bucketoffish's review against another edition
5.0
Recently I've been reading a lot about political polarization, population dynamics, and the forming of ideological tribes. These problems have obviously become highly visible in most developed countries in the past few years, especially in online interaction.
I'm thinking of patterns of interaction marked by black-and-white thinking, a tendency to demonize and assign negative motivations for the "other side", purposeful misinterpretation of words and actions, and an unwillingness to engage in civil discussion. This means approaching new information not with the mindset of "is this true or false" or "what parts of this idea make sense, and which parts do I disagree with", but rather "whose side is the speaker on and who are they attacking".
There's also been a troubling rise of call-out culture, with many online spaces now devoted solely to ridiculing [insert any politicized group], often with the use of cherry-picked information or with screenshots of short out-of-context quotes. I think this kind of discourse is harming our society on every level, from personal interaction all the way up to geopolitical policy.
A lot has been written about these topics recently, but I think Lukianoff and Haidt manage to approach it in a new and interesting way, with a lot of fresh ideas. They present psychology-based ideas on why people may react so strongly to political adversaries, why there's the impulse to shut down speakers rather than challenge them, and why there's this strong drive to cluster in groups of like-minded individuals and treat opposing opinions as attacks.
They make a strong case that these types of behaviors are heightened due to certain types of thinking, including an exaggerated sense of danger that interprets disagreement as a type of assault, a mindset that emphasizes conflicts between groups rather than cooperation, and a strong emotional connection between one's opinions and one's identity. The authors connect these patterns of thought with ones common in sufferers of anxiety and depression, and one of the authors uses his own experiences with depression to describe how these patterns of thought are able to alter the way one interacts with the world. In fact, the authors spend quite some time drawing links between rising rates of depression and anxiety among college students, and the kinds of social movements which have been occurring on campuses.
I see some people criticizing this book because it takes examples mainly from modern American college campuses. I think this is understandable because these are the environments with which the authors are most familiar, but I don't think the types of phenomena described are at all exclusive to colleges. I also don't think the authors' insights are specific to this time period. Even though they do identify specific trends (such as overprotective parenting and the replacement of one-on-one interaction with internet interaction) which they believe are influencing these types of mindsets and social behaviors in the modern day, I believe the conclusions they have drawn can be applied to any person in any time period. Their points about how certain mental frames, including the evaluation of risk, lead to different behaviors in large social groups, are not specific to the current situation.
I am also not bothered that the authors chose to evaluate specific extreme events. I realize that most people and places are not conducive for riots or witch hunts, and I'm not under the impression that these kinds of events are the norm anywhere, but I still think that the underlying causes behind these events can be analyzed and applied to how we understand ourselves and the world.
Anyway, I came away from this book with a greater appreciation for free speech, for the importance of talking to people with different beliefs, and for the need to take calculated risks.
I'm thinking of patterns of interaction marked by black-and-white thinking, a tendency to demonize and assign negative motivations for the "other side", purposeful misinterpretation of words and actions, and an unwillingness to engage in civil discussion. This means approaching new information not with the mindset of "is this true or false" or "what parts of this idea make sense, and which parts do I disagree with", but rather "whose side is the speaker on and who are they attacking".
There's also been a troubling rise of call-out culture, with many online spaces now devoted solely to ridiculing [insert any politicized group], often with the use of cherry-picked information or with screenshots of short out-of-context quotes. I think this kind of discourse is harming our society on every level, from personal interaction all the way up to geopolitical policy.
A lot has been written about these topics recently, but I think Lukianoff and Haidt manage to approach it in a new and interesting way, with a lot of fresh ideas. They present psychology-based ideas on why people may react so strongly to political adversaries, why there's the impulse to shut down speakers rather than challenge them, and why there's this strong drive to cluster in groups of like-minded individuals and treat opposing opinions as attacks.
They make a strong case that these types of behaviors are heightened due to certain types of thinking, including an exaggerated sense of danger that interprets disagreement as a type of assault, a mindset that emphasizes conflicts between groups rather than cooperation, and a strong emotional connection between one's opinions and one's identity. The authors connect these patterns of thought with ones common in sufferers of anxiety and depression, and one of the authors uses his own experiences with depression to describe how these patterns of thought are able to alter the way one interacts with the world. In fact, the authors spend quite some time drawing links between rising rates of depression and anxiety among college students, and the kinds of social movements which have been occurring on campuses.
I see some people criticizing this book because it takes examples mainly from modern American college campuses. I think this is understandable because these are the environments with which the authors are most familiar, but I don't think the types of phenomena described are at all exclusive to colleges. I also don't think the authors' insights are specific to this time period. Even though they do identify specific trends (such as overprotective parenting and the replacement of one-on-one interaction with internet interaction) which they believe are influencing these types of mindsets and social behaviors in the modern day, I believe the conclusions they have drawn can be applied to any person in any time period. Their points about how certain mental frames, including the evaluation of risk, lead to different behaviors in large social groups, are not specific to the current situation.
I am also not bothered that the authors chose to evaluate specific extreme events. I realize that most people and places are not conducive for riots or witch hunts, and I'm not under the impression that these kinds of events are the norm anywhere, but I still think that the underlying causes behind these events can be analyzed and applied to how we understand ourselves and the world.
Anyway, I came away from this book with a greater appreciation for free speech, for the importance of talking to people with different beliefs, and for the need to take calculated risks.
duepnerd's review against another edition
3.0
3.5. I learned a lot but wasn’t a huge fan of the writing style
quitejessi's review against another edition
3.0
I think this is a good book, but one that didn't need to exist. The article, originally published in The Atlantic, which is how I was introduced to Jonathan Haidt, is sufficient for getting the point across. (The point? The kids aren't alright, and that's society's fault.) I agree with most of his points and his push for CBT training. Some of the case studies were very interesting, but a lot were repetitive.
Maybe it's the Gen Z in me, but sometimes I was on the side of the "fragile" people. (Haidt and Lukianoff mention the MeToo movement with a little too much dismissal for my liking, at one point.)
It also lost its focus a few times. Is this a persuasive book? An informative book? A CBT-sponsored book? I don't know. But still, I think the main theme is important for the current American culture. A pretty solid 3 stars.
Maybe it's the Gen Z in me, but sometimes I was on the side of the "fragile" people. (Haidt and Lukianoff mention the MeToo movement with a little too much dismissal for my liking, at one point.)
It also lost its focus a few times. Is this a persuasive book? An informative book? A CBT-sponsored book? I don't know. But still, I think the main theme is important for the current American culture. A pretty solid 3 stars.
kainami's review against another edition
Didn't feel like it was the right time to read this - already too pessimistic about closed mindedness and feel like I already do practice the lessons it tries impart. Will revisit in the future to make sure!
themtj's review against another edition
3.0
At its best it is an irenic plea for reasonableness. The authors strive for centrism and civility above most everything else.
At its worst it is a warm blanket to coddle thin-skinned people who are upset by others that they perceive as thin-skinned (the irony is overwhelming). They argue against reductio ad absurdum by appealing to it with their stories. Countless lengthy and detailed anecdotes accumulate to a rhetoric similar to watching cable news, "look at how extreme/crazy/irrational those people are." In this instance, the authors use these examples to shake their heads and say, "if only all of those people could be more like us."
The fundamental flaw in this book is the failure to recognize that marginalized people groups are so frequently told to remain calm that it leads to accumulated frustration. It is the forest/tree distinction that these authors miss for so many of the groups they attack. While I agree with their principles and I personally insist on well-reasoned and fair-minded policies, I am also aware that lengthy processes have been drawn out for the sake of "fairness" when they are sometimes a thinly veiled mask to prolong oppression. I DO NOT believe that is what the authors are advocating, but I do think it is a potential misuse of this book. The authors repeatedly emphasize the reality of systemic injustice yet this book positions itself mostly as a defense for the powers that be.
All this being said, you may notice that I still gave the book three stars. I was frustrated reading it but I think that is a good thing. It was helpfully disruptive at times and I sided with the authors interpretation of the most extreme events that were re-played in the book, but is it a summative view of the culture at large or are they fringe examples used for rhetoric? Probably something in between, I believe they fear the trajectory of these examples. I actually agree with much of what is said, but the condescending narration commits the same error that the book is positioned against. They want to control people who want to control people. Finally, I think they make the ever-increasing era of subconsciously reverting back to some golden age that never actually existed.
The name bears intentional resemblance to Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind and bears most of its strengths and flaws in equal measure.
At its worst it is a warm blanket to coddle thin-skinned people who are upset by others that they perceive as thin-skinned (the irony is overwhelming). They argue against reductio ad absurdum by appealing to it with their stories. Countless lengthy and detailed anecdotes accumulate to a rhetoric similar to watching cable news, "look at how extreme/crazy/irrational those people are." In this instance, the authors use these examples to shake their heads and say, "if only all of those people could be more like us."
The fundamental flaw in this book is the failure to recognize that marginalized people groups are so frequently told to remain calm that it leads to accumulated frustration. It is the forest/tree distinction that these authors miss for so many of the groups they attack. While I agree with their principles and I personally insist on well-reasoned and fair-minded policies, I am also aware that lengthy processes have been drawn out for the sake of "fairness" when they are sometimes a thinly veiled mask to prolong oppression. I DO NOT believe that is what the authors are advocating, but I do think it is a potential misuse of this book. The authors repeatedly emphasize the reality of systemic injustice yet this book positions itself mostly as a defense for the powers that be.
All this being said, you may notice that I still gave the book three stars. I was frustrated reading it but I think that is a good thing. It was helpfully disruptive at times and I sided with the authors interpretation of the most extreme events that were re-played in the book, but is it a summative view of the culture at large or are they fringe examples used for rhetoric? Probably something in between, I believe they fear the trajectory of these examples. I actually agree with much of what is said, but the condescending narration commits the same error that the book is positioned against. They want to control people who want to control people. Finally, I think they make the ever-increasing era of subconsciously reverting back to some golden age that never actually existed.
The name bears intentional resemblance to Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind and bears most of its strengths and flaws in equal measure.
babbey's review against another edition
4.0
Lots of really good things to think about. I appreciated that it ended with hope and help
jkw108's review against another edition
4.0
An immensely readable book for those, like me, who look at the craziness going on around us today and wonder what the heck is causing this? I gave 4 stars because I feel the final chapters regarding "how to..." could have been omitted or shortened. In all an excellent guide to the "fools on the left of me, and jokers on the right".
debi_g's review against another edition
4.0
“Research on ‘post-traumatic growth’ shows that most people report becoming stronger, or better in some way, after suffering through a traumatic experience. That means...the culture of safetyism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and of the dynamics of trauma and recovery....Avoiding triggers is a symptom of PTSD, not a treatment for it” (28-29).
“Education should not be intended to make people comfortable; it is meant to make them think” (Gray, 50).
“Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society” (56).
“Having people around us who are willing to disagree with us is a gift. So when you realize you are wrong, admit that you are wrong, and thank your critics for helping you see it” (244).
“Education should not be intended to make people comfortable; it is meant to make them think” (Gray, 50).
“Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society” (56).
“Having people around us who are willing to disagree with us is a gift. So when you realize you are wrong, admit that you are wrong, and thank your critics for helping you see it” (244).