The Social Dynamics of Woke Ideology
How widespread is Woke ideology? To what extent are Americans willing to discuss the issues of Wokeness? Glenn Loury discusses with Nikita Petrov. Here is an excerpt from their recent discussion:
How widespread is Woke ideology? To what extent are Americans willing to discuss the issues of Wokeness? Glenn Loury discusses with Nikita Petrov. Here is an excerpt from their recent discussion:
Check out this video of Joe Rogan clarifying his views on the COVID vaccines.
I'll focus on this excerpt at the 2:50 min mark
Here's the thing. These are not like planned statements. Let's be real clear. When I say something stupid, I’m not thinking about what I'm going to say before I say it. I'm just. saying it, right? I don't have an off-air and an on-air voice. I don't. I have me. This is it. I got through the fucking net and I'm swimming in open waters, okay? And that's just how I live. If you say you disagree with me, I probably disagree with me too. I disagree with me all the time.
This illustrates a big problem. Way too many of us are walking around thinking that we need to talk only in prepared statements that are approved by our tribe. This is abnormal and stifled conversation, unhealthy for civilization. We need to get back to the idea that conversation is a collaborative enterprise where we listen charitably and test each others' statements with the aim being that we can figure something out together, rather than trying to "win." Meaningful conversations are always somewhat messy works in progress. This is the HxA way.
We need to reset the dial so that our public conversations better resemble our private thoughts. Currently, many people are out there listening in order to harpoon you as though the only thing you uttered (out of 100 things) is that one clunky thing that offended them, ignoring that conversation and thinking are processes by which we should be incrementally working our way toward truth, together.
Thus, I appreciate what Joe Rogan said in this clip. When we have conversations, we should not reading prepared inner scripts. That would not be real conversation. There should be a lot of missteps, especially when we are grappling with complex issues. We should always be charitable listeners, giving the speaker their best foot forward (until and unless they exhibit bad faith). We should always be willing to point out where we agree with the others before criticizing the one thing we disagree with. That establishes trust and opens up a robust conversation where all participants come away with a changed understanding of the others or of the world. This approach exhibits basic decency--it is the approach marriage counselors urge in order to keep marriages healthy, as indicated by John Gottman. It applies to the rest of us too.
One last thing. There are a lot of people out there engaging in nasty sport rather than conversation. They are wearing their language police hats, demanding compliance with their own standards of political propriety. I often wonder how they talk with each other in the privacy of their own homes, however. Do they demand trigger warnings from each other in their living rooms? Do they jump on each other for failing to use the proper pronoun? I suspect that they freely and privately admit facts that they condemn in public.
We need to urge each other to see live-time public conversation as an opportunity to learn from each other and to freely admit our low confidence levels and ignorance of some of the things we'd like to believe. We need to speak in public much more like the way we think and converse privately.
Last week I attended a seminar sponsored by Heterodox Academy. The title: Does Mill Still Matter? Among those featured at the seminar were Jonathan Haidt, Richard Reeves and Dave Cicirelli, co-creators of "All Minus One," an illustrated version of the second chapter of Mill's On Liberty. This new book can be downloaded for free.
I transcribed the following excerpts of Jonathan Haidt comments. What follows are Haidt's words at the live seminar, minimally edited for print.
What I think is happening on campus is that we've traditionally played a game in which somebody puts forth an argument and then somebody critiques it. And that's what we've done for 1000’s of years, until about 2015. And then, a new game came into town, where people weren't seeing this like tennis, a game we are playing a game together. They saw it more as a battle like boxing or something where it was a struggle for dominance and power. And when you think of it that way, yeah, it's hard work. And it's painful. But if you think about it as like, you know, playing tennis or a game together, you're expending calories. It's not exactly hard work. It's hard play. And that's what I've always loved about being an academy is that it always felt like hard play. Until 2015.
A common phrase that began in 2014-2015, which is, “you are denying my existence” or “If that speaker comes [to campus to talk], then he or she is denying my existence.” And, you know, it's suddenly came out of nowhere. And we're all talking about what do you mean, denying your existence? And it's because this new way of thinking, where it's all a battle for power, and it's all about identity. And so if there's an is there's a speaker who's critical that on transition-- doesn't accept the reigning dogma on the trans issue? Well, that person thinks, or you might think, that they're critiquing an argument about something. But critiquing the argument is critiquing the identity, which means you're denying that I exist. That really helps us understand why there's such incoherence on campus since 2015, because some people are taking any criticism of their ideas as an attack on their person. And therefore you think I don't belong here on campus. And again, you can't have a university like that.
I also just want to add in one of my favorite quotes I've found in the five or six years I've been working on this topic. This is from Van Jones when he spoke at the University of Chicago. He was asked by, David Axelrod, what he thinks about students who are demanding no platforming and safe spaces and things like that. And while this isn't exactly million in that he's not really talking about, like the benefit to truth, but he's talking about the way this actually makes you stronger and smarter. This is just so brilliant. He says, there's a certain kind of safety, that it’s safety from physical attacks. You know, of course, we care about physical safety. But then he says, I don't want you to be safe ideologically. I don't want you to be safe, emotionally, I want you to be strong. And that's different. I'm not going to pave the jungle for you put on some boots and learn how to deal with adversity, I'm not going to take all the weights out of the gym. That's the whole point of the gym. This is the gym. And Richard and his friends protested outside as a political act. And then they went in because it was the gym, and they actually wanted to hear what he had to say. And that, I think, is the model of a politically engaged college student, or what it should do.
I was asked, What do you think is most fundamental question? And they say, Oh, you know, is there a god? Or what's the meaning of life? No, that's like, a big question. Fundamental means, basic, like the thing that everything else is built on. The fundamental question of life, is approach or avoid. That's it. As soon as life began moving, as soon as you get little tails on bacteria, you have to have some mechanism for deciding this way or that? Approach or avoid? And all of the rest of the billion years of brain evolution is just commentary on that question.
And so the human brain has these gigantic tracts of neurons on the front left cortex, specialized for approach. And then a frontal cortex specialized for avoid. And so all sorts of things go with this. So when we're in explorer mode, some features of it are, we're more, we're curious. We take risks. You might feel like a kid in a candy shop with all these different things to explore. You think for yourself. And the model of a student in this mindset would be whoever grows the most by graduation, or whoever learns the most by graduation wins. If that's your attitude, boy, are you going to profit from being in college for four years. [More . . . ]
Timur Kuran is a professor at Duke who has more than 30K followers on Twitter. This is my experience too.
Scott Barry Kaufman says this well.
I have this exact same thought many times every day. It's like we are trapped in blue-dress-brown-dress argument every time we open our mouths.
One fruitful solution to this mess is to re-learn how to have conversations using Heterodox Academy's HxA Way:
The above five points are merely the headings - the HxA Way is carefully thought out. Here's a more detailed (yet succinct) description.
Then again, this solution of the HxA way assumes that both parties are interested in having a conversation, which is not the case with many of today's tribally charged performative chants that only pretend to be conversations.
Conversations and performative chants look similar in that they both involve two people talking in the presence of each other. The way I distinguish the two is that to be a conversation, one or both parties is/are at least potentially open to changing the way they understand some aspect of the world. This is often extremely difficult to tell. And the likelihood that we are witnessing a meaningful conversation diminishes greatly as 1) more and more people actively participate as speakers, 2) one or more of the parties fail to accurately restate the other side's position, 3) one of the sides refuses to give up the floor, or 4) voices get louder or more impassioned. In other words, one's best shot at having a real conversation involves one-on-one conversation where people listen closely to each other's words, restate those thoughts accurately and want their thoughts and world-view challenged--they both seek a new version of truth and neither seeks to "win" the interaction. The opposite of a conversation can be found in a religious sermon.
I'll close with this quote by Nietzsche:
"Madness is rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, nations and ages it is the rule."
--Beyond Good & Evil, Aphorism #156