Both “the coddling of” and “the righteous” mind were pretty poor scholarship. The kind where the researcher starts with the conclusion and then looks for evidence that confirms the theory. Good science should either neutrally look at the evidence or, when starting with a theory, search for disconfirming evidence. Haidt does neither.

Furthermore, Haidt struggles to accurately represent his ideological adversaries. Another red flag. Disagreement is natural but public intellectuals should be able to effortlessly make a strong case for the positions they have themselves rejected.