THE CODDLING OF THE AMERICAN MIND

[queenofknives]

We are going to read Jonathan Haidt's book The Coddling of the American Mind and the discussion will start here on 17 October 2020. Everyone welcome!

Further books suggested for discussion are:

Cynical Theories, by James Lindsay and Helen Joyce
The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes, by Jonathan Rose
On Liberty, by JS Mill
Why You Should Read the Classics, by Italo Calvino
The Madness of Crowds, by Douglas Murray

Further suggestions are also welcome. Looking forward to the chat!

They talked about CBT offering similar advice to religious and traditional wisdom. Perhaps they were sensible to frame it as CBT because people will be more receptive to that framing than a religious perspective.

I am not opposed to the recognition that those cognitive distortions exist. It’s just that some people leap from ‘cognitive distortions cause mental health problems’ to ‘all mental health problems are caused by cognitive distortions.’

I recently listened to the Triggernometry podcast with Colin Wright and it confirmed the idea that academia must be a terrifying place to work at the moment.

Yes, I listened to that too, and it was chilling. And of course the teacher in France being beheaded for teaching about free speech and political expression. The fact that people are saying 'free speech caused this to happen, so let's stop speaking'. I'm a teacher and this is precisely the kind of subject I address in my classes. People were calling him "provocative!"

Bovary I thought your comment was excellent. I am heartened a little bit by the numbers of people horrified by that thread but there are also not a few people who are genuinely arguing that we should lose our free speech so as not to upset terrorists. Everywhere is Evergreen now.

queenofknives where is the thread about the teacher? I must have missed it.

I have been quite disappointed this week about the reaction of a couple of Labour MPs to the police’s investigation into Darren Grimes and the interview with David Starkey.

One MP (can’t remember who) said that freedom of speech did not mean you could say things that people can find offensive. Well, nowadays ANYTHING can be found offensive - as we see time and time again. Starmer gave a really woolly interview answer about it.

I am so relieved that I am no longer a teacher. I don’t think I’d survive in the current climate.

The teacher thread is very illuminating as to where people are standing on these issues.

The OP is very much using the language of identity politics to justify her beliefs.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4052902-Did-anyone-hear-the-woman-defending-Charlie-Hebdo-on-R4-Today

Teacher thread.

It’s just that some people leap from ‘cognitive distortions cause mental health problems’ to ‘all mental health problems are caused by cognitive distortions.’

I don't disagree that people do this and it's a big leap. I think it's possible that there are certain mental health problems that are caused by or at least contributed to by cognitive distortions. If you think that everyone hates you because you're a woman, then your experience of daily life is going to be quite depressing and scary. But of course there are mental health conditions (and societal problems) that can't be cured by just training your thinking. But they are presenting some fundamental basic principles here that will probably help most people to some extent.

I think mental illness, and PTSD in particular, has suffered greatly from concept creep. PTSD used to be understood as a condition of war veterans and others who had suffered great physical or psychological trauma, such as rape. Now it seems people think they have PTSD because others don't take their nonbinary identity as seriously as they'd like. Or am I being unfair?

Thanks for the link Stripes.

PTSD was originally associated with combat veterans for funding purposes. The people who invented the concept always knew it applied to a range of other issues as well. The history of it is covered in The Body Keeps the Score.

It has been extended out by a variety of claims. Whether those non binary people actually have a diagnosis of ptsd or whether it is just their own claim is another matter!

But it is what makes trigger warnings so odd. Trigger warnings for a rape victim could be a particular song or a mention of a particular tv show or smell or really anything. So the notion that trigger warnings will protect people with PTSD is an odd one, as triggers are so specific.

There’s a conflation perhaps between people experiencing distress and people having PTSD. Likewise between people experiencing anxiety and people having an anxiety disorder.

It’s completely normal and unavoidable that sometimes we will all feel anxious or distressed.

I mean a conflation in society, not in the book, by the way! The book is quite clear.

I'd view CBT as a brilliant first aid kit tool for your mental health. Sometimes that is the only thing needed but sometimes you need to go to the hospital and see a doctor. The Doctor might even subscribe even more CBT because you find that works. But in other cases it doesn't work at all so new "medicine" is needed.
Or am I think it it all wrong?

Everywhere is Evergreen now

queen
Yes. This reminds me of Andrew Sullivan's comment: We are all on campus now Haidt discusses the malign effects of political homogeneity on campus and how it has contributed to an environment in which students feel 'unsafe' if their rigid orthodoxy is challenged. That is exemplified by his example of the Brown student who claimed to feel threatened by hearing conflicting views. Some might wonder why she doesn't grasp that is one of the aims of a university education? At the Charles Murray speech at Middlebury? the hosting Professor was physically attacked and sustained whiplash injuries. Claiming that words are literal violence paves the way to justifying physical violence. Since words are being severed from their meanings and since subjective feelings are regarded as the ultimate litmus test of 'offense,' this leads to the absurd situation where trivial incidents are used to justify outrageous responses. Or as I think of it:

Outraged about nothing. Silent about outrages

Some groups are so dominated by political homogeneity that they undergo a Durkheimian 'phase change' antithetical to the normal aims of a university

It’s completely normal and unavoidable that sometimes we will all feel anxious or distressed.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say, in a cag-handed fashion! So many of the young people I work with find normal states of anxiety or distress to be absolutely unbearable - they have never been taught how to manage their emotions to seemingly any degree, but instead have been protected and told that anything which upsets them is wrong and bad and abnormal. If they are feeling a normal amount of nerves before a presentation, for example, they might tell me they're having a "panic attack". I guess it all fits in with this idea of young people being younger than their years, not having the experience of life and meeting the challenges that come with growing up. It's all a shock and quite horrible when they get a glimpse of how being an adult will be - they're not prepared for it.

Massive generalisation of course - I'm definitely not talking about a majority of young people I meet, but a substantial minority.

I think what is interesting about PTSD in the context of the book is Haidt makes the point that its definition used to refer to extreme traumatic experiences; torture, rape, shellshock. But its meaning has been diluted to refer to events which do not meet this objective criteria. This movement is fixated on language and it is constantly redefining words, subverting their meanings and severing them from the object, event or experience they describe. It is a war on language as well as everything else.

OneWonders, I would say being aware of cognitive distortions, as presented in this book, is one of a range of good mental health preservers - alongside insight, healthy eating exercise etc. CBT with a therapist is a good first therapy for some people and those people are usually funnelled into CBT at an initial screening interview.

And sorry to make this thread all about CBT!

Claiming that words are literal violence paves the way to justifying physical violence.

I'd say women have been on this for a while, as this has been one of the ongoing tactics of TRAs.

Also we now have "silence is violence" so words are violence and silence is violence and violence has to be met with violence because that's the only language the violent understand. We can't pretend to be surprised when violence keeps breaking out in universities when this is students and staff are being indoctrinated in.

It is a war on language as well as everything else.

I think one thing they have been right about is to see how to use language to destroy itself and all institutions as well. It is a simple but fiendish tactic. You just say things mean the opposite of what they actually mean and then you can accuse anyone of anything and they have no way of proving that's not what they meant at all.

@queenofknives

Claiming that words are literal violence paves the way to justifying physical violence.

I'd say women have been on this for a while, as this has been one of the ongoing tactics of TRAs.

Also we now have "silence is violence" so words are violence and silence is violence and violence has to be met with violence because that's the only language the violent understand. We can't pretend to be surprised when violence keeps breaking out in universities when this is students and staff are being indoctrinated in.

Absolutely agree. Then there are the people who rapidly accelerate to demanding you 'shut up' because you won't chant the slogans. This is pretty much on daily display on the feminist board.

Yes, Bovary, I agree that the war on language is central to this.

PTSD should refer to cases where people experienced terror from which they had no realistic means of escape. The rise of PTSD should be saying positive about our society. In the past far more people experienced terror but never escaped it.

We have created a generally pleasant society where victims of terror get the opportunity to recover from trauma. Yet people are attempting to make out that our social structures are traumatic.

I want to join in but my writing skills are not great! I found the book to be very interesting but am very curious as to where it all came from? They discuss where the intellectual ideas come from more or less but the emotional fragility? Why are young people encouraged to think that they are frail, that the world of thought is dangerous and offensive, and they should fear of being wrong? We adults must play a part in all of this?

Plus, we now have ‘micro-aggressions’ which means interpreting what someone is asking/saying in the least charitable light possible. It must be emotionally exhausting to spend all your time looking out for micro-aggressions and dog whistles to be offended and upset by.

I can’t help thinking the person who really suffers is the eternally offended one. It must be a truly miserable life.

Plus, we now have ‘micro-aggressions’ which means interpreting what someone is asking/saying in the least charitable light possible

That is an important part of the book. He says that saying intent is irrelevant, the only thing which matters is the subjective impact is another deliberate subversion of meaning. Aggression implies intent. It is ludicrous to claim that the word aggression is in anyway appropriate if the speaker intended no harm. It is like watching someone with an ice pick chisel away at words until their meaning is obscured, defaced or removed.

Why are young people encouraged to think that they are frail, that the world of thought is dangerous and offensive, and they should fear of being wrong?

I don’t know if we’re on to discussing part 2 of the book yet, but there’s definitely a link between changes in parenting and resilience/fragility in young people.

We have definitely created a society of young people who don’t necessarily grow up able to sort out their own problems. Children spend less and less time in the company of just their peers are away from adult supervision. Consequently, the default option in the event of conflict is to defer to the adult to sort it out. Parents are very willing to step in to be the arbitrator in disputes which could be resolved by the children alone. It robs young people of the ability to develop their own conflict resolution skills.

This seems to be a bigger problems amongst middle class ‘involved’ parents who keep close eyes on their children and are anxious about getting them ‘college ready’. It seems they are keen to develop a perfect CV but less willing to think about the life skills their children need to develop into adults.

I saw this as a worsening problem over the 15 years I spent in teaching. I can’t see it getting better - particularly following Covid where children have been ‘locked down’ with their parents even more than usual.

Harriet, social media will be a huge element of it, because you are judged by huge numbers of people but not really seen as a person.

The book suggests more risks offline and less time online.

Have we all read the whole book now?

Why are young people encouraged to think that they are frail, that the world of thought is dangerous and offensive, and they should fear of being wrong?

That is an excellent question Harriet. I think it's the convergence of different trends including the replacement of the Greatest generation Professors with politically homogenous faculty who are willing to chuck Enlightenment values overboard. The effect of IGen and the incredible media power of tech and its dominance by a narrow political orthodoxy. The child centric focus of some parenting in which children are not allowed free play and don't develop robust social skills. The failure to teach children that diversity of viewpoints, heteredoxy and debate are values worth defending.