Joe Rogan Discusses Polarization, Education, Woke Culture and More with Jonathan Haidt

This episode of Joe Rogan's podcast, first released 18 months ago, features moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who has studied the culture wars as deeply as anyone. I recommend the entire discussion as a fruitful approach to the current madness. Haidt focuses on how we have raised children since the 1990s and the dangers of overprotecting them. At about 1:20, Haidt shows some stunning graphs showing that girls are have been terribly hurt (much more than boys) by the advent of social media and smart phones, along with unrealistic conceptions of beauty.

This excerpt by Haidt begins with his description of classical liberalism (Min: 55:10):

I think young people are losing touch with some of the hard-won lessons of the past, so I'm not going to say “Oh, we have to just accept whatever morality is here.” I still am ultimately liberal in the sense that what I dream of is a society in which people are free to create lives that they want to live. They're not forced to do things. They're not shamed. There's a minimum of conflict and we make room for each other. If we're going to have a diverse society, we've really got to be tolerant and make room for each other. That's my dream. I think in the last five or ten years, we've gotten really far from that. My first book, "The Happiness Hypothesis," was about ten ancient ideas. One is that we're too judgmental. You know “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” But I think the new version of that . . . if there were a 21st century Jesus, he'd say: “Judge a lot more. Judge all the time. Judge harshly. Don't give anyone with the benefit the doubt. Don't let anyone judge you. That is not going to be a recipe for a functioning society. So, no, I do not accept this aspect of 21st century morality.

Continue ReadingJoe Rogan Discusses Polarization, Education, Woke Culture and More with Jonathan Haidt

Resigning Psychologist: Anti-Racism Replaces Science at the Academic Excellence National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

Russell Warne has resigned from NAGC. He explains:

[A] recent turn of events has made me unable to continue to be part of NAGC. On July 14, 2020, the organization’s board announced its “Expanded Vision for NAGC.” This document is the board’s plan “to confront systemic racism and advance equity for Black students in gifted education.” While I support diversifying gifted programs and providing educational opportunities to children from all demographic groups, this document sacrifices open scholarly inquiry on the altar of social justice activism.

Continue ReadingResigning Psychologist: Anti-Racism Replaces Science at the Academic Excellence National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

You Still Can’t Judge a Book By Its Cover

Continue ReadingYou Still Can’t Judge a Book By Its Cover

How Cancel Culture Works: The Lived Experience of Biologist Colin Wright

Many on the political left are increasingly proclaiming that cancel culture is not really a thing. Their most common tactic is to show that their best efforts are not successfully destroying the careers of prominent personalities such as J.K. Rowling and Steven Pinker. They ignore that many less-prominent people are successfully being chilled and cowed. These far more numerous lesser-known scientists and intellectuals are not sufficiently established in their careers to withstand repeated false broadside accusations that their (factually true) scientific observations are allegedly bigoted.  Thus, a deep intellectual chill has settled over the United States this summer.

At Quillette, biologist Colin Wright offers a detailed schematic of how cancel culture played out in his life. Like many others who have found that their jobs and reputations are under attack, Wright put the target on his own back by asserting scientifically true statements. In Wright's case, he asserted both that that there are only two sexes and that some people cannot be neatly categorized as male or female. These undeniably true statements appeared in an article titled "The Dangerous Denial of Sex," co-written by Wright and Emma N. Hilton, appearing in the Wall Street Journal on Feb 13, 2020. Here are the words of Wright and Hilton:

In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex “spectrum” or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary.

There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error. Denying the reality of biological sex and supplanting it with subjective “gender identity” is not merely an eccentric academic theory. It raises serious human-rights concerns for vulnerable groups including women, homosexuals and children.

Here, from Wright's article at Quillette, is the kind of thing that happens when people speak up, compelled by a sense of integrity and a burning desire to keep members of the public from being misled or harmed:

I was contacted by a biology-department chair at a private liberal arts college in the Midwest. He commended me for my writings, and told me that he’d even used my New Evolution Deniers essay as a basis for discussion in his own classes. But while he and his fellow biology-department faculty would likely support my hiring, he said, the school’s own human-resources department would almost certainly block me as “too risky.” These experiences remind me that when Blow extols “the masses” who are canceling people like me, the people he’s praising are actually just a small coalition of professional trolls such as Bird, working in effective concert with the risk-averse, upper-middle corporate bureaucrats who now have taken over decision-making on many college and university campuses.

I too have been seeing an increasing denial of cancel culture on social media, along with a denial of science, a hostility to the use of statistics to analyze complex social phenomena and even a disparagement of the intellectual tools we have inherited from The Enlightenment. See here, here and here. This is distressing for many of us to see this bullying of individuals and institutions and the consequent chilling of the many intellectuals who remain silent because they don't have the stomachs for unfair fights like these.

Continue ReadingHow Cancel Culture Works: The Lived Experience of Biologist Colin Wright

The Best Thing to Do About People Who Carefully Rely on Statistics When Analyzing Complex Social Issues? Fire Them.

What is the effect of violent protests (versus peaceful protests) on future elections? This would seem to be a compelling topic these days. As one example of many, would it affect voters to see a video of people breaking into a car dealership in Oakland, spray painting vehicles and then setting several vehicles on fire as part of a political protest related to the detestable homicide of George Floyd?

What if a person, citing relevant statistics by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, offers insights based on these statistics?  Apparently, the best response is to get that person fired because such a Tweet would allegedly be "racist."  That's what happened in the case of David Shor, as reported by Vox. The video posted above post-dates the firing of Shor, but I am posting it to illustrate.

Here is Shor's May 28, 2020 Tweet:

Now, two excerpts from the detailed article in Vox:

Mass demonstrations work, in other words, but looting and disorder are counterproductive. This was Shor’s sin: repeating Wasow’s findings that marching is good but looting and vandalism are counterproductive.

...

Shor did not say that protesting is harmful; he said that rioting is harmful. And he didn’t say that data should dictate how people feel. And while one data scientist’s tweet of one political science paper should not be the last word on social movement tactics, the reasonable response to Shor would be to counter with some other form of evidence. Instead, the dialogue followed a pattern in progressive circles that often involves making evidence-free assertions about how members of various groups feel.

My concern is that we have entered an era where many people and institutions exuberantly accept feelings as a the best way to understand the world, and that feelings are more compelling than careful analysis of facts, even when the factual analysis is based on statistics.  I am seeing ubiquitous examples where intelligent-seeming people declare that anecdotes are superior to careful analysis, both on the political left and right.

We seem to be entering a new Dark Age, where important conversations can no longer be had and where thoughtful people need to choose among these two options, where there are only these two options: A) Your need to express your thoughts freely in a nation created upon the assumption that people must talk with each other freely and B) Your need to not get fired from your job.

John McWhorter sees what might be a light at the end of the tunnel:

I hope McWhorter is correct.  I seem to be losing 1% of hope each day.

Continue ReadingThe Best Thing to Do About People Who Carefully Rely on Statistics When Analyzing Complex Social Issues? Fire Them.