The High Priest of Heterodoxy
tabletmag.com
tabletmag.com
> Haidt and Lukianoff quote Jeannie Suk Gersen, a Harvard law professor who says that discussing rape law in the classroom “has become so difficult that teachers are starting to give up on the subject.” She adds that if law professors stop mentioning sexual assault, that “would be a tremendous loss—above all to victims of sexual assault.”
Reminds me of this clip from Van Jones re: safe spaces on college campuses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zms3EqGbFOk
Haidt convincingly expands on this metaphor in terms of how we treat children in this Penn State lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5IGyHNvr7E
This summarizes his overall case neatly: We're increasingly handling our kids like fragile objects, stunting their maturity and reshaping western civilization in their image.
Every now and then the mental health epidemic comes up on HN and I see ten or twenty different theories about what's causing it. If nothing else, it's galvanized me against believing any one explanation just because someone says it. Has Haidt really cracked the case? It would be nice to see some evidence one way or another.
(By pushing the same old narrative you've heard from exactly one side)
> When you bring in a population that is less skilled & from nations w/ lower average IQs, you are “baking in” socioeconomic inequality & fueling resentment among those less successful groups. This resentment can be successfully exploited by the identity politics of the left.
The person who wrote this, like Haidt, calls himself a "centrist," which makes me find it hard to take anything these people say about "dialogue" and "bringing people together" at face value.
It's too pat of an answer and to wide of a subject to think that it explains these conditions.
But then...
> The fledgling academy now occupies a position within America’s tumultuous culture wars as advocates for free speech and the values of the “open society” and against political correctness and the millennial fervor of social justice activism.
"Political correctness" is so thoroughly abused as an alt-right general accusation as to be meaningless. All it does here is make me question the institution as just another alt-right organization hiding their beliefs behind the shield of "rationality" and "free speech."
> Of course, the researchers will be labeled white supremacists by those who fear that more knowledge might interfere with their ideologically pure claim that American racism is the root cause of every social problem.
Sure, it's annoying to be called a white supremacist by verified Twitter trolls, but we've got equally, if not more so, absurd accusations of anti-Semitism flying all over the fucking place right now, and the correct solution is to leave Twitter to the Twitter trolls.
"Racism", "bigotry", etc. are so thoroughly abused as left-wing general accusation as to be meaningless. All it does is make me question the institution as just another Marxist organization hiding their beliefs behind the shield of "compassion" and "fairness".
Btw, what makes someone alt-right? Just curious.
The actual alt-right (exemplified by Richard Spenser, Jared Taylor, etc) are those who stand in opposition to classical liberal principles, even if it's more measured and nuanced than historical ethno-nationalism ("race realism", etc).
(As an aside, I've always enjoyed Noam Chomsky's assertion that he's "one of the few real conservatives out there", in his staunch defense of Enlightenment principles, civil liberties, opposition to state violence, etc.)
That said, left and right have been drifting apart for the last 20-40 years, and having a harder and harder time finding common ground, as political party identity becomes more salient than American identity. On paper, we agree on certain shared values; yet when one tribe is asked what the other thinks, they're often convinced that the opposing tribe does not share those values whatsoever.
But it’s all subjective so do what you do
There's a certain fear that behind every Twitter account or public persona is a revolutionary waiting to exterminate somebody or eat the rich, but in reality they are so rare that it's worth waiting for them to express their crazy views directly. Nobody will listen to them when they do, and there is nothing to gain by identifying a Twitter account as belonging to the evil side a month or two earlier than otherwise.
On Twitter I see statements made that are offensively absurd and rhetorically dishonest. I suspect 80% of them are some sort of malactor fomenting division.
I honestly believe the world would be a better place if Twitter strictly enforces a HN style set of rules (argue in good faith) or just went away entirely.
If you wanted good faith, you didn't start off the conversation well.
Basically, I yearn for a rational approach to bringing together the ridiculously divided country, and at first glance Jonathan Haidt seemed to be the guy for it. But, experience has taught me that people that come to the table of this discussion and start using phrases like "political correctness" are just another conservative hiding behind a moderate, disaffected mask.
I'm impressed. I'll just note that, psychologically your comment has encouraged me to cool my heels a bit. I think this subject can make us all a bit salty.
> Basically, I yearn for a rational approach to bringing together the ridiculously divided country, and at first glance Jonathan Haidt seemed to be the guy for it. But, experience has taught me that people that come to the table of this discussion and start using phrases like "political correctness" are just another conservative hiding behind a moderate, disaffected mask.
Part of reconciliation requires recognizing when the other party has a legitimate complaint. Dr. Haidt and his compatriots are generally liberals who do believe that conservatives have a legitimate point with criticizing "political correctness". They believe conservatives have a point because they've often experienced it first hand.
Now, regarding your complaint of conservatives hiding behind a mask: is your complaint that they are conservative, or that they are hiding it?
Thank you, I try to do the same for myself in such discussions, and it's helpful to know when certain strategies work.
> Part of reconciliation requires recognizing when the other party has a legitimate complaint.
I do think about this a lot. I tend to go straight for the extreme example though, which may make it more tricky to develop effective strategies. Basically, when a bunch of self-identifying nazis/white supremacists turn up in your town, what is the "effective solution?" Basically, is reconciliation even appropriate? And if it is, how do you reconciliate when you don't believe they have a legitimate complaint, as in the case with nazis? How do you even have a dialogue without in some way legitimizing their belief system (a belief system one finds distasteful)? And further, how do you scale this to public discourse, which consists of bad actors strewn in with real people all mixed together on twitter/reddit/facebook in an indecipherable mess of shilling/fake news?
Which brings me to your question - I think, both. That they are hiding it because it annoys me when people co-opt legitimate complaints, i.e. when people accuse someone of anti-semitism for simple criticism of the government of Israel (which then devalues instances when we can criticize actual anti-semites). But, also, yes, because they are conservatives, and despite the fact that (or maybe because of the fact that) I grew up in the deep red south, I genuinely cannot separate modern alt-right ideology from the desire to bully and hurt people. I don't even know what non-alt-right conservatism is anymore - all I hear from my Texan and South Carolina friends is anger that minorities are getting represented, anger that transgender people can use whatever bathroom they want, anger at someone for being proud to work at planned parenthood...
I see angry liberals too, but maybe I just have an easier time ignoring them because they're just "the fringe crazies" to me? Perhaps because I can find a great deal of liberals to have conversations and disagree with, but I legitimately have not found someone who self-identifies as a conservative / altright / supportive of the current administration that didn't also think some people are worth less than other people, which to me removes all possibility of common ground / reconciliation.
Now that I think more about it, such people (friends in Texas for example), when shown the pain their actions or words can cause to a transgender person (as an example) start to completely move away from the entire altright ideology (and because there's no modern conservative that isn't altright, that means they become liberals). A transgender person passing without any of us knowing, suddenly revealing their transgender status (this is years ago), led to a total "crossing of the aisle" for several of my friends that had earlier in my life been big fans of "locker room talk" type behavior.
But that's not reconciliation, that's conversion. So, I need help figuring out reconciliation. Or, I need everyone to convert, and if that's the case lord help me if I'm wrong.
This is a rather amazing claim, I would be very interested in seeing some supporting evidence, since alt-right has far more in common with the left than with any proper and traditional conservatism. Unless, of course, you define "people I don't agree with" as alt-right with no regard for what they ideology might actually be.
If there are conservatives that don't engage with the world like this, I want to get a drink with them, on me, because I've lost hope.
I'm very curious what ties you see between the alt right and the left. I don't define the alt right as "people I disagree with." There's plenty on the left I disagree with - anybody engaged in violence, for starters.
People at The American Conservative [0] might be religious nuts but I don't think anyone could in good conscience accuse them of being anywhere near alt-right.
And alt-right engages in identity politics, believes in primacy of the group over individual, see "enemies" behind every tree, and want to use the State against groups they dislike. Very much like the left. And while you would not want to meet either on a dark street, both, in US at least, are, generally, clowns who would be the first ones to be sent to the camps in the Reich, or USSR, or any other shining example of what happens when either come to power.
Political rhetoric has always been inflamed. I see it from my liberal west coast politicians. I see it from friends and family. You yourself have said that all conservatives are alt-right.
> If there are conservatives that don't engage with the world like this, I want to get a drink with them, on me, because I've lost hope.
The truth, I suspect, is that they are probably all around you. Most people are not particularly introspective or philosophical when it comes to politics, but if you dig in you'll generally find there are good reasons for them believing the way they do (even if, in the end, you find those reasons unconvincing).
Dr. Haidt has done reasonable job (as a liberal) of trying to understand the conservative mind. I also recommend Arnold Kling, an economist who wrote The Three Languages of Politics, and Thomas Sowell, who wrote A Conflict of Visions.
I should also add that there is an increased intensity with some of the rhetoric, but I think that has more to do with people (on both sides) sensing that we may be undergoing a shift in the political landscape, and that more is at stake than usual. If so, it's not the first time it's happened in U.S. history (they happen approximately every ~40 years, from what I've read). Hopefully it will pass in a few years, but we'll see.
What do you do when your community faces large numbers of outsiders from a culture that holds antithetical values from your own? I don't rightly know. In general I'd say the best approach is to try and avoid that situation to begin with.
> I see angry liberals too, but maybe I just have an easier time ignoring them because they're just "the fringe crazies" to me?
Fair enough. As a long-time resident of the Left Coast I'd say that our situations are largely reversed.
> I legitimately have not found someone who self-identifies as a conservative / altright / supportive of the current administration that didn't also think some people are worth less than other people
I don't know what to tell you. I do consider myself a conservative in the Russell Kirk/Thomas Sowell sense: i.e. I believe there is such a thing as Human Nature and that it is subject to certain limitations. I don't think this entails that some people are worth less than others.
It is my perception that the left is doing better at shutting down opposing speech than the right, and has been since the 90s. If you're going to address the problem that it's happening at all, you have to address the side that's doing it more and better.
But picking one form of "silencing" (people whose invitations to speak on university campuses were withdrawn, blocked, or cancelled due to threats of violence), and measuring it by how much I read about it in the press, it appears that the right is blocked more than the left. And the press is not currently disposed present things in a way that makes the right look more sympathetic.
I hold public universities to a higher standard than private ones in this regard. It's more acceptable in my view for a private university to have a bias (either left or right), and to enforce it, than it is for a public university.
But, this is prejudice - there is no authority structure in "the left," it's a totally amorphous set of political / ethical ideals that's honestly terribly defined.
So there's two issues I take with this statement:
1. What is "the left?" Can we actually draw a border around it in a way that lets us make the statement, "the left controls the public universities?" I'll hazard that you'll find, within public university administrations, people pro- and anti-choice, people pro- and anti- gun control, supporters of total Israeli sovereignty alongside protesters of Israeli's government, fiscal conservatives alongside socialists... I'm not trying to dispute that public university staff "lean left," but I just don't agree that there's some secret cabal of "leftists" who all agree with eachother.
2. Left-leaning staff are not card-carrying members of an organization (I mean, outside the Democrat party or something) that directs their actions. The definition "the left" arises from a shared set of political beliefs, not the other way around, like a political party. I.e., the democrat party (kinda) represents a certain set of ethics, and you join it if your ethics are aligned. But "the left" is not something you join, it is a description of the majority amalgamation of your beliefs.
[Edit: By the way, let me just say how much I have appreciated the tone of this discussion with you, neaden, and BryantD. I have felt that thoughtful people who disagreed with me were reasoning with me. I have not felt slammed or yelled at. It's been what an HN discussion ought to be.]
The FIRE database cited -- https://www.thefire.org/research/disinvitation-database/ -- also doesn't make the distinction between public and private. They do leave out religious institutions. I'm sincerely not trying to play gotcha games here; I'm suggesting that your perceptions may have been shaped by a very convincing publicity campaign over the course of decades.
I spent some time with this dataset today (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eeTHZQOh9faZ2P3C_O3s...) just for the sake of resetting my perceptions and validating how I felt. It was a pretty useful exercise.
And, finally, the Princeton Review list of the most conservative student populations in the US: https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=mo... That's a survey, doesn't touch on faculty attitudes, and is no doubt flawed in other ways. But man, I went to college at a state school in a rural state. It's fascinating how quickly people assume that UC Berkeley is the typical public university.
In my argument, I assumed that wasn't possible, because the press leans left, and therefore would not be amenable to selling a "very convincing publicity campaign over the course of decades" if that campaign favored the right. I recognize that that's an argument, not data.
Looking at the FIRE data, there was a large predominance of "from the left" challenges (whether successful or not, whether at a public school or not) in 2016 and 2017. It moved back toward (not all the way to) even in 2018 and 2019. So maybe it was just a temporary thing? Or maybe the right learned how to play the game better?
I will say though that while most professors tend to be liberal we should remember that most people who go to college go to either Community College (which doesn't really have a lot of political speakers) or large state universities which tend to have institutional inertia to not get swept up in politics. Liberal public universities like UC Berkley are the exception, not the rule.
Where do students hold a position of real power, especially a position where they are inflicting violence on Nazis?
Where is this debate happening?
And once we look at riots in Berkeley, the guy who went a-shooting congressmen, or fine folks who had beaten up a gay POC journalist (a Quillette journalist, but still), well, not all of them are students, but they are doing just fine inflicting violence on whoever they designate as "Nazis", or "Fascists" or whatever the scare word is today.
In that case I bring out all the right wing terrorists of the past decade.
Christchurch shooter, Charleston church shooter, Charlottesville car attacker, Bundy ranch hostages, pro-Trump agitators in the Berkley protest you list, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Colorado planned parenthood shooting, Layfayette trainwreck shooting, Norwegian Brevik mass shooting, Comet Pizza and many Q-Anon related murders, it goes on and on.
It appears the right wing is increasingly violent and radical, which has many people worried.
Fascism starts with violence, anyone who recognizes the threat posed by right-wing terrorism understandably would want to stop it before it goes further. The world has seen where that ideology has taken us before, unfortunately it seems to be fading from collective memory.
I do find it interesting that any time antifa gangsters go on a rampage it's always because there are some "armed agitators", and basically they asked for it, and it's no big deal anyway, but one right-wing nutjob does something and it's always a part of some "vast right-wing conspiracy". These double standards are rather tiresome, especially if you manage to still remember that left-wing governments are way ahead of rightwingers in body count.
Edit: It's generally kids saying these things and I get it that they often just don't know better but it's really night and day how much better things are if there are some boundaries.
I can sympathize, because I've yet to find a word that causes me pain by any stretch of the word "pain." There's no phrase, sentence, or utterance that has bothered me. I've been called all manner of racial epithets, gender epithets, and even sexual orientation epithets. I just can't bring myself to give a shit - nobody trying to hurt me is worth my time and so I ignore them / move on / mock them / laugh in their face.
I genuinely cannot put myself in the shoes of people who, for example, would feel a form of pain/offense at hearing the "n" word, for example. From my perspective, that would be just a great indication that whoever is using that word is not worth a millisecond of my time.
HOWEVER, I'm a straight white male that makes 140,000$/year and have no diseases whatsoever. So when my black friends tell me that certain words cause them pain, I believe them, because everyone's different.
I feel fear on rollercoasters to the point where I simply will not ride them. Some friends love rollercoasters. Objectively, I should not feel fear on rollercoasters. They are safer than hopping on my motorcycle for my 10 minute, 2 mile commute home. But, I do. So, I can take that experience and say "situations exist where I feel different emotions than other people do, for said situation." While I can't imagine what it feels like to hear a word and feel pain / offense, I can believe people when they tell me that a certain word makes them feel those negative emotions.
I'm not sure how to convince other friends that it's worth the effort to apply this baseline level of mutual respect. I wish I knew why I'm willing to respect others' feelings around words so I could share this learning. I guess, to me, it's logical? If someone wants to be referred to as male despite "appearing" female, don't throw a fucking hissy fit, just do it, who gives a shit? If people are saying "it's not cool to call people retards anymore," just... don't... do it... what are you actually losing? The ability to be an asshole to people in a certain specific way?
I'd say "because whatever else those people are, they're human, and therefore deserve a certain amount of respect", but I'm not sure even that would convince some people.
If I was talking to someone on the right, I might even quote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [humans] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..." and then argue that "those people", being created by God, are worth a certain amount of respect just for that reason, without needing any other. I mean, if you're dealing with a right-wing atheist, it won't fly, but it might work as a general thing.
Disclaimer: I just thought of this argument. I have never tried it out in real life, so I don't know what reaction it would get.
Part of Dr. Haidt's point is that yes, people's psyche's have been made fragile by overprotection. I think he even tries to put some science behind that claim.
Being a jerk isn't a good thing, and showing people respect is. But sometimes showing respect means expecting other people to demonstrate some resilience. It's how that resilience grows. Exposure therapy works for many things.
Having resilience is especially important when other things are at stake, things like the truth. If we sacrifice our willingness to speak the truth for fear of causing others emotional pain, we sacrifice too much.
Consider your fear for rollercoasters. I do not think it is right to mock you for it, nor to force you to ride one. Nor do I think you should be trapped by your fear, and I will laud you if you overcome it. I especially don't think that we should (hypothetically) remove all rollercoasters just because some people are afraid of them.
You should always be willing to speak your truth but society is allowed to reject it. It'll be wrong a decent amount of the time but it corrects over time through things like the civil rights movement or the rise of feminism. Interestingly in my experience being unable to reject ideas as a society actually slows down that progress as you'll then just always be relitigating past issues.
Edit: I guess the question to me is "where do you draw the line" and the answer seems to be pretty obviously "you let people draw their own line" in like 98% of situations. Generally by paying attention or just asking people it's been a pretty easy rule to live by and people seem to appreciate it.
Pet peeve: there is no "your" truth or "my" truth. There is "the" truth. It has many facets, and can be difficult to grasp fully, but it either is true or it is not.
My point is that people need to have the legal and social freedom to be able to say controversial things that might be true. That, in order to explore and discover the truth, we must risk offense.
>I guess the question to me is "where do you draw the line" and the answer seems to be pretty obviously "you let people draw their own line" in like 98% of situations.
Unless I've misunderstood you, "letting people draw their own line" sounds a lot like freedom of speech. More precisely, our freedom to hear the ideas of other people and draw our own conclusions should not be abridged just because someone may be offended by that speech.
If you agree with that assessment, then you and I are fine.
I will agree that not every thought is appropriate to voice in every circumstance. There is a need for setting bounds on "polite" conversation. However, not every is (or should be) polite conversation.
The censure or suppression of speech which is deemed to offend the dignity of select classes of people, regardless of whether the speech is in fact true.
That is where political correctness differs from defamation, which is inherently deceitful.
When people criticize political correctness, their complaint is generally that they are prohibited or reprimanded for saying things that are true (or might be true) but may be offensive to particular classes of people.
The goal is generally not to actually offend people, but to preserve a society in which truth, even uncomfortable truth, can be discussed.
EDIT: If you look at Wikipedia[1] you'll find that my definition matches almost precisely in meaning to the definition listed there.
You are in fact redefining the term. Which isn't an issue, it has been redefined many times before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness (Which I see you've edited to be included in your response). My problem with your definition is that it obscures the fact that "political correctness" is almost always used as a pejorative, whereas your definition gives it a more neutral, clinical meaning. If we were discussing religious dogmatism, it would be the difference between "devout" and "puritanical." Your definition obscures the normative usage of the phrase, and can lead to people talking past each other.
The only bait-and-switch here would be if I sometimes pejoratively referred to policies as "politically incorrect" which did not in fact meet the definition I provided, or if I applied it in an inconsistent manner. Neither I nor Dr. Haidt do this.
EDIT: so there is the pejorative and non-pejorative sense that is worth addressing. As the wikipedia article says, it is used in a pejorative sense when used to refer to situations where the suppression of potentially offensive speech is deemed excessive or unwarranted.
I (and Dr. Haidt) do use it in that sense, with the clarification that by "excessive or unwarranted" we specifically mean "without regard to the truth or falsehood of the speech expressed". That is the best way to summarize how the term is actually used in modern parlance with a great deal of consistency, particularly by groups such as Heterodox Academy.
Anyone who has a negative visceral reaction to the use of the phrase "political correctness" needs to be sure that they can understand and address that meaning of the word. It's not just a general "boo" word, but one with specific content and describes a real phenomenon.
The Puritans were a more radical branch of the Church of England, famous for their early role in the American colonies. "Puritanical," according to Wiktionary, has two meanings: one referring to things related to the aforementioned group, and the other to "Precise in observance of legal or religious requirements; strict; overscrupulous; rigid (often used by way of reproach or contempt)."[0]
Of course, one could argue that this is an adequate synonym for the word "devout." However, saying the Pope is devout is very different from saying the Pope is puritanical (and, given the word's history, somewhat ironic). It is technically correct, similar to your definition.
> The only bait-and-switch here would be if I sometimes pejoratively referred to policies as "politically incorrect" which did not in fact meet the definition I provided
Why would you pejoratively refer to something as "politically incorrect," if you think political correctness is bad?
No worries, I actually live in the States and I have Puritan ancestors. I just don't think your analogy is correct.
Let me see if I can reconstruct your analogy in a way to show why I think it fails.
We can think of two definitions for "puritanical":
A) Devout (neutral connotation)
B) Excessively dogmatic (negative connotation)
In this case, (B) is the more correct definition because it captures the connotation. You claim my definition is closer to (A), whereas I think mine is closer to (B). Namely, by highlighting the fact that the suppression of speech is done "without regard to it's truth or falsehood" I think that's a pretty clear red flag.
Of course, this is more or less consistent with how it was originally used by the people who originally coined the term and had positive associations with it.
> Why would you pejoratively refer to something as "politically incorrect," if you think political correctness is bad?
Sorry, typo. I meant "pejoratively referred to policies as 'politically correct'".
There is of course a vast gulf between expressing uncomfortable truths and active ridicule. If you would like some examples, I'm sure Dr. Haidt's speeches are replete with them. Many other well-spoken liberals academics (such as Dr. Steven Pinker) have also addressed this.
> there are ideas which fall into politically incorrect which don't offend the dignity of any class but are held abhorrent or insane for another reason. Advocating for gay marriage in the 1950s would offend both the mainstream of both the US and the USSR for instance.
Simply being outside the Overton Window of whatever politics are at play in a given society is not sufficient to be politically incorrect. "Politically incorrect" wasn't even a term in the political lexicon in the way it is today, so anachronistically applying an incorrect definition is of course going to lead to aberrant results.
If you would like another source aside from myself, I present the first line from the Wikipedia entry on Political Correctness:
>The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.
In the 1950s? Politically correct was most certainly in use by then - for almost or over two decades at that point.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Histor...
Being totally outside the overton window may effectively the same thing - although it may receive the handwave "offensive all of proper society" or similiar. Especially back when obscenity laws were in force in naked defiance of the first ammendment.
The whole point? You think that Dr. Haidt is just pining for the days when he could refer to ethnic minorities with whatever racial slur he pleases?
> In the 1950s? Politically correct was most certainly in use by then - for almost or over two decades at that point.
The Fine Article points out that the term was obscure until probably the late 80s/early 90s, so hardly part of the "political lexicon". But I'll grant you that if you want.
However, at no point in it's history has political correctness meant "the range of acceptable political ideas". Again, I point you to the definition of the term at the top of the page.
In his latest book, Haidt clarifies that there are legitimate roles for activism, solidarity, and taboos; his argument is that the activist telos is at fundamental odds with the telos of universities as truth-finding institutions.
* because it's a low-effort comment that contains crass generalizations.
* because Haidt et. al. are not right-wing partisan hacks, but bona fide liberals.
It’s... bad.
I don’t know or care who Haidt is it what his rep is