In September of 2015, an article written by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff was published in The Atlantic titled “The Coddling of the American Mind.” 📰
At first glance, the title of this article could easily be mistaken for a right-wing polemic on “the snowflake generation” and “social justice warriors”. 🤬
But it’s far from it! In fact, the authors themselves are openly left-leaning in their political views! 💯
It was the insistence of their publisher asking for a more provocative title than the one they proposed that “Coddling” was born. (https://bit.ly/30URyJt) 😅
Initially, the article was written to discuss various instances happening on college campuses where students were protesting words, ideas, and subjects they deemed offensive. ✊
📌 Guest speakers who were coming to campus were being disrupted and shouted down.
📌 Ideas like “microaggressions”, “trigger warnings”, and “safe spaces” were being introduced and implemented by college administrators.
📌 Words were starting to be equated by some college students as “violence”.
📌 Colleges were catering to student’s demands with little critical discussion.
The point of Haidt and Lukianoff’s article was to illuminate the problems and to try and understand why they were occurring. 🙌
Haidt and Lukianoff could understand the measures being taken by colleges, measures such as Microaggression Training, were being done with good intentions. 👍
But coming from his work as a social psychologist, Haidt saw these measures as being 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐏𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲.
⚠️ The idea of “microaggressions” go against the very idea of not making the worst possible assumptions of other peoples’ intentions (a cognitive distortion known as “mind reading”).
⚠️ The idea of “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” go against the very methods used in Exposure Therapy to combat phobias and feelings of anxiety.
⚠️ The idea of continuously giving into angry student’s demands reinforces the likelihood they will use the same angry methods for demands in the future.
With the publication of the article, the reception was…controversial! 😅
Many readers, including college faculty and students, sent in responses confirming Haidt and Lukianoff’s concerns. 👍
Both faculty members and college students expressed fears of being unable to share their different viewpoints outside the status quo of their peers, less they not be reported to college administrators. 🔱
Haidt and Lukianoff learned that some colleges had implemented a “Bias Reporting System”, where students could anonymously report anyone (including faculty) for sharing views they perceived to be discriminatory. 🚨
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 🚨
That said, there were also criticisms to Haidt and Lukianoff’s article as well. 👈
The primary criticism was that the authors were using only a few isolated incidents to justify their national concerns. In other words, they were inciting a moral panic over a minor problem. 😅
Only a month after the article’s publication did another college incident happen. And then another. And then another. And then another. 🚨
One of the most infamous incidents happened 2 months later at Yale University. 😱
Erika Christakis, a lecturer at Yale Child Study Care Center had written an email expressing concern over whether Yale administrators should be giving guidance to students about appropriate and inappropriate Halloween costumes. 📧
She believed administrators should let the students make their own decisions and let them talk among each other if they had disagreements. 🗣️
After all, they are adults over 18 years old. 👍
“𝘛𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳”, she noted in her email. “𝘍𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺.” 😊
This email sparked outrage from some Yale students who interpreted Erika’s words as meaning she supported racist Halloween costumes. ❗
Soon after, around 150 student protesters surrounded the courtyard of Christakis’s home on campus, writing statements in chalk which included: “𝙒𝙚 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚”. 😠
Erika’s husband Nicholas went out to the courtyard to try and reason with them. Students demanded he apologize and renounce his wife’s email. 🤬
In a tense confrontation which lasted over 2 hours, Nicholas was accused of being “racist”, “offensive”, and “creating a space for violence”. 🤬
At a later point, one student even screamed in Nicholas’s face:
“𝙄𝙏 𝙄𝙎 𝙉𝙊𝙏 𝘼𝘽𝙊𝙐𝙏 𝘾𝙍𝙀𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝘼𝙉 𝙄𝙉𝙏𝙀𝙇𝙇𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙐𝘼𝙇 𝙎𝙋𝘼𝘾𝙀! 𝙄𝙏 𝙄𝙎 𝘼𝘽𝙊𝙐𝙏 𝘾𝙍𝙀𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝘼 𝙃𝙊𝙈𝙀 𝙃𝙀𝙍𝙀! 𝙔𝙊𝙐 𝙎𝙃𝙊𝙐𝙇𝘿 𝙉𝙊𝙏 𝙎𝙇𝙀𝙀𝙋 𝘼𝙏 𝙉𝙄𝙂𝙃𝙏! 𝙔𝙊𝙐’𝙍𝙀 𝘿𝙄𝙎𝙂𝙐𝙎𝙏𝙄𝙉𝙂!” 🤬
(Excerpt footage of the Yale incident: https://bit.ly/2zBgrPg)
Similar incidents echoed in the coming years. 📅
Another infamous incident happened at Evergreen State College. Every year the school took part in an Day of Absence tradition where minority students and faculty would voluntarily stay off campus to highlight their campus contributions. 🙌
But in 2017 the tradition was flipped. Administrators decided they would now ask white students and white faculty to voluntarily stay off campus to be educated on race issues. 😲
Biology professor Bret Weinstein (who openly identifies as a progressive and left-leaning libertarian) emailed the campus expressing concern over the change. 🙋♂️
Included in his email 📧:
“𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘩𝘶𝘨𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴…𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺. ⚖️
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴, 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧. 🙌
𝘖𝘯𝘦’𝘴 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 – 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 – 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘳.” 💯
As with Yale, this email sparked outrage. About a month after his email, students surrounded Weinstein’s classroom entrance and berated him. As with Christakis, students demanded Weinstein denounce his views and lose his job. 🤬
Campus police were called, but students barred them from reaching Weinstein so they had to call for backup. 🚓
The same student protesters eventually marched to the administration building, surrounded the College President’s office, and provided him the same beratement. 🤬
There was even a point where student protesters barricaded the main entrances to the administration building and refused to let President Bridges leave his office unless they escorted him. ❗
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦. ❗
(Excerpt footage of the Evergreen incident: https://bit.ly/2XZswqE)
For even more protest instances, I’ve provided Sources at the bottom of this post. ⬇️
So perhaps, you may have the same question I was also asking… 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧?! 😅
What initially started out as a small article in The Atlantic was now having its initial concerns realized. 🙌
By September 2018, Haidt and Lukianoff had far more incidents and insights to report on, which ultimately was to become their full-length book: “The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting up a Generation for Failure”. 📖
But before I get to the book, it’s important we back up for just a moment…✋
First off, what is the purpose of a university? What is the aim (or 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘴) of a university? 🤔
Most people I know would say it is to learn. To pursue truth. And yes, perhaps to also enjoy the frat parties! 😜
But this idea is even shown on the crests of universities like Harvard (“𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘴”/truth) and Yale (“𝘭𝘶𝘹 𝘦𝘵 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘴”/light and truth)! 😅
The point is: we go to a university to be enlightened, to be exposed to new ideas and viewpoints, to be among other students who may have different life experiences we can learn from. 🙌
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚 𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒔 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒔 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 🙌
Let me emphasize: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞. But when it becomes a substitute for truth and knowledge, it sets a dangerous precedent on the very purpose of what attending a university is all about. 🏫
In the book, Haidt and Lukianoff go into greater depth on what they see being taught on some college campuses.
The key word here I want to emphasize is “𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞”. The initial criticism directed at their article about overgeneralizing every college in fact turned out to be correct. 😅
So, for those who are concerned these incidents are reflective of every US college campus, you can be assured they are not! 😅
👉 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫, 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲. 👈
In the book, Haidt and Lukianoff talk about what’s being taught at them in what they call the Three Great Untruths.
🙌 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲: 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐫.
𝘗𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥: 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 ‘𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘭𝘦’; 𝘸𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴.
🙌 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠: 𝐀𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬.
𝘗𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥: 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘴.
🙌 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐬 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐦: 𝐋𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞.
𝘗𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥: 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴 (𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬-𝘢𝘯𝘥-𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦) 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨.
Now of course, the authors are NOT saying these Great Untruths are LITERALLY being taught, but that they are taught IMPLICITLY. 🙌
Another big problem they mention is what’s known as “concept creep”, where the definition of words have grossly expanded in meaning over time in academia. 📚
📍 The idea of what constitutes “racism” has expanded from individual acts to now include an all-encompassing society (e.g. systemic racism, racial essentialism).
📍 The idea of what constitutes “trauma” has expanded from severe reactions to events like war to now normal aspects of life (e.g. divorce, bereavement, mean text messages).
📍 The idea of what constitutes “safety” has expanded from physical safety to now include “emotional safety” (e.g protection from criticisms you disagree with).
In other words: if you see 2 people fighting over what is or isn’t “violence”, there’s a great possibility they may be using 2 separate definitions of the word! 😅
The dictionary definition of “violence” is NOT the same definition being used in some academic circles, where speech has also come to be equated with “violence”. 😲
As one UC Berkeley alum wrote in an Op-Ed ✍️:
“Asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue with those who legitimately do not think their lives matter is a 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭.” 🤬
😩 “BUT DONALD! NONE OF WHAT YOU’RE SAYING TELLS ME WHY THIS IS HAPPENING!” 😩
Great point! That’s what I’m going to talk about right now! 😊
According to Haidt and Lukianoff, they propose the following reasons why they believe these things are happening. ⬇️
📌 𝐀𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.
– Because of the political climate, liberal colleges have shifted even further to the Left, thus tribalism is quick to ostracize differing viewpoints out of fear and group loyalty.
– This in turn has created distrust and hostility among those further to the Right, who now see colleges as lacking political diversity (in some places the ratio of Liberal to Conservative professors is 17 to 1), which in turn encourages their racial provocations towards the Left (e.g. “social justice warriors”, “snowflake generation”).
📌 𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐆𝐞𝐧 𝐙 (𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟔).
📌 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐢𝐝/𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠.
– The paradox is children are safer today in the US more than any other time in history, yet at the same time they are also the most overprotected.
– Overprotection causes children to mature at much older ages. The emotional maturity of an 18 year old today is more equivalent to a 16 year old of the previous generation.
📌 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲.
– Parents driven by unrealistic fears of strangers and kidnappings (which are extremely rare in comparison to the 70’s and 80’s when it was a problem).
– Overuse of smartphones and social media.
– A rising competitiveness for parents to get their kids into top universities.
📌 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐬.
– Students are treated like customers, so there’s a financial incentive for colleges to continue giving into student’s demands.
– Market pressures to compete with other universities for future students.
– Bureaucratic means of resolving student’s problems may encourage students to become overly dependent on schools to solve their problems.
📌 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞.
– There’s an ongoing desire for social justice activism.
– Social justice movements can be used to remove barriers to equality of opportunity. But when social justice efforts aim to include fighting for equality of outcome, it’s aiming for an goal which cannot be reached without also violating equal opportunity.
– Correlation does not equal causation. When there is a correlation of an identity group membership with an outcome gap, it does not automatically mean it is evidence of discrimination. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.
If individuals cannot raise alternative possible causes without also being shouted down, collectively we will not arrive at the most accurate understanding of a problem.
🤔 “SO, IF THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS, WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS???” 🤔
📌 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐨𝐚𝐝, 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝.
– Assume your kids are more capable this month than they were last month.
– Let your kids take more small risks.
– Encourage your child to walk or ride bicycles to and from school at the earliest ages possible.
– Send your children to an overnight summer camp in the woods for a few weeks – without devices.
– Encourage your children to engage in A LOT of “productive disagreement”.
📌 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐲 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐬 𝐌𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐎𝐰𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬, 𝐔𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝.
– Teach children the basics of CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy).
– Teach children mindfulness.
📌 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐂𝐮𝐭𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐁𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠.
– Give people the benefit of the doubt.
– Practice the virtue of “intellectual humility”. Intellectual humility is the recognition that our reasoning is so flawed, so prone to bias, that we can rarely be certain that we are right.
– Look very carefully at how your school handles identity politics.
📌 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐬.
– Give more recess with less supervision.
– Discourage the use of the word “safe” or “safety” for anything other than physical safety.
– Have a “no devices” policy.
– Cultivate the intellectual virtues (e.g. curiosity, open-mindedness, intellectual humility)
– Teach debate and offer debate club.
– Assign reading and coursework that promote reasoned discussion.
📌 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞.
– Place clear limits on device time.
– Protect your child’s sleep.
📌 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐚 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐦: 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐁𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞.
– Take a “gap year”.
– Encourage volunteer work.
📌 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐈𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐲.
– Endorse the Chicago Statement (https://bit.ly/3e7Ohu0).
– Establish a practice of not responding to public outrage.
– Do not allow the “heckler’s veto”.
📌 𝐏𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐌𝐢𝐱 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧.
– Admit more students who are older and can show evidence of their ability to live independently.
– Admit more students who have attended schools that teach the “intellectual virtues”.
– Include viewpoint diversity in diversity polices.
📌 𝐎𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.
– Explicitly reject the Untruth of Fragility: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.
– Explicitly reject the Untruth of Emotional Reason: Always trust your feelings.
– Explicitly reject the Untruth of Us Versus Them: Life is a battle between good people and evil people.
📌 𝐃𝐫𝐚𝐰 𝐚 𝐋𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 – “𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰 𝐚 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐦𝐞, 𝐈 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.”
– Foster school spirit.
– Protect physical safety.
– Host civil, cross-partisan events for students.
While reading all this can be overwhelming and sound like an uphill battle, Haidt and Lukianoff do conclude the book with hope. There are countertrends currently happening! 😃
👍 Recent studies are showing the ineffectiveness of trigger warnings. They also show that trigger warnings may even worsen a person’s feelings of anxiety (https://bit.ly/2YxhzMk).
👍 There are increasing discussions over the negative effects technology is having on kids, especially social media. Organizations like the Center for Humane Technology are aiming to reform the tech industry so products are healthier and less addictive.
👍 More states are passing laws to allow “free-range parenting” so a parent cannot be arrested for allowing their child to play without supervision.
👍 More writers like Timur Kuran, Amy Chua, and Jonathan Rauch are calling for a rethinking on identity politics and how both the far-Left and far-Right are feeding off them.
Even the Dalai Lama tweeted his own statement:
“𝐈’𝐦 𝐓𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐧, 𝐈’𝐦 𝐁𝐮𝐝𝐝𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈’𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐢 𝐋𝐚𝐦𝐚, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐈 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐦𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞.”
👍 More universities are starting to emphasize truth as their 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘴 and adopting the Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression (https://bit.ly/3e7Ohu0)
👍 Author Jonathan Haidt himself has created Heterodox Academy, which includes thousands of professors, administrators, and students who are dedicated to promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in higher education.
Since the book’s publication, Haidt has continued to speak at various universities about these issues, and “Coddling” has won numerous awards for its ideas. Lukianoff is the President at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), addressing student rights violations on college campuses (freedom of speech, due process, religious liberty, etc). 🏆
Of course, my summary doesn’t do the book justice. If any of this peaks your interest, I’d recommend picking up a copy of the book. It’s only 5 dollars on Amazon Kindle! 😲
𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐃𝐎 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐊? 𝐈’𝐃 𝐋𝐎𝐕𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐑 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐇𝐓𝐒! ❤️
📄 The Coddling of the American Mind (Article): https://bit.ly/3huxlQr
📄 Readers Respond to Coddling (Article): https://bit.ly/3fpfsRl
📖 The Coddling of the American Mind (Book): https://amzn.to/2zvV0yT
📖 The Rise of Victimhood Culture (Book): https://amzn.to/37BH7M5
📄 What is Concept Creep? (Article): https://bit.ly/2YQRqZ5
📄 The Free Speech Crisis on Campus is Worse Than People Think (Article): https://bit.ly/37xX7ii
📄 Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee (Article): https://bit.ly/2Y46S4O
🖥️ Disinvitation Attempts of College Speakers (Database): https://bit.ly/2UGYJAY
📄 Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression (PDF): https://bit.ly/3e7Ohu0
📼 Jonathan Haidt Speech About “Coddling” at UCCS (Video, 2019): https://bit.ly/2AAhm2Q
📼 Yale University – Halloween Email Protest (Video, 2015): https://bit.ly/2zBgrPg
📼 McMaster University – Jordan Peterson Protest (Video, 2017): https://bit.ly/2UFfNHG
📼 Villanova University – Charles Murray Protest (Video, 2017): https://bit.ly/2N20epq
📼 Evergreen State College – Day of Absence Protests (Video, 2017): https://bit.ly/2XZswqE
📼 UC Berkeley – Milo Yiannopoulos Riot (Video, 2017): https://bit.ly/3hsQHWl
📼 UC Berkeley – Ben Shapiro Protest (Video, 2017): https://bit.ly/2B6M0Rk
📼 Oberlin College – Gibson’s Bakery Protest (Video, 2019): https://bit.ly/2UIYnd4
📄 Coddling Book Update 1 – Introduction (Article, 2020): https://bit.ly/37wLKqI
📄 Coddling Book Update 2 – Trigger Warnings, Social Media Use (Article, 2020): https://bit.ly/3d2BUyj
📄 Association for Psychological Science – Trigger Warnings Fail to Help and May Even Harm (Article 2020): https://bit.ly/2YxhzMk
🗣️ “𝐁𝐋𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐒 𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑!” 🗣️
🗣️ “𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐒 𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑!” 🗣️
🤬 “𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐃𝐎𝐍’𝐓 𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐍𝐃!” 🤬
🤬 “𝐍𝐎, 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐃𝐎𝐍’𝐓 𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐍𝐃!” 🤬
Are you tired of the back-and-forth arguing? 🙋♂
Are you tired that others cannot seem to understand your point of view? 🙋
I hope with this post, by illustrating the current trends, it will help us better understand why people think the way they do. ⬇️
Let me add: This post is NOT for sharing my political views. The only bias I wish to promote in this post is Empathy. 🙌
(Please note what I’m about to present are HUGE generalizations in terms of political leanings, so please consider this but a limited framework. Nevertheless, I hope it can provide some clarity. 😊)
📌 If one is left-leaning, one tends to see the crime of George Floyd as driven more by systemic racism. If one is right-leaning, one tends to see the crime of George Floyd as driven more by police brutality.
📌 If one is left-leaning, one tends to support Black Lives Matter. If one is right-leaning, one tends to support Blue/All Lives Matter.
📌 If one is left-leaning, one tends to see racism as systemic and institutionalized. If one is right-leaning, one tends to see racism as occurring but as being overly exaggerated/a moral panic.
📌 If one is left-leaning, one tends to recommend African American thinkers like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi. If one is right-leaning, one tends to recommend African American thinkers like Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele.
📌 If one is left-leaning, one tends to focus on the instances of police mistreatment being done towards protesters. If one is right-leaning, one tends to focus on the instances of people rioting and looting local businesses.
📌 If one is left-leaning, one tends to sympathize and offer care to the less fortunate and those they see as oppressed. If one is right-leaning, one tends to advocate for personal responsibility, self-reliance, and rejecting victimhood mentality.
📌 If one is left-leaning, some favorite scapegoats may include: “the 1%”, “patriarchy”, “privilege”, “power structures”, and “white supremacy”. If one is right-leaning, some favorite scapegoats may include: “the elite globalists”, “government regulation”, “immigration”, “social justice warriors”, and “cultural Marxism”.
Again, this is a VERY general framework. But depending on where you are on the political spectrum is going to be a BIG factor in how you perceive the current circumstances. 👀
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬: 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞. 𝐖𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞, 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬, 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬. 👤
It’s the reason why some people are emphasizing “Black Lives Matter” while some people are emphasizing “All Lives Matter”. 💡
Let’s give an example…
2 people go to the theater to watch a movie. They both sit side-by-side and watch the movie in full. 🎬
When the movie is over, both people walk out of the theater ready to share their opinions…🗣️
Person 1: “That movie was AWESOME!” 🤩
Person 2 is shocked: “What?! That movie was DUMB!” ❌
Person 1 is annoyed: “What, HOW could you say that?!” 🤬
Person 2 is flabbergasted: “How could YOU praise such a trashy movie!?” 🤬
Remember: BOTH people saw the exact same movie! Side-by-side! 😕
So how did they come up with 2 polar opposite opinions of the same film? 🤔
𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞.
We all carry past experiences, beliefs, and values, and they in turn influence how we see the things around us, including movies. 👀
Think of it like this: each person is wearing a different pair of glasses, and these glasses are magnifying or shrinking certain parts of what a person focuses on. 👓
Person 1 said the movie was “AWESOME” because they loved the action sequences they focused on. 🤩
Person 2 said the movie was “DUMB” because they focused on how the film was all action and little story. ❌
The exact same movie. Two different interpretations. 🙌
THIS is why:
😱 Some of my friends cannot fathom how another person can emphasize “Black Lives Matter” over “All Lives Matter”.
😱 Some of my friends cannot fathom how another person can emphasize “All Lives Matter” over “Black Lives Matter”.
Is it just because they’re a “social justice warrior”? 🤬
Is it just because of their “white privilege”? 🤬
Instead of making assumptions, I encourage us all to instead ask: “Why?” 🤔
I encourage us all to start asking more questions and making less assumptions, 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐝.
That’s how we use the Power of Empathy. 🙌
In his book “The Righteous Mind”, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt emphasizes 1 key point he’s learned in all his decades of research into Morality ⬇️:
💬 “𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬. 𝐈𝐭 𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞. 𝐈𝐭 𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲.” 💬
In helping us better understand each other, Haidt shares his Moral Foundations Theory.
The idea is that we each carry 6 moral taste buds:
1. 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙚/𝙃𝙖𝙧𝙢 – 𝙒𝙚 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙪𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙢 𝙖𝙨 𝙢𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙖𝙨 𝙬𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙣.❤️
2. 𝙁𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨/𝘾𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 – 𝙒𝙚 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙪𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙪𝙡𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙩. 💰
3. 𝙇𝙤𝙮𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙮/𝘽𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙮𝙖𝙡 – 𝙒𝙚 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙪𝙚 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙬𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙥 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙥 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙞𝙩. 👥
4. 𝘼𝙪𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮/𝙎𝙪𝙗𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 – 𝙒𝙚 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙪𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙧, 𝙨𝙤 𝙬𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙖𝙪𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙠𝙚𝙚𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚. 🚓
5. 𝙎𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙮/𝘿𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 – 𝙒𝙚 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙪𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙘𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙝, 𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙨𝙮𝙢𝙗𝙤𝙡, 𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝙬𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙧𝙙. 🙌
6. 𝙇𝙞𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙮/𝙊𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 – 𝙒𝙚 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙪𝙚 𝙖 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙪𝙩𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙛𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙙𝙤𝙢. ✊
Haidt says we each carry these 6 moral taste buds, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲.
He’s not here to argue which combinations of taste buds are better or worse, only to say that they exist, and that they also heavily influence our political leanings. ☯️
For example, those who tend to be left-leaning often have Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating as their highest moral taste buds. These 2 moral taste buds tend to be disproportionately higher than all the others. 🔝
But when it comes to those who are right-leaning, the moral taste buds tend to be more evenly distributed. ⚖️
So, the next time you’re in a disagreement with someone, I challenge you to keep an ear out for these moral taste buds in the words of others. 👂
Use these moral taste buds not just to better understand how others think but also to better understand your own moral worldview. 🤔
Take COVID-19 as another example of the moral taste buds at play. 💡
Remember how some people were more focused on the economy while other people were more focused on the loss of individual lives? 👍
It’s not that economists didn’t care about human life. It’s also not that healthcare professionals didn’t care about the effects on the economy. The difference was in which moral taste buds they placed as being more important. 😲
In other words…
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐞’𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐝𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐖𝐞’𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬.
Having friends on both sides of the political spectrum, I can tell you: BOTH SIDES agree the crime of George Floyd was awful and condemn it. ❌
The difference is in how each side interprets the severity of the situation and how we should be responding to it. 🗺️
That’s why we need to come together and understand each other’s points of view on this. Otherwise, we’re going to keep making the same mistake of assuming everyone thinks exactly the same way we do. 😩
They don’t. 🙌
𝐈’𝐦 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐎𝐓𝐇 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐦 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞. 💯
Focusing on problems doesn’t solve problems; focusing on solutions creates solutions. And I hope with this post I can be a part of that solution. 🙌
🚨 Imposing our self-righteousness onto others, whether it’s using guilt, shame, or emotional intimidation, is NOT a helpful long-term solution.
🚨 Refusing to set aside our ideological echo chambers for the sake of comfort sets a DANGEROUS precedent for how we as a country collectively handle our problems in the future.
In times where polarization is high, cynicism is high, distrust is high, and tribalism is high, it’s crucial that all of us continue emphasizing the importance of civility with each other. 💬
Because it is SO EASY for us not to do so now is the very reason I emphasize it. I know I’m going against the Outrage Train by even saying this. 💯
Why? Because 𝐈’𝐦 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫. 😊
Because that’s the beauty of the United States being a pluralistic society:
📌 A society where we can have one party who thinks the movie was “AWESOME!” and another party who thinks the movie was “DUMB!”
📌 A society where two opposing parties can have a civil discussion over the movie, find places where they agree, and seek compromise on the places they disagree.
Perhaps my thinking is overly optimistic and idealistic. But for me, hope has always been a good thing. ❤️
Consider this post a friendly reminder to continue focusing on empathy and solutions, even when it’s not easy. 👍
Because I know 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬. 😨
So…let’s get to work! 💨
🙌 IT’S TIME FOR CIVILITY! 🙌
Van Jones argued in his recent book “Beyond the Messy Truth” one of the biggest problems facing our modern politics is that political parties are no longer uniting under the ideals of Conservatism or Liberalism, to bring out the best of their parties. 👎
Instead, they are uniting under a shared hostility of being anti-The Other Party. 🤬
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt provided a similar argument in his book “The Coddling of the American Mind” in the context of college campuses. 📖
He cites instances where college students at Ivy League schools have forcibly interrupted and shouted down guest speakers they deemed “offensive”. 🤬
Once instance includes Evergreen State College, where a college professor expressed disagreement with students over their social cause.
Student protesters disrupted his class, surrounded him in a ring, screamed at him when he tried to speak, and demanded he resign from the university. 🤬
To put it simply: 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐂𝐲𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐮𝐬, 𝐛𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐚𝐮𝐥𝐭, 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭.
𝐀𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐢𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.
🙌 IT’S TIME FOR CIVILITY! 🙌
And I won’t pretend I’m immune from falling into these mindsets either. I also need to remind myself not to fall into these traps A LOT! So I don’t at all blame you if you fall into them either. 😅
But the message I wish to communicate to you today is you DON’T have to see someone else as your “villain”.
There is another option! 💯
Did you know Van Jones is close friends with Newt Gingrich? They are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Van Jones is a Progressive Democrat and Newt a Republican. 😲
Van Jones notes in his book they disagree more than they ever agree politically. But despite that, they’re very good friends! 👥
Newt once shared with him this piece of wisdom:
“𝒀𝒐𝒖𝒓 ‘90% 𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒎𝒚’ 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 ‘10% 𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒅’ – 𝒐𝒏 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒑𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆.”
I think Jonathan Haidt was also right, in the same tradition, when he said the greatest wisdom you can find is in the minds of your “opponents”.
The people you label in your mind as “pure evil”. 👿
🙌 IT’S TIME FOR CIVILITY! 🙌
A few days ago, I listened to a Joe Rogan podcast where he interviewed Daryl Davis. 🎙️
Daryl is an African American musician who is not only known for his amazing talent on the piano but also for converting over 200 people OUT of the white supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan. 😲
On the podcast he went in-depth about how this all happened, but the biggest detail which stuck out to me hearing his story was in how simple the solution was!
𝑯𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒄𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒍, 𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒍𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎. 𝑯𝒆 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝒆𝒙𝒂𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒏𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆 𝒂𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒅 𝒐𝒇.
He learned what the KKK believed about African Americans, and he (again, respectfully) challenged their ideas. He even invited many of them over to his house for dinner! 😲
They even in turn invited him to attend their Klan meetings! 😱
It wasn’t long after that one of the top Klan members Daryl had met handed his white Klan robe to him and said he was leaving.
Again, this was just 1 of over 200 Klansmen…!
🙌 IT’S TIME FOR CIVILITY! 🙌
But the solution Daryl provided is not so different from the story of Megan Phelps-Roper either!
Megan was a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, a group widely known for their extremist views towards homosexuals (“God hates f**s”) and Jews. 😔
From birth, Megan was raised in the Church as her grandfather was the founder. Because of her upbringing, she was raised to see a very limited view of the world around her.
She only knew what her family told her. She was taught that the people hating her and her family at their protests only meant they were righteous in their beliefs. 📖
It was only when she created a Twitter account to promote her Church did her worldview start to unravel.
She became exposed to other viewpoints. Anonymous people she had never met were now pointing out logical inconsistencies in her posts. One of those people in particular was a lawyer she debated and eventually became good friends with. 🤝
But the difference between him and other people who tweeted insults at her? 𝑯𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒇𝒖𝒍.
Eventually she started doubting what she used to believe so wholeheartedly. She went to her folks for clarity and could not get a satisfactory answer.
Eventually she left the church along with her sister, and her family shunned her, just like they did with anyone who left. ✋
Today, she now shares her personal story with others, to provide an inside (as well as humanistic) view when it comes to extremism.
Oh, and she’s also now married to her lawyer friend! 😅
🤔 WHAT DO BOTH THESE STORIES HAVE IN COMMON? 🤔
📌 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇-𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒆𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒌𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒐𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒔.
📌 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒇 𝒘𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒐𝒏𝒆, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒔𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒑 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒔𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝒃𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒇𝒖𝒍. 𝑵𝒐 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒃𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒕.
📌 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒐𝒏 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒘𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒚𝒆𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒆𝒇𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒐 𝒔𝒐.
These all may sound like common sense. But how many people do you see using this common sense on a daily basis? How about yourself?
Sounds like it may be back to basics, right?! 😅
🙌 IT’S TIME FOR CIVILITY! 🙌
To end this post I’ll leave you with wisdom from Megan Phelps-Roper herself on how we can all better communicate with others:
“📌 The first is don’t assume bad intent.
My friends on Twitter realized that even when my words were aggressive and offensive, I sincerely believed I was doing the right thing.
Assuming ill motives almost instantly cuts us off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. ❌
We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind, and we get stuck on that first wave of anger, and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.
But when we assume good or neutral intent, we give our minds a much stronger framework for dialogue. 🙌
📌 The second is ask questions.
When we engage people across ideological divides, asking questions helps us map the disconnect between our differing points of view.
That’s important because we can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is actually coming from and because it gives them an opportunity to point out flaws in our positions. 👉
But asking questions serves another purpose; it signals to someone that they’re being heard.
When my friends on Twitter stopped accusing and started asking questions, I almost automatically mirrored them. Their questions gave me room to speak, but they also gave me permission to ask them questions and to truly hear their responses. It fundamentally changed the dynamic of our conversation. ❓
📌 The third is stay calm.
This takes practice and patience, but it’s powerful. At Westboro, I learned not to care how my manner of speaking affected others. I thought my rightness justified my rudeness — harsh tones, raised voices, insults, interruptions — but that strategy is ultimately counterproductive.
Dialing up the volume and the snark is natural in stressful situations, but it tends to bring the conversation to an unsatisfactory, explosive end. 🤬
When my husband was still just an anonymous Twitter acquaintance, our discussions frequently became hard and pointed, but we always refused to escalate. Instead, he would change the subject.
He would tell a joke or recommend a book or gently excuse himself from the conversation. We knew the discussion wasn’t over, just paused for a time to bring us back to an even keel. 🧘
People often lament that digital communication makes us less civil, but this is one advantage that online conversations have over in-person ones. We have a buffer of time and space between us and the people whose ideas we find so frustrating.
We can use that buffer. Instead of lashing out, we can pause, breathe, change the subject or walk away, and then come back to it when we’re ready.
📌 And finally…make the argument.
This might seem obvious, but one side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is or should be obvious and self-evident, that we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good that if someone doesn’t get it, it’s their problem — that it’s not my job to educate them.
But if it were that simple, we would all see things the same way. As kind as my friends on Twitter were, if they hadn’t actually made their arguments, it would’ve been so much harder for me to see the world in a different way.
We are all a product of our upbringing, and our beliefs reflect our experiences. We can’t expect others to spontaneously change their own minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it. 💼
𝐌𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 — 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐨𝐫.
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.” ❤️
📘 “Beyond the Messy Truth” by Van Jones – https://amzn.to/2AH3raK
📕 “The Coddling of the American Mind” by Jonathan Haidt – https://amzn.to/2BzEQFw
📙 “Unfollow: A Journey from Hatred to Hope” by Megan Phelps -Roper – https://amzn.to/3cBdUSo
📜 Evergreen State College, Day of Absence Protest (Timeline) – https://bit.ly/3ePeOw5
👂Joe Rogan Podcast – Daryl Davis – https://bit.ly/2U9arnG
🗣️ TED Talk – Megan Phelps-Roper: https://bit.ly/2MwmFms