's the evidence? But to get that, you have to have the patience with people and people aren't necessarily always there, particularly in a social media context. But in some ways, it's really, in my mind, there's two big issues. One is the social media impact, right? The fact that what was once a ripple becomes a wave, becomes an ambulance as a result of social media. I think about when we opened the National Museum and I began to anticipate what I was gonna be attacked by, I was stunned that the biggest attack was social media from the right, attacking the museum about Clarence Thomas, arguing that the museum was run by left-wing historians. Well, that's true. But that the notion was that using that was a conscious decision to say, there's only a certain part of blackness that's acceptable and that black conservatives like Clarence Thomas aren't acceptable. And suddenly, the right, regardless of race, really used social media to attack the museum to attack its credibility on that. And what was so fascinating to me is that we would get hundreds of emails a day. And we had to really put in place a whole strategy to handle that, whereas it would have been a ripple that I would have handled with an op-ed. Suddenly, it was something that we had to plan a whole media strategy. So it means that even ideas that really aren't worthy of real long debate you have to address. The other issue for me, though, is that what I worry about most about not having these debates is the idea that the most important thing, I think, educators, whether they are on campus, in museums, can really do is help the public embrace ambiguity. I think in some ways, the notion of ambiguity, of not settling for simple answers to complex questions is really the key to a good democracy. And I would argue that that is the goal we should be striving for, and that often a lot of our debates around political correctness really allow us, as you said, to talk to people of like minds, to not have that debate and that ambiguity. In essence, what we're really asking for is for people to be comfortable with the tension that comes from sort of freedom of speech, but also the responsibility to listen.  And so many of these conflicts disproportionately affect the people who are already victims of systemic injustice. And it's easy to say we should all be made uncomfortable when the people who are being made uncomfortable are people being traumatized by having, you know, a noose put at their door, which feels a lot different, I think, if you're an 18-year-old college student on financial aid who's on a campus for the first time. Are we comforting the Nazis and afflicting people of color when we turn political correctness into the subject of debate like this? I don't think it's about accepting, right? So I think that that's maybe where I'll kind of disagree with kind of the way that it's being positioned. To allow someone to disagree or to create space and a safe space for people to have different points of view doesn't say, I agree or I approve what you're saying. I mean, the whole idea is that, for example, in the noose situation, which is absolutely horrible and it's, to take them away doesn't negate the fact that there are people who actually believe that, right? So you can, and so I think that even you have, you almost can use that to actually spark debate. Like for those people who send you the emails, like invite them to coffee. Like it'd be kind of cool to just invite them all into a room and have a cup, like can have coffee. And as human beings and just have conversations, why do you believe what you do? And it's like, it's that whole thing of asking questions and asking the why questions. So for me, like, I think a big part of this critical thinking, I think if we can develop and kind of encourage people to be really critical and they're thinking about everything, you know, how do we know what we know? Do we actually know what we know? Even our points of view right now, we're sitting in this room largely. I think I would assume most of us have probably similar points of view. Maybe I'm wrong, because if I am, I'd love to hear you ask a really different question, right? Because if we start to encourage each other to ask these critical questions, why? Where do you come from? And we can humanize the conversations. Then we start to actually separate just the what from the why. And I think part of the challenges, we debate at the what all the time. Short what's, what's, what's, what's, what's. But we don't get a sense of why they feel that way. And sometimes when you hear the stories of why they feel that way, it kind of changes actually the whole context of that conversation. You know, and I think for me in technology, you know, I run a mobile platform and part of what I've been doing actually is causing people to think. I don't think learning and education should be a passive experience. And part of my, I guess, hope for education and educators is actually, is what you do in the classroom, but then to use technology to do the same thing, we just teach people how to think. That's probably the most valuable thing that we can give to this generation and to society is the tools to be able to do that. But teaching people how to think doesn't mean that you accept the kind of racism that comes with the news. I mean, for me, the news was the opportunity to contextualize this, right? To talk about what this means, how it is a symbol of violence and hate, what is it meant historically, and really trying to illuminate that anybody who thinks that's a smart thing to do really is somebody that doesn't understand what it means. And so I guess for me, the notion is that while I wanna hear these different points of view, I wanna make sure that we attack them vigorously, that we really confront them and really use protest and use our own abilities to marshal social media to count them. Because I think that's really important. You know, I'm not asking for equal play. What I'm asking for is let us understand the debates, but let us make sure that we make the arguments that we make that counter some of the horrible racism, et cetera. Steve? Yeah, I think it's important that we realize that, well, the issue of political correctness is not about the right to leave newses at the Museum of African-American History. And I think, in fact, equating controversial arguments made with evidence and arguments in an academic context with leaving a noose is part of the problem. Leaving a noose, I'm not enough of a First Amendment expert to know whether that would be protected speech or whether it would be considered an intimidation or a threat which is not protected. That's really not what we're talking about. We're talking about, say, advancing hypotheses on why the homicide rate increased in the United States in the past two years and was it a result of police withdrawing from active policing? The kind of thing that Heaven McDonald was shouted out of the room for arguing. A data-driven, reasonable position might be right, might be wrong, we won't know until we examine it. That's not the same as leaving a noose. And I think the idea that any hypothesis that departs from a certain left-wing orthodoxy is like leaving a noose is part of the problem. That there has to be a range of opinions that are just, which are nowhere near intimidation, threats of violence, but that we have to allow into the arena if we're gonna figure out how the world works and if we're gonna preserve the credibility of journalism in academia. Do you get the sense that students have gotten more illiberal, less tolerant of other points of view? There are some data suggesting that, but on the other hand, in the 60s and 70s, students were pretty intolerant. There were no social media. There were protests against people like Richard Hernstein, even when he talked about pigeons because of his arguments about the heritability of intelligence. E.O. Wilson, also of Harvard, got picketed and shouted down and his classroom was invaded and someone threw a bucket of ice water over his head. I think at the Smithsonian, in fact. We're proud of that. Yeah. And in terms of Singapore, I mean, Singapore is certainly not a paradigm of free speech. You can be imprisoned for, most of our late night comedians would be in jail in Singapore. So even though I think social media can contribute to it, the idea that people who disagree with you are evil and are legitimate targets of intimidation, I think it's probably part of human nature. I think free speech is highly unintuitive. Everyone understands why there should be free speech for themselves. The idea that there should be free speech for people that you disagree with is a major accomplishment of the Enlightenment. It's one of the things that America should be proudest of. It's deeply unintuitive and it's constantly going to be pushing back against the conviction that we all have that where everything that we believe is obviously correct and obviously immoral and anyone who disagrees with us is obviously stupid and obviously evil. Social media amplify that but I think that's deep in human nature. Well, and social media in a lot of ways has just made people confront each other in ways that they otherwise wouldn't have to do in the real world. And sort of one of the arguments really of the alt-right is that humans are inherently tribal creatures who prefer to be around their own and it is, we have unnaturally forced diverse populations together which inevitably creates conflict. I mean, Parv, do you see a way forward in helping people coexist in a diverse society in a respectful way or does that just go against our grain as humans? Right, I think part of the mental model that needs to shift is that all conflict is bad in some senses, that part of this debate is that this is a byproduct of us becoming a more multicultural society that people have to figure out how do we behave with people who don't look exactly like ourselves? How do we create a culture of inclusion in our communities? And to do that, we have to help people manage that process and thinking about the opportunities that we have to help people work together and talk across lines of difference. They're creating convening spaces for that and because it is the way of the future, we're here and talking about the Fourth Industrial Revolution and what it offers and the possibilities and how we need to continue to, I feel like inclusion is coming up over and over again as a theme in many of the conversations that are happening here and so this is kind of an obligation that I see that we have and that we have to take action. No, it's really interesting. I just had a thought as you were sharing that we're talking about this topic, right? About listening and we're talking at a very intellectual level but actually why people get pissed is actually at a heart level. It's at a very emotional level and so I wonder, even in our dialogues, if we can connect with people at the heart level, we have much more of a chance of connecting with another human being and actually developing empathy. See, part of the challenge is that the starting point already is you have a different point of view than me so we're gonna figure out how we're gonna debate and actually win and prove you wrong in what that is and at that level, no one's gonna win. No one emerges actually as a winner. You start to intellectually kind of attack each other versus empathy and I think if we need a lot more empathy and so I think part of having different communities come together I think has to start with empathy and not with the head and so I think we're almost like in terms of the way that we're approaching it maybe needs to rethink the idea of political correctness. Maybe it's around political empathy, right? Or it's about how do we actually try to put ourselves in other people's shoes and try to walk and understand where they're coming from from a heart level? That is I think the closest thing we have to actually having respectful disagreements and respectful dialogue because if we see at this level the whole time you're already in your kind of in war mode and I'm gonna try to intellectually over intellectualize and basically intellectually beat you. The curiosity is, sorry. Yeah, go ahead, yeah. The curiosity is super important and I think what's also important is that people don't feel like you have to agree on everything to be able to work together because I think often what people believe is that we have to get past every disagreement and conflict before we can actually work productively together and instead we could actually as a society like move further towards our global goals if we instead put aside some of our differences and if you really ask those why questions like you're talking about, eventually you get to the same places in terms of what's good for humanity and so instead of trying to find agreement on every single thing, if you instead put aside some differences and work together towards a shared vision, you'll have a shot at actually making some progress. But I think the challenge then is where are the spaces that allow that to happen, right? And if you're not doing that on campuses, if you're not using museums and cultural sites to do that, where are they? And so I would argue that one of the most important things is in this debate around political correctness is to make sure we guarantee that there are spaces that we can bring these things together. Now I'm a museum guy, right? But I love the fact that all the statistics suggest that museums are one of the most trusted things in the world, not just in the United States. And so what I expect museums to do is seize their political opportunity to be these spaces that allow us not to find simple answers, maybe not even to find common ground, but maybe to find common frameworks. And so that's what I worry about is where are those moments where we find those frameworks that allow the effective debates because we're never going to agree on all these issues. But I think that if we don't have those spaces, we suffer as a democracy. It's obviously just a total coincidence and not self-serving that you're advocating for more museums as the solution to this problem. But we're saying that. I agree, more museums, also more magazines. But so, and I am going to ask all of you to talk about concrete ways that you think we can move forward and find solutions to these problems. And then I'm going to open it up. So please be thinking about questions for the panel. But so, Jan, what do you think? You have talked a little bit, but particularly in the technology space, what do you think are some ways that we can advance mutual understanding and get past these political correctness, this toxicity? Yeah, I think technology can play a critical role because, and I think technology has a huge responsibility, actually. I wrote a piece, actually, for WEF called, Is Tech Ever Really Neutral? And I don't believe it's neutral. It's not just a platform. It was intentional design. So as someone who's building, has a mobile platform, I have, there's thousands of programs that people are creating. I do feel it's, I have a responsibility, my team has, and my company has a responsibility to understand what types of conversations and what types of programs are being created on our platform. But on our platform, one of the things that I was really intentional about was to develop critical thinking skills, creativity in the platform and collaboration. Because I don't want people to just have pat answers and also to take information passively. So what's happening is now, you kind of scroll, scroll, scroll down your Facebook feed, you read, read, read, and you have this false sense of knowing and understanding and it's actually not really true. And so almost going back to the Socratic method of actually asking the white questions, we actually do that on our platform.  What do you think? What is your point of view? And we actually encourage that. And so I think the more we can use technology and the beauty of technology is you can do the same thing at scale. And the more, just by asking the questions, it's actually remarkable what happens, right? Neurologically, it's just by asking you why? It starts to shift the conversation. And so I think that's a critical part and if technology can be used not to tell and only tell, tell, tell or show, show, show, but to ask, I think that's actually ask, encourage and create a safe environment. I think at the end of the day, a lot of this actually starts with caring. Like if I don't care about your point of view, like no matter what you say, it actually really doesn't matter. Like if I don't care about you, like it doesn't matter if we can agree to disagree on even wanting to work together. Like I kind of have to care and wanna work with you first and then I'm willing to overcome the differences. And so there's something that a technology can be used to do that. I think that's actually really huge. And because we're talking about correctness and I'd love for us to use social media and technology to almost start a new movement, almost like anti-PC, maybe hashtag respectfully disagree, to actually create a safe space that says hashtag I respectfully disagree, but I like you as a human being but I wanna be clear that I just disagree with your points of view and this is why, right? To create safety. And it's almost like the combination of the human and the point of view versus the dehumanization which is a technology, it can be used both ways, right? So if we decide to use technology in a way to actually rehumanize, I think we can. And that's actually the power because it's just what we as humans put on it, right? And how we use it. So I think there can be more intentionality in order to really encourage respectful disagreements. Well, and Lana, you've talked about some of the difficulties, the controversies that attended the opening of the museum, but in general, do you feel it's been a positive story? I mean, the outpouring of attention and acceptance of the museum, has that been encouraging to you? It really has become that safe space where there are very few places, for example, where we cross racial lines, right? In this museum, 45 to 50% of the visitors are non-African-American. You find then these opportunities time and time again for people to come together around some of the most horrible things that we may show on the museum. But it gives people the sort of freedom to cross those lines and discuss. I find, I mean, I'm an optimistic historian, right?  I grew up being called names that amaze me that I didn't punch everybody in the face. And what I'm struck by though, is a belief that looking at history tells us that it is not without struggle. It is not without loss. But boy, if people are willing to come together to take the risk, you change the country. And so I think that when I see people come together in the museum or throughout the Smithsonian, I'm optimistic in part, not Pollyannish, but optimistic because people are seeing relatively unvarnished truth. And they're taking that and saying, we can do better. We have done better. Parv, are you also an optimist? And where do you see progress in this area? Yeah, I would definitely classify myself as an impatient optimist here in thinking that we have made a lot of progress and we have a lot more work to do and we can't wait to continue working and accelerating the progress that has been made. And so I think personally we have an obligation to be lifelong learners and not just in our bubbles, right? And so how are we seeking opinions outside of ourselves and listening and learning and continuing to ask ourselves why and trying to avoid our own confirmation bias and confront our own implicit bias as well. And then as institutions I think we have an obligation to create those convening spaces not just for the sake of conversation but for the sake of action. And so setting ambitious targets for the social good you want to see in the world and then identifying who in your community or in the world needs to be involved at that table to make that happen. Not just the ones that you always agree with but everybody who has a contribution to play and then figure out how can we productively align these contributions in service of reaching that ambitious target. And Stephen, this debate having been percolating for several years and really in a lot of ways it's a flashback or an echo to the speech code debates of the 90s and even before that, have we figured it out yet? Have campuses and the broader public debate found ways to fix this? Do you see a way to fix it? I think the rationale for free speech has to be articulated. It can't just be a shibboleth, it can't just be a label for something that some people think is good, some people think is bad but as part of our educational system we have to remind people of why the principle of free speech was hard won, why it does go, the reason that we need it is that humans are highly fallible, most of the things we think are right, history will show to be wrong and that a lot of human progress was advanced when people voiced heterodox opinions in the face of opposition and that what we enjoy today is the result of politically incorrect opinions of yesterday. In particular, it's crucial that free speech not be allowed to become a right-wing issue and I think that is the biggest danger. Once it is, then we're really in trouble because people's beliefs are so determined by their political allegiance, by their tribalism, that if free speech becomes associated with a right then campuses and a lot of media will just abandon defending it. So I think we have to remind people of how restrictions on free speech, the political incorrectness of the past was often used by the right to suppress the left and that advances such as civil rights, such as the anti-war movement, crucially depended in their time on what used to be considered politically incorrect and that was only voiced because there was enough of a commitment to free speech that they could be expressed and then carry the day, say in the opposition to the war in Vietnam, opposition to Jim Crow laws and so on. Conversely, it is in societies that enforce their version of political correctness that you get dissented to totalitarianism, such as in Soviet Russia and Maoist China and Nazi Germany. They all began by criminalizing speech. That just has to be part of the knowledge of any educated person, has to be part of the conventional wisdom, not just that free speech is a good thing but why it's a good thing. And to your point about things getting better all the time, my parents attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the 70s when there were literally bombings and people dying in campus protests. So this idea that just because some kids are marching around and are mad at the cafeteria food that this is a crisis, maybe it's not so bad. I'd love to throw it out to the audience. We'll start right here in front of you. If you can tell us, there's a microphone coming up. If you can tell us who you are and where you're from and then your question for the panel. Thank you very much. Paul Sheard from, I'm an economist, S&P, a global. Two things that always kind of sort of strike me as not being very productive and maybe, you know, pernicious was a word that was used is using labels, putting labels on people, putting people in boxes. People say something and automatically they're labeled something. That doesn't seem to be helpful. The other is this rush to judgment, 24 seven, you know, cable TV, social media, et cetera. That before we've had a chance to even understand what the context is, what the facts are, et cetera. People are out there making conclusions, putting people in boxes. How do we push back or, I mean, do you agree that those two things are actually quite pernicious and sort of how do we push back against those factors? Now the problem is putting people in boxes probably a pretty strong human heuristic and saying that I don't know, I need to think about this more. It doesn't exactly sell newspapers and attract eyeballs. But how do we push back on those? Selling newspapers, by the way, very important. But you know, a phrase, a buzzword we haven't used so far is identity politics, right? And this is also something that gets thrown around a lot. It's important for people to assert their identities, right? I mean, we have to allow people to do that without this rush to judgment. Would anybody like to take that one?  We almost have, I think we have an obligation to actually humanize the conversation so that we're not part of the people who are actually progressing that and not jump to snap judges, but also sometimes to be a little bit complex. So for example, I'm a Korean American from New York. We're all good at math and there's all kinds of stereotypes that you can put against Korean Americans. I don't know what they are, but whatever they are. And so the more I actually can talk about things that are almost totally contrary to what people would stereotype and use my social media platform and use our kind of influence to actually start to change those narratives and tell more holistic, complex stories of people, I think the more difficult it becomes to actually box people in. So I think part of it from, you know, from the perspective of people at this forum is because we do have big audiences is to try to broaden the conversation as much as possible. And one of the things that I've started to do and I see a lot of my friends doing it as well is actually to humanize conversations on social media, especially on the web, to say things like I don't know or that, hey, that's a really good question. What do you think about that? And not having to be the smartest person in the room and requires a lot of confidence to do that because I think there is this knee jerk reaction to wanna be right and to have that kind of an answer. And so I think as leaders, that's part of leadership, to also be, I think it's actually more honest to be honest. We don't know the answers, we don't know all the answers and it's impossible even for this question and this debate to pretend that I have an answer or that any of us have the answer, it's a conversation. And so I think having the conversation is more important. And so I think we can facilitate that. It's hard though, it's hard, right? Well, and Stephen as a psychologist, I have to get your thoughts on the sort of human nature end of this equation, whether we are so hardwired to, can we see from outside the perspective of our identities or are we just inevitably, we're judgmental beings, right? We are judgmental beings, but I would disagree with the word inevitable and hardwired. Simply, I think that what it means is that it's always gonna be a struggle that we can never take free speech for granted because it does go against human nature. On the other hand, human nature also includes the ability to abstract away from things, to understand principles like free speech, to be reminded and persuaded about why they're good things. What it often will involve is even within each of ourselves to suppress certain instincts that bubble up as a first reaction, as the SNAP judgment and think, well gee, maybe I should think twice about my own conviction before I leap to an accusation. Maybe free speech or maybe just the ability to stand back and consider the other person's view. Gee, maybe I should apply to me too, not just to the other guy. So I think it will always be a struggle but I don't think it is that it's hopeless that the dark side of human nature will always win. Yeah, let's go over here. Second from the back, yes. I'm Dan from Puchli area. I'm a professor at Insiet Business School. So a lot of the things I hear at the panel talk about were political correctness between groups, right? So the academics versus the far right or the Americans versus the nationalities. What I'm concerned about is political correctness within groups and particularly at the moment with the Me Too movement within women. So in France we had a lot of women put forward a big newspaper article in Le Monde putting a different viewpoint across and they were totally slapped down by women saying we should all have the same opinion, we should all bring together. So I'm interested what you think we can do within groups to stop this issue of political correctness. Great question. Who would like to tackle that? Yeah? I think I'd say a profound question because one of the painful aspects of identity politics is paradoxically it can be a kind of racism and sexism by assuming that if you're a woman you must have a particular belief which kind of runs against the principle that the whole point of gender equity is that women or individuals have opinions, have arguments behind their opinions. Similarly to African Americans there is certainly a widespread tendency to assume that if you're African American you have a particular opinion. This is kind of factually incorrect obviously. And it is partly behind the I think unarticulated argument for the ideal of diversity where the justification for affirmative action policies has been recognized by the courts and that's been advanced by universities is we need a lot of diversity.  It kind of assumes that every person of a skin color has a particular opinion and that's the way you diversify opinion which is kind of perverse. Diversity on campus has often been ridiculed as people who look different but think alike. And certainly the principle that just because you're a Korean American or a woman or an African American or come from a Southern small town your opinions are predictable is one of the most undesirable features of identity politics. But it also really raises the issue of how within the group you handle your own debates and your own diversity. I mean I think there was a lot of struggle in the 1960s to not say there was an African American community but that there were many points of view. And that is something that within African American educational and political leadership we continue to wrestle with. That we consciously say that it's not a single monolithic group. And so I think some of that is incumbent upon the community itself to basically stand up and say, you know what, we're not all the same. Well but how did you end up handling the Clarence Thomas controversy or there was also one about Ben Carson, correct? How did you deal with figures like that in the museum? Well I mean I think that the notion of recognizing that nobody gets into a museum just because they're black, right? That in essence a museum explores intellectual questions and that we weren't looking at a history of the Supreme Court for example. If we were doing that we might look at then Clarence Thomas. But the reality was that there are certain decisions you make based on the scholarship and there was a decision not to go in that direction. You could make an argument that that was a mistake. But the reality was for me it was making sure I made clear that it's not a decision based on politics but based on scholarship. All right, I think we've got time for one, maybe two more, let's go to the front row right here. So building off of that Lonnie and then building off of the question about the Me Too movement. If you think about the egregious sexual violence that sparked the Me Too movement and you think about the nooses, right? That we found at the Smithsonian. My name's Molly, I work with Lonnie at the Smithsonian. One of my worries is that it's so hopefully for most of us it's so easy to be so against the noose and it's so easy to be so against the sexual violence that I worry as a woman that the Me Too movement is a shiny thing that allows us to get behind women in a way that doesn't actually get to the root cause of most of the social injustice with women, which is much more subtle, much more behind the scenes and frankly much more egregious and that affects much more of us than the ones that have been victimized so violently. And so I wonder how Lonnie for example, when you think about the noose, how do you use the noose or is there a way to use the noose or to use sexual violence in order to open up the conversation that's more difficult about kind of these really horrible ways that we are slighted in less obvious ways that maybe are no less damaging. I mean I think that the issue for me is as a historian how do you use these things to illuminate broader questions and that's what I think we tried to do with the noose. I think the reality is that I look at every one of these moments as the opportunity for me to educate, for me to explore and try to sort of illuminate all the dark corners, that's the best I can do. Yeah and I think the other thing that comes to mind for me is we often tend to focus on the individual events like the noose or the particular violent perpetrator and not ask about the patterns underneath that and really go below the surface and think about what are the structures in the system that are leading to these patterns that we can actually address and what are the mental models underneath that that we need to really change minds as a country and as a world and so having those conversations and helping push people below the surface is really critical. All right one more really quick question if somebody's got one. Let's stay in the front in the orange dress. I think you deserve a question for wearing that eye-catching dress. Thank you Christine Andreessen, family company Norway. I have maybe a provoking question and that is concerning political greatness here in Davos. Last year we had several complaints and I had a discussion with Norwegian investors after a conference the other day where it was African leaders about the immigration to Europe and European leaders and no one were touching like the elephant in the room the reason why, why are there no investments in Africa and I discussed this with Norwegians and it's cause corruption, lack of legal system to protect it but this team was not touched at all and as another example we have a prime minister who's been here for 20 years who's been on stage for 20 years and nothing is happening. The situation in Palestine is going the other way and still no one is kind of going in and saying well that's enough and why don't you do anything more? That is my question to you. What should we do in Davos to get back on track? Well, I'm gonna put this to Soyoung and Parve because you're the newcomers who have been brought in to bring new perspectives to Davos and to diversify what has often not been a particularly diverse gathering so what's your critique? Well, it's interesting because last year we had a situation within the young global leader community. This is not like you're recorded or whatever, right? Is this recorded? It is. It's recorded, okay. Too late now. Yeah, too late now. But there was a situation where actually there were a few very dissenting, strong dissenting voices and the community literally bashed and just totally bashed these few individuals for sharing opposing political views from the larger group and that actually raised a really interesting question because in a lot of the side dialogues people were kind of ranting and raving and then I kind of was like, well, isn't the purpose of this community that we should at least have enough safety and trust that we should be able to have these differing points of view? And so a code of conduct was actually created last year within our community to actually respectfully to allow for these kind of different points of view. So I think there is definitely hope. To the credit of the WEF and the YGL community, they did act and then they put a community of conduct. So then the last annual meeting we had to come and we all had to read the code of conduct and agree to disagree and to allow for constructive dialogue. So I do think that there is at least a model that the YGLs have started. I think the broader WEF community could also adopt because I have also experienced that. We tend to think alike and if you have a different point of view, anything sensitive, you're not allowed, it's taboo to speak about in this environment because of business reasons, after economic reasons and for many other reasons.  It's not necessarily gonna get you an investment if you disagree with their points of view. And so I think we need to almost move beyond that because if this is meant to be an intellectual forum, it's hard though because you have individual people who may not be quite as enlightened and able to have those kind of conversations and may take it very emotionally, but if we can actually say it's okay. And that's kind of why I'm thinking, how do we create these codes or these words, almost as that starts off with, I'm about to respectfully disagree with you, right? And so you almost create that space so the person is almost kind of stopped because sometimes we don't realize it. We're not trying to be judgmental. We're not trying to attack another point of view. And so even in this community, how do we actually create that? I think it's really critical, especially with everything that's happening globally. I have hope because at least in our little community of, you know, I don't know a thousand people in the YGLs, we started to do that but it happened because a few people were so attacked that they just literally stopped talking. And that is the worst thing that can happen in a community like this. You know, you need to kind of pull them out. And I was last where? I'm from the global shapers community, really thinking about how we ask questions in these forums and I think this may be the only exception of a workshop that I've seen where there wasn't a question from a shaper. And so we have really been pushing to ask questions wherever possible and have a seat at the table and ask those questions. And the other thing I would point to is that we need to talk about session series that's happening at the loft. And those are really smaller discussion group forums where people are talking about issues that aren't as talked about in this forum. And so for WEF to continue to create that more in the mainstream and not just at the loft, right? And so going forward, how do we create that kind of environment in broader Davos and ensure that regardless of whether you're a political leader or a civic leader that you are able to have your perspectives questioned by on the stage like this? Well, we could certainly go on for another hour on this topic, but we're out of time. Thank you so much everyone for coming. Thanks for a great discussion. Thank you.


I got short. Nice. He got you. I'm going to go again.  It's chess. Perfect. What is it now?  Yeah, we got him. I need to design, but the thing is I have the... I'm going to go. Fiend mage. Yeah. I think this. He's asking. Nice. I'm on mage. I'm going to go Rack, go Rack. Yes, yes, yes. Break is Spanish. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He resists my door. Resist my door. Okay, okay. Don't get one shot, okay? I'll keep, I'll keep. You can block if he needs to. He's destroying me. Yeah. I got paper. I'm looking. I'm going to chip shot him to you and throw me, okay? Just give me some hits and I'll go make sure. Chip shot me? Yeah, Bruno. Rogues, Cloak. Yeah. I know, it's fine, it's fine. I can do this? Yes. I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm fine. Go mage, man.  Yeah, yeah. I'm going, I'm going. I need to rework. We're getting one chick, please. Yeah, got it. Yeah. I'm obsessed. Get it, get it. I am too much for you. You need to survive, please. I'm nothing. But I can kill, I can kill, I can kill, I can kill. Yeah, nice, I'm fine.