Greg Lukianoff Recommends Martin Gurri’s “The Revolt of the Masses”

I just spotted this review of The Revolt of the Masses by Greg Lukianoff." Greg's review has convinced me to order my own copy of The Revolt of the Masses.

Excerpts:

“The Revolt of the Public” explains that the shifts in media technologies that we believe accelerated American political polarization and played havoc with young people’s mental health were actually part of a much larger global transformation that Gurri calls “The Fifth Wave.” Essentially, the empowerment of vast multitudes of people to communicate directly with the world and with each other has genuinely transformed society. Unfortunately, in its current state, this media revolution has only been able to tear things down; institutions, ideas, and yes, even people (a.k.a. cancel culture). This idea is what Gurri calls “negation.”

. . . . Gurri shows how this manifested in the 2011 Arab Spring and how it has had ripple effects in Spain, Israel, and the American Occupy Wall Street movement. Gurri also argues that these movements generally were rich with targets: people, institutions, and ideas that needed to be torn down, but those same movements were often very hesitant to offer constructive solutions or realistic reforms. This hopeless point of view amounted to a kind of nihilism, according to Gurri—usually not the kind of nihilism of the philosophers, but a de facto nihilism in which nothing constructive is proposed to replace what needs to be torn down.

You can see this in American society in everything from “End the Fed,” to “abolish the police,” to cancel culture on both the right and the left, and to the absolute negation of all assumptions represented by the QAnon conspiracy.

One thing that must be said about the “crisis of authority” we find ourselves in due to the overwhelming power of negation is that very often what critics have discovered is that our existing “knowledge” was truly based on some pretty thin evidence, bad assumptions, and sometimes not much more than the pieties of some elites. Understanding the crisis of authority as only being wrongfully destructive of expertise is to miss that, frankly, we are often asking far too much of expertise and experts, and oversight itself has not been all that rigorous. Negation is indeed tearing things down that needed to be torn down; unfortunately, it seems to be taking everything else with it.

Continue ReadingGreg Lukianoff Recommends Martin Gurri’s “The Revolt of the Masses”

Ibram Kendi’s Confession

I sometimes think back to 2021, when Ibram Kendi unwittingly self-destructed. The episode was described by Professor of Political Science and author Wilfred Reilly at FAIR:

On October 29, the newly minted MacArthur “genius” posted the results of a widely discussed survey project on Twitter, saying simply: “More than a third of white students lied (about their race) on their college applications.” Kendi went on to claim that about half of the students who chose dishonesty falsely identified themselves as Native American—presumably to benefit from affirmative action programs—and that “more than three-fourths” of all students who lied about their racial background were accepted to colleges they applied to. As any academic should, Kendi duly linked his source, which I also provide here.

The backlash to Kendi’s comments was immediate, and, frankly, rather predictable. As Oliver Traldi details for Quillette, and as Jerry Coyne does for the popular blog Why Evolution Is True, conservative and heterodox intellectuals pointed out that Kendi’s claim about white students seeking to benefit from affirmative action logically debunks the main thesis of his scholarly work. Founder and former editor of The Intercept Glenn Greenwald not only questioned the objective accuracy of Kendi’s data, but also noted that his argument “negates every core contention about American society on which his career is based.” Journalist Alex Griswold described Kendi as having “blown up his life’s work,” noting that Kendi would “have to delete” his tweet, which, in fact, he did.

Reilly is the author of an excellent book of topics we should be discussing regarding social justice: Taboo: 10 Facts You Can't Talk About (2020).

Continue ReadingIbram Kendi’s Confession

Taking Liberties with the National Anthem

I'm not a fan of singing the national anthem before a baseball game. Patriotism and the anthem have nothing to do with playing a sport. Absolutely nothing. The anthem wasn't even played at Major League Baseball games until 1918. There's nothing magic about the anthem. The lyrics are not compelling today and it's not even a beautiful melody. It is a great excuse for powerful people to push ordinary people around by challenging their patriotism if they resist. That's why, even since the anthem started being played in 1918, no one was able to uproot it and yank it out of baseball games to speed up the games (which desperately need speeding up). In fact, given that there were 2,430 Major League Baseball games played in 2022, assuming that it takes 2 minutes to sing the anthem and given that 65 million American fans attended attended MLB baseball games in 2022, this means that more than 5 Billion person/hours were spent listening to the National Anthem at MLB games in 2022 (5,265,000,000). The song is not a fan favorite. It doesn't stand on its own. I doubt that of those fans ever bought a recording of the national anthem, none of them sing it in the shower, and none of them seek to listen to it as a work of art.

Enter musician Jose Feliciano, who sang the national anthem for Game 5 of the World Series between the Cardinals and the Tigers. Here is Jose's unique version, which is much in keeping with his musical style. I enjoyed it.

But this version was too much for some of the fans, who booed after Jose finished singing. The Tigers even blamed him for the losing that game. Here's what Feliciano had to say about his version of the anthem:

Baseball is permeated with ritual, one of which is the singing of the national anthem, which must be played, or else. And even if one is a gifted musician, it must be song close enough to the standard version, or else. Why? Just because.

Continue ReadingTaking Liberties with the National Anthem

The Correct Treatment for Gender Dysphoria

On the issue of gender dysphoria, I have followed Jesse Singal closely. I admire his willingness to dig deeply into the numbers and to let the numbers speak louder than the many one-size-fits-all "experts" out there (on both sides of the political spectrum). An enormous problem facing therapists and health care professionals is that the data is not clear yet. There are a lot of studies that are highly suspect for methodological reasons. Yet families are demanding treatment now and they want certitude. What should a therapist do when the evidence is not clear? To put it another way, where should they set their default? I'm not a therapist or health care professional, but I would set the default here: Don't surgically and permanently cut off an adolescent girl's breasts and inject her with male hormones (which will almost certainly render her sterile) when there is a reasonable possibility that the gender dysphoria is a consequence of other psychological and health issues that can be treated (or a consequence of cultural pressures). Do no harm. Singal recently summed up his current position, which is well worth considering:

My understanding of social transition is that it is a psychological intervention that may itself have downsides, such as making it harder for the kid to grow out of his or her gender dysphoria (I don’t think this is established, but I do think you can make a circumstantial case that it’s sometimes true from the available evidence). So even that shouldn’t be approached lightly — you should be certain the kid’s gender dysphoria is durable, severe, and causing problems. Is it “many” kids who fit these criteria? I dunno. Same deal with medical treatments. They really, really shouldn’t be taken lightly. The evidence base sucks, regardless of what major liberal media figures keep saying. A kid should go on blockers or hormones only if they’ve been assessed very carefully.

I don’t think there’s any evidence that treating gender dysphoria qua gender dysphoria with “therapy and medication” will do much good in most cases. I do think that in some subset of instances in which a kid tells a therapist they have gender questions, or definitely feel they are some “other” gender than their biological sex, basic exploration of other factors will reveal some other issue. Sometimes it might be recent trauma, sometimes it could be anxiety or depression, and sometimes it could be other issues involving, say, the onset of puberty. I think those issues probably can be treated with therapy and drugs, at least in a lot of cases, and that doing so may cause the gender issues to abate, because they weren’t the root issues in the first place.

There’s a lot of disagreement among clinicians over whether the causal chain (1) is always gender dysphoria → other psychological issues, or (2) whether it can sometimes go in the other direction. This is a pretty high-stakes question, because it obviously will affect the direction of therapy. If a kid has gender questions, anxiety, and depression, then a therapist operating under (1) will assume that ameliorating the GD will in turn ameliorate the other issues (so no need to pay them much mind at first), while a therapist operating under (2) will have more of a winding road to traverse.. ..

Anyway, all of this is to say that no, I haven’t been swayed from the idea that on balance, these treatments are probably good for kids who would otherwise suffer from severe, unremitting gender dysphoria. But even in these instances, no one should act like they know exactly what they’re doing. Sometimes even severe, prolonged cases of GD go away!

I am concerned that much of what passes as dysphoria is cultural dissing of women, passed by contagion. The following Tweet thread was well articulated.

Much of this resonates with me. Society has, in many ways, belittled women. If you think this is overstatement, go turn on your TV. Our culture continues to do this in thousands of ways. If I were about to be born and you could choose your sex and you would be growing up in the United States, what is the likelihood that you would choose to be a girl in our current cultural stew?

Continue ReadingThe Correct Treatment for Gender Dysphoria

Jordan Peterson: The Danger of Obsessing About Yourself

Jordan Peterson had a long and intense discussion with writer Helen Joyce about transgender ideology. It is a well-worth listening to the entire episode, including the discussions of social contagion, the reasons girls reject their own bodies, the disrespect shown to older women (by younger women) and the pervasive role of narcisism. Peterson, who has worked as a clinical psychologist, offers this advice for people who suffer from social anxiety. From my personal anecdotal experience, I think this is spot on and important to note:

Helen Joyce: And alongside that, that you must choose your identity off a list of dozens, and sometimes hundreds, that require the most intense, constant rumination and self-examination. I mean, I was talking to somebody just yesterday--who was telling me that who has this check sheet for how do I feel? ... But you were meant to be thinking all the time, like, how am I feeling right now? And it was, you know, on a scale of one to 10, how happy am I? This is all a terribly bad idea.

Jordan Peterson: Well, it's clearly bad. One of the things I learned when I was treating people who were socially anxious, I had a lot of anxious people in my, in my clinical practice, which is hardly surprising because that that's the kind of suffering that requires people to seek clinical intervention. Socially anxious people, when they go into a new social situation, think obsessively about how others are thinking about them. Yes. And so then they become self conscious often about bodily issues. But not only that, they might become self conscious about their lack of conversational ability, and the fact that they're not very interesting, and the fact that they're being evaluated by other people, it's a litany of obsessive thoughts. And you can, you might say, well, you can train people to stop thinking about themselves. But you can't stop people from thinking about something by telling them to stop thinking about something. But what you can train people to do is to think more about other people. And so one of the techniques that I used in my practice was okay, now, when you go into a social situation next time, like we'd go through the niceties of introducing yourself and making sure they knew your name, and get that ritualized, so that it was practiced and expert and therefore not a source of anxiety. But the next thing is, your job is to make the other person that you're talking to as comfortable as possible, to pay as much attention to them. And so we know that the more you think about yourself--this is literally true--there is no difference between thinking about yourself, and being miserable. They load on the same statistical axis. And so these kids that are constantly being tormented by 150 identities, that's a front not of freedom, but of utter chaos. And then asked to constantly reflect on their own state of emotional well being and happiness is the surest route to the kind of misery that's going to open them up to psychogenic epidemics. The clinical data on that are clear.

Continue ReadingJordan Peterson: The Danger of Obsessing About Yourself