The Psychological Traits of People who Seriously Support Free Speech

Many people say they support free speech, but only of a subset of those are willing to stand up and take flak in support of free speech in particular uncomfortable situations. How do these two groups differ?

Researchers Jeff Cieslikowski and Sean Stevens of FIRE have reviewed the relevant psychological research. High cognitive ability and emotional intelligence predict greater support for free speech. Here are a few excerpts from their recent article:

[P]eople with high cognitive ability also often exhibit greater intellectual humility. At its core, intellectual humility refers to whether a person is open to the idea that they might be wrong, and research has demonstrated that the relationship between cognitive ability and support for free speech is amplified if an individual also possesses more intellectual humility.

The most recent research extends these findings. Those higher in cognitive ability and emotional intelligence –– the ability to recognize emotions in oneself and others, and to use this emotional information to productively and positively guide one’s actions –– were more supportive of freedom of speech and less concerned with appearing "politically correct," which the researchers define as “using language (or behavior) to seem sensitive to others’ feelings, especially those others who seem socially disadvantaged.” The researchers suggest that those high in emotional intelligence favor free speech because the former correlates positively with psychological reactance –– the tendency for people to experience anxiety or distress when they perceive their freedom is threatened.

Those who strongly and consistently support free speech:

[P]ossess a unique perspective on the negative consequences of speech restrictions, and that these individuals are more likely to be concerned with how speech restrictions can backfire and be used to suppress the expression of disadvantaged or unpopular groups in society...

[P]rincipled support for free speech is rooted in the idea that all human beings are fallible. Therefore, we should be intellectually humble and open to the ideas of others, for we ourselves might be wrong. This suggests that individuals high in cognitive ability and emotional intelligence may be principled defenders of free speech, tolerating even the speech they abhor. They would likely agree with John Stuart Mill, who wrote:

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Continue ReadingThe Psychological Traits of People who Seriously Support Free Speech

The Pot Shot Version of the Ad hominem Attack

Today I posted the following on my Facebook account:

I often post quotes, article excerpts or videos featuring the writings or conversation of others. I post these because I find them interesting and, sometimes, inspiring. Quite often, people respond in the comments by pointing out that that person once did something they disapprove of. They often write something like "I don't like that person."

I don't understand this way of thinking. There are many brilliant but flawed people out there. In fact, each of us can see one of those significantly flawed people in the mirror every morning. When I share information on FB, it is because I find the information interesting. I am not saying "This is a perfectly well-adjusted person who is always correct and who has never done anything I would ever question." For instance, there are severely flawed artists (e.g., Michael Jackson) whose work I admire greatly. Same thing with writers, podcasters, politicians and activists. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Is this a problem? Hell, yes. Was he also brilliant? Did his genius help establish this amazing (though flawed) country you call home? Absolutely. When I celebrate Jefferson's amazing accomplishments am I trying to say it's OK to own slaves? Some people apparently think so, because they've been renaming schools that bore Jefferson's name. This is performative, not serious thinking.

All of the people I find interesting are flawed. I am flawed, you are flawed. People of prominence often stumble in big public ways. If you've never gone out into the world to attempt something brave and ambitious, you are flawed in that way too. Can we have an understanding, then, that I am already aware that everyone I mention in my posts is a flawed human being, and many of them have fucked up more than once? Sometimes they've fucked up in intensely cringe-worthy ways. Many of them have fucked up, realized they've fucked up and already admitted that they've fucked up. Pot shots are especially strange in those situations. When you watch a movie, do you sit there obsessing that some of the actors are personally flawed human beings? Or do you enjoy the movie on its own merits? Why do you give your favorite actors a pass?

I don't share information about people BECAUSE they are flawed. Rather, I am sharing their work and observations because I have found that work to be interesting or admirable. I work hard to try to make sense of an extremely complex world and my thought process never stops evolving. I often disagree with things I have stated in the past and you have too. We do this all the time and there is no way to stop doing this. That's how people think and that is why we have conversations--to help each other when we fall off the tracks.

It is the easiest, lowest and most ignorant form of criticism to sit back and point out people's imperfections. This insidious pot shot form of ad hominem is ubiquitous on FB. I assure you that I could engage in taking pot shots at others every hour of every day, with very little effort, but it would do nothing to encourage meaningful conversation or human flourishing.

Continue ReadingThe Pot Shot Version of the Ad hominem Attack

NYT Finally Covers a Story that Many School Districts Hide “Gender Transitions” from Parents

Many school districts are assisting students to "transition to a different gender" and hiding it from the student's parents. I've been telling people this for more than a year, and many people I talk to are refusing to believe that this happens, even though I have drafted letters of concern to districts on this topic. People refuse to believe this because the legacy media has consciously refused to cover these stories . . . until now. The NYT has finally decided that it's OK to write about this outrageous practice. From the NYT today:

Jessica Bradshaw found out that her 15-year-old identified as transgender at school after she glimpsed a homework assignment with an unfamiliar name scrawled at the top.

When she asked about the name, the teenager acknowledged that, at his request, teachers and administrators at his high school in Southern California had for six months been letting him use the boy’s bathroom and calling him by male pronouns.

Mrs. Bradshaw was confused: Didn’t the school need her permission, or at least need to tell her?

It did not, a counselor later explained, because the student did not want his parents to know. District and state policies instructed the school to respect his wishes.

Note: In this article, the NYT claims that "conservative" parents who are upset by this practice, but this is intentionally misleading. If you doubt this, just go ask your Democrat-voting neighbors what they would think if their child's school district hid this information, secretly conducting what amounts to unlicensed therapy conducted by classroom teachers, which often leads to dangerous lifetime drugs and permanent surgery.

Continue ReadingNYT Finally Covers a Story that Many School Districts Hide “Gender Transitions” from Parents

On Confusing Correlation for Causation

Matt Stoller offers this excellent presentation of the commonly used fallacy of confusing correlation for causation:

For years, we’ve been told that while drinking too much is bad for your health, having just a glass of wine with dinner, as the French do, can be good for your heart. And many studies do indeed show such an association. But what we’re discovering is that this correlation is an illusion. In fact people who drink a small amount of wine every night are healthier, but only because it means they aren’t drinking soda. Even small amounts of alcohol are bad for you, but as academics are coming to understand, if you drink a glass of wine every evening, you also tend to exercise, eat fruits and vegetables, and refrain from smoking. And it is those habits, not the wine, that improve health.

This logical fallacy is known as confusing correlation with causation, or assuming that because A happened and then B happened, that A caused B. The media loves these kinds of associations, because they seem correct, but they are often just coincidence, or a result of a variable that’s not being observed. Sometimes correlations are silly, like saying that “there are more sick people at hospitals, therefore hospitals cause sickness.” They can even be ridiculous; one famous study found that shark attacks are common on beaches with more ice cream sales, the theory being that sharks like to eat people full of ice cream.

Every aspiring law student encounters this fallacy; it’s fundamental in law to understand when something is causal vs coincidental or associative. It’s such a commonly taught error to avoid that it was the basis for one of the first episodes of the famous show The West Wing, an episode named “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc” after the latin phrase describing this fallacy. Lawyers understand the difference between correlation and causation. So do academics. An entire generation of would-be lawyers who watched the West Wing understand it. It’s not a mystery.

Continue ReadingOn Confusing Correlation for Causation

Bret Weinstein Offers an Explanation for his COVID Disagreements with Sam Harris

As I see it, Sam Harris, who I have much admired over the years, has somewhat fallen off the rails on COVID, Free Speech and Trump. It happens to all of us, some of the time. I hope he can settle himself and get back in the game. In the meantime, Harris and Bret Weinstein have been struggling to figure out why they have had recent pointed disagreements. Bret's Tweet offers a reason for their disagreements:

Jimmy Dore dissects Sam Harris' recent strange discussion about COVID (starting at hr./min. 2:51). This is about a strange as Sam Harris' recent discussion regarding Hunter Biden's laptop. Glenn Greenwald links to the video clip of Harris and offers this commentary:

All of this stems from the classic mentality of all would-be tyrants: our enemies are so dangerous, their views so threatening, that everything we do – lying, repression, censorship – is noble. That's what made the Sam Harris confession so vital: that's how liberal elites think.

Continue ReadingBret Weinstein Offers an Explanation for his COVID Disagreements with Sam Harris