More thoughts on Jonathan Haidt and the theme of America used to have unity, but now social media has divided us and destroyed our trust in institutions. First, I think that this maneuver is the political strategy of a mediocre elite, with varying degrees of consciousness. The limit to which this may be true has to do with the spectacular loss of historical knowledge, which leaves a big part of the population feeling pretty sure that they’re the first people in the history of the universe who have ever encountered meanness. But the constant recourse to the language of “bullying” in the face of ordinary disagreement is a tell:
Now you are very much onto the whole problem. It is the "revolt of the Elites" against the masses via social media. (I know I heard that phrase somewhere.) The Elites are claiming the masses are crazy, but they really need to look in the mirror. The Elites are the victims of their own Mass Formation Psychosis. And they don't even seem to know it. They are living in a different reality than the rest of us. A reality shaped by social-media induced misperceptions. Virtue-signaling to the "in group" is killing us all. This is the key line of your entire essay:
"The very problem, it seems to me, is that institutions have been warped by social media mentality — by the transition to performativity, to posturing and signaling, to an institutional conception of reality as a series of symbols that are performed."
True. I can sort of stand a narcissist, if they live in the world of reality and act on behalf of the good of the Nation. (Trump comes to mind) Some narcissists are living in an echo-chamber globalist fantasy world. (Gates, Soros, Obama, and Biden come to mind) The "Fundamental Transformation" continues apace...
Yeah, some narcissism is unavoidable and even useful. That type is basically self-confidence, faith in self. Pathological narcissists, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, are an entirely different animal. They absolutely can not and will not look at reality. That feels like death to them. Their false self-image is everything and can not and will not tolerate being challenged, and Everything is about that fictional self-image, to them. One that is not at all in alignment with reality. These are the types that blow a gasket or attack you when legitimately proven wrong.
Having lived in and experienced China day-to-day for 20+ years, I can conjure up no regime LESS deserving of admiration and inspiration than the CCP. When I first heard that comment from JT, I was gobsmacked. A man who never set a foot on Chinese soil outside his 5-star hotel, a man who had zero understanding of how the CCP rose to power and then brutalized a billion+ people for decades to maintain it, this caricature of a surfer dude to whom Canadians were somehow stupid enough to hand the reigns of power ... he was giving us a very clear signal of where he intended to lead Canada and according to whose blueprint. And I was supposed to trust him? I see ...
Apr 13, 2022·edited Apr 13, 2022Liked by Chris Bray
The critical point about censorship, including self-censorship, be it justified by "hate speech" or "mis/disinformation", is WHO DECIDES what is or isn't that?
Are there actually benevolent angels who will use this ultimate absolute power purely in the name of Truth and Justice?
No, which is why freedom of speech is so critical, both to have and to stamp out, depending on your goals.
When truth can be dictated from the top, everything else can be and will be too.
Haidt is a decent guy, but he too often falls prey to his own ideological biases; He's a center-left liberal—and his commitment to his ideology will always trump his commitment to truth. Case in point: he claimed that the increase in urban crime decades ago was caused by/associated with leaded gasoline.
Apr 14, 2022·edited Apr 14, 2022Liked by Chris Bray
Justin Trudeau deserves a chapter to himself. The things he has said these past seven years should keep any talented psychologist or psychiatrist busy. One example is when he was (credibly) accused of sexually harassing a journalist (there's also so murky behaviour that took place while he was a teacher in B.C.). Rather than take fully responsibility he spun the story as if it was something WE ALL can learn from trying to confuse and conflate his personal actions with those of the collective. The vast majority of men NEVER harass women but Justin was dragging good men in the mud because he's a low character individual. That's just ONE example.
Apr 13, 2022·edited Apr 13, 2022Liked by Chris Bray
I am a new reader but am enjoying your substack very much. I enjoy Jonathan Haidt's writing - but agree with your assessment that he (Jonathan) thinks the Academy holds the solution to societies problems, when the Academy created most of these problems in the first place. Any problems they didn't create they have made much worse by serving as self appointed gatekeepers.
Thanks for your writing. I am looking forward to reading more.
We did have more unity before 1980, for two reasons. (1) The draft gave most men a similar training experience, which was specifically designed to encourage teamwork. (2) Most men had real jobs that didn't require higher education. Real jobs also encourage teamwork.
Both involved working together toward a shared goal. Focusing on real accomplishment takes precedence over distinctions like race and religion and politics.
Now we have a volunteer army that attracts only super-warriors, and we have much less real accomplishment. Tribal focus comes to the surface when it isn't submerged by real goals.
The government agency I work for has said they will follow the CDC on Covid Policy. The CDC has not mandated boosters, the official definition of fully vaccinated is two shots. But now if we get Covid, we only get Covid pay if we are boosted. If a co-worker gets Covid and we are sent home for five days because we are "at risk", we only get Covid pay if we are boosted. In any case not boosted we have to take our sick time, or not get paid.
Meanwhile they are spending $200,000 to replace a 50sq yd concrete pad that is in perfect condition, $175,000 to replace an asphalt shingle roof that is no more complicated than a typical McMansion, and $500,000 to turn one tennis court into a pollinator planting and placing a wooden bike obstacle course on the other. Meanwhile of 2 stairs into a popular gorge where on weekends literally thousands of people go to see a waterfall and walk a creek, one is in a state of collapse and closed permanently, while the other is crumbling so as to turn into a slide.
And of course being lowly maintenance, if I were to utter a single word of complaint about any of this to administration, that would be the end of my employment, when I would literally have to assault someone to get fired otherwise.
There is an interesting chart in this post called: "Social Media Probably Accelerated Victimhood Culture". It would seem that mental illness is catching. Propaganda works.
I am thinking that the underlying problem is that the "American governing class" has sold us out to China for pennies on the dollar. I do admit, however, that I may have been unduly influenced by something I found among the published decadence of Hunter's laptop.
One of those video files unexpectedly began with a short clip of a man (who I took to be of Chinese descent) speaking at a meeting in DC. This man, speaking earnestly and passionately, was delivering a warning to Americans that China was executing a decades-long, three-pronged plan to completely undermine the United States from within. I have forgotten the other two prongs but do remember that gaining control of the media was one of them. Hmmh, I thought, one prong is already complete. That video was cut short, however, and went without preamble directly into a naked Hunter speaking patronizing words of encouragement to some unseen someone, evidently a very young person, who was doing something between his legs by candlelight. "You are doing great," he said, "As good as a pro." At that point, I shut it off in disgust.
I think you are misreading Haidt somewhat. 1) you seem overly fixated on the reference to the Edelman Trust Barometer survey. He didn't cite it because he is longing for autocracy, as may be the case for Justin Trudeau. Rather, the simple point I think he was trying to make is that for liberal democracy to work, there must be some level of trust that the people have in the institutions that have a responsibility to "lead" and "act on their behalf." And that level of trust has been eroded, for many reasons, including the factionalism and tribalism that results from the current structure of social media. He's not blaming the people, he's just saying this is his assessment of one of the key factors that has led to the erosion of trust. Sure, there are many others - such as prominent public health officials telling "noble lies" in order to try to achieve a desired behavior by the public. 2) you are misinterpreting his comment about professors self-censoring. Haidt has been very vocal, going back to at least when The Righteous Mind came out, about how the leftward shift in faculty viewpoint on college campuses has been very dangerous as it creates the echo chamber of thought. He's not talking about/supporting progressive liberal professors who know the truth but dare not speak it because the rabble (i.e. students) will abuse them. He's talking more about professors (the few that may still exist on college campuses) who don't hold the same views as the vast majority of the progressive liberal faculty or social justice warrior students, who self censor so that they don't find themselves facing the same fate as Erika Christakis.
If you revised your understanding of those two points to what I think is more accurate, and I'm not sure there is anything in the essay that would clearly indicate that I am wrong, how does that change your assessment?
....by saying that I respect Haidt and appreciate his contribution. My first response to what you've said here is that I think to claim a misreading, you have to show up to the discussion with knowledge of Haidt's whole body of work ("....going back to at least when The Righteous Mind came out,"). I think this new essay is uncharacteristic for him, and omits some things that we know in part because Jonathan Haidt told us about them. If you read this essay in isolation, as some readers will, it looks to me like a misstep.
I understand your point re "if you read this essay in isolation" and I get that. Of course, I came into it with more context, so I interpreted some of his points through that lens. It's an incredibly long, dense piece as it is - maybe he could have done a better job framing/explaining to avoid misinterpretation by someone unfamiliar with his past work. I just felt your criticism was unnecessarily harsh and could have been a bit more balanced by saying "given what I know about his past works maybe this is what he is meaning to say, but he shouldn't make me guess" as opposed to just crapping on the whole thing.
Interesting you mention that. This article was my first read of Jonathan Haidt (in isolation) and while I thought it was well written and had interesting ideas and perspectives; it irked me as I interpreted the article as Chris Bray did. So it's good to know that he is worth reading and perhaps his ideas were not fully or well expressed in this particular article.
Sorry - I missed this comment (was traveling for a funeral last week). I think it would definitely be time well spent to read some of Haidt's work. He is a lifelong academic and so probably naturally "left leaning." But I also believe he is more of what I would call a "traditional liberal" as opposed to the "progressive liberals" that have taken over the academy in the last 25 to 30 years. I think The Righteous Mind is probably the best place to start and then The Coddling of the American Mind after that. In The Righteous Mind, he explores how liberals and conservatives assess/make decisions, and I think he ultimately concludes that conservatives take a broader view/include more factors in that process. There are also a lot of good talks that he has given on YouTube. Good luck!
Thanks! I had heard of those titles and will now give them a read. I think having both Traditional Liberal and True Blue Conservative perspectives/voices are essential for a democracy to function.
"True Blue" or "True Red" ;-) ? Yes, I agree. And Haidt (I feel like I'm promoting him but I'm really note - but he outta give me a commission!) is really big on viewpoint diversity and the need for a broader range of voices in the conversation. He talks about how lack of diversity in the faculty of colleges and universities is a terrible thing in the long run, for the culture and for democracy. He founded Heterodox Academy as an attempt to push back against the tide and encourage more viewpoint diversity. https://heterodoxacademy.org/our-mission/
Right! People are all about self-promotion. Anyone on social media is there for affirmation and attention. And there’s nothing like the illusion of affirmation when your favorite Hollywood morons and such confirm your misperceptions.
Now you are very much onto the whole problem. It is the "revolt of the Elites" against the masses via social media. (I know I heard that phrase somewhere.) The Elites are claiming the masses are crazy, but they really need to look in the mirror. The Elites are the victims of their own Mass Formation Psychosis. And they don't even seem to know it. They are living in a different reality than the rest of us. A reality shaped by social-media induced misperceptions. Virtue-signaling to the "in group" is killing us all. This is the key line of your entire essay:
"The very problem, it seems to me, is that institutions have been warped by social media mentality — by the transition to performativity, to posturing and signaling, to an institutional conception of reality as a series of symbols that are performed."
"Virtue-signaling to the 'in group' is killing us all." Yep. Faster and faster.
Another way of putting this is that we are experiencing an epidemic of narcissism.
True. I can sort of stand a narcissist, if they live in the world of reality and act on behalf of the good of the Nation. (Trump comes to mind) Some narcissists are living in an echo-chamber globalist fantasy world. (Gates, Soros, Obama, and Biden come to mind) The "Fundamental Transformation" continues apace...
Yeah, some narcissism is unavoidable and even useful. That type is basically self-confidence, faith in self. Pathological narcissists, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, are an entirely different animal. They absolutely can not and will not look at reality. That feels like death to them. Their false self-image is everything and can not and will not tolerate being challenged, and Everything is about that fictional self-image, to them. One that is not at all in alignment with reality. These are the types that blow a gasket or attack you when legitimately proven wrong.
Having lived in and experienced China day-to-day for 20+ years, I can conjure up no regime LESS deserving of admiration and inspiration than the CCP. When I first heard that comment from JT, I was gobsmacked. A man who never set a foot on Chinese soil outside his 5-star hotel, a man who had zero understanding of how the CCP rose to power and then brutalized a billion+ people for decades to maintain it, this caricature of a surfer dude to whom Canadians were somehow stupid enough to hand the reigns of power ... he was giving us a very clear signal of where he intended to lead Canada and according to whose blueprint. And I was supposed to trust him? I see ...
His father was a communist at heart. They were close to Castro. It's in the family.
I thought his daddy was Castro.
He sure acts like he was.
The critical point about censorship, including self-censorship, be it justified by "hate speech" or "mis/disinformation", is WHO DECIDES what is or isn't that?
Are there actually benevolent angels who will use this ultimate absolute power purely in the name of Truth and Justice?
No, which is why freedom of speech is so critical, both to have and to stamp out, depending on your goals.
When truth can be dictated from the top, everything else can be and will be too.
This ends in collapse.
It has to.
Yes. And soon.
Haidt is a decent guy, but he too often falls prey to his own ideological biases; He's a center-left liberal—and his commitment to his ideology will always trump his commitment to truth. Case in point: he claimed that the increase in urban crime decades ago was caused by/associated with leaded gasoline.
😶😑🙄
Justin Trudeau deserves a chapter to himself. The things he has said these past seven years should keep any talented psychologist or psychiatrist busy. One example is when he was (credibly) accused of sexually harassing a journalist (there's also so murky behaviour that took place while he was a teacher in B.C.). Rather than take fully responsibility he spun the story as if it was something WE ALL can learn from trying to confuse and conflate his personal actions with those of the collective. The vast majority of men NEVER harass women but Justin was dragging good men in the mud because he's a low character individual. That's just ONE example.
I am a new reader but am enjoying your substack very much. I enjoy Jonathan Haidt's writing - but agree with your assessment that he (Jonathan) thinks the Academy holds the solution to societies problems, when the Academy created most of these problems in the first place. Any problems they didn't create they have made much worse by serving as self appointed gatekeepers.
Thanks for your writing. I am looking forward to reading more.
We did have more unity before 1980, for two reasons. (1) The draft gave most men a similar training experience, which was specifically designed to encourage teamwork. (2) Most men had real jobs that didn't require higher education. Real jobs also encourage teamwork.
Both involved working together toward a shared goal. Focusing on real accomplishment takes precedence over distinctions like race and religion and politics.
Now we have a volunteer army that attracts only super-warriors, and we have much less real accomplishment. Tribal focus comes to the surface when it isn't submerged by real goals.
The government agency I work for has said they will follow the CDC on Covid Policy. The CDC has not mandated boosters, the official definition of fully vaccinated is two shots. But now if we get Covid, we only get Covid pay if we are boosted. If a co-worker gets Covid and we are sent home for five days because we are "at risk", we only get Covid pay if we are boosted. In any case not boosted we have to take our sick time, or not get paid.
Meanwhile they are spending $200,000 to replace a 50sq yd concrete pad that is in perfect condition, $175,000 to replace an asphalt shingle roof that is no more complicated than a typical McMansion, and $500,000 to turn one tennis court into a pollinator planting and placing a wooden bike obstacle course on the other. Meanwhile of 2 stairs into a popular gorge where on weekends literally thousands of people go to see a waterfall and walk a creek, one is in a state of collapse and closed permanently, while the other is crumbling so as to turn into a slide.
And of course being lowly maintenance, if I were to utter a single word of complaint about any of this to administration, that would be the end of my employment, when I would literally have to assault someone to get fired otherwise.
There is an interesting chart in this post called: "Social Media Probably Accelerated Victimhood Culture". It would seem that mental illness is catching. Propaganda works.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/04/the-geek-in-pictures-defund-edition.php
I am thinking that the underlying problem is that the "American governing class" has sold us out to China for pennies on the dollar. I do admit, however, that I may have been unduly influenced by something I found among the published decadence of Hunter's laptop.
One of those video files unexpectedly began with a short clip of a man (who I took to be of Chinese descent) speaking at a meeting in DC. This man, speaking earnestly and passionately, was delivering a warning to Americans that China was executing a decades-long, three-pronged plan to completely undermine the United States from within. I have forgotten the other two prongs but do remember that gaining control of the media was one of them. Hmmh, I thought, one prong is already complete. That video was cut short, however, and went without preamble directly into a naked Hunter speaking patronizing words of encouragement to some unseen someone, evidently a very young person, who was doing something between his legs by candlelight. "You are doing great," he said, "As good as a pro." At that point, I shut it off in disgust.
I did not watch, but the title caught me. Seems apt to the discussion:
The Social Contagion of Mental Disorders Through Social Media Platforms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWNPFydBOKg
I think you are misreading Haidt somewhat. 1) you seem overly fixated on the reference to the Edelman Trust Barometer survey. He didn't cite it because he is longing for autocracy, as may be the case for Justin Trudeau. Rather, the simple point I think he was trying to make is that for liberal democracy to work, there must be some level of trust that the people have in the institutions that have a responsibility to "lead" and "act on their behalf." And that level of trust has been eroded, for many reasons, including the factionalism and tribalism that results from the current structure of social media. He's not blaming the people, he's just saying this is his assessment of one of the key factors that has led to the erosion of trust. Sure, there are many others - such as prominent public health officials telling "noble lies" in order to try to achieve a desired behavior by the public. 2) you are misinterpreting his comment about professors self-censoring. Haidt has been very vocal, going back to at least when The Righteous Mind came out, about how the leftward shift in faculty viewpoint on college campuses has been very dangerous as it creates the echo chamber of thought. He's not talking about/supporting progressive liberal professors who know the truth but dare not speak it because the rabble (i.e. students) will abuse them. He's talking more about professors (the few that may still exist on college campuses) who don't hold the same views as the vast majority of the progressive liberal faculty or social justice warrior students, who self censor so that they don't find themselves facing the same fate as Erika Christakis.
If you revised your understanding of those two points to what I think is more accurate, and I'm not sure there is anything in the essay that would clearly indicate that I am wrong, how does that change your assessment?
This is a fair point, and it's why I started yesterday....
https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/a-past-that-never-was
....by saying that I respect Haidt and appreciate his contribution. My first response to what you've said here is that I think to claim a misreading, you have to show up to the discussion with knowledge of Haidt's whole body of work ("....going back to at least when The Righteous Mind came out,"). I think this new essay is uncharacteristic for him, and omits some things that we know in part because Jonathan Haidt told us about them. If you read this essay in isolation, as some readers will, it looks to me like a misstep.
What's your second response ;-)
I understand your point re "if you read this essay in isolation" and I get that. Of course, I came into it with more context, so I interpreted some of his points through that lens. It's an incredibly long, dense piece as it is - maybe he could have done a better job framing/explaining to avoid misinterpretation by someone unfamiliar with his past work. I just felt your criticism was unnecessarily harsh and could have been a bit more balanced by saying "given what I know about his past works maybe this is what he is meaning to say, but he shouldn't make me guess" as opposed to just crapping on the whole thing.
Interesting you mention that. This article was my first read of Jonathan Haidt (in isolation) and while I thought it was well written and had interesting ideas and perspectives; it irked me as I interpreted the article as Chris Bray did. So it's good to know that he is worth reading and perhaps his ideas were not fully or well expressed in this particular article.
Thanks!
Sorry - I missed this comment (was traveling for a funeral last week). I think it would definitely be time well spent to read some of Haidt's work. He is a lifelong academic and so probably naturally "left leaning." But I also believe he is more of what I would call a "traditional liberal" as opposed to the "progressive liberals" that have taken over the academy in the last 25 to 30 years. I think The Righteous Mind is probably the best place to start and then The Coddling of the American Mind after that. In The Righteous Mind, he explores how liberals and conservatives assess/make decisions, and I think he ultimately concludes that conservatives take a broader view/include more factors in that process. There are also a lot of good talks that he has given on YouTube. Good luck!
Thanks! I had heard of those titles and will now give them a read. I think having both Traditional Liberal and True Blue Conservative perspectives/voices are essential for a democracy to function.
"True Blue" or "True Red" ;-) ? Yes, I agree. And Haidt (I feel like I'm promoting him but I'm really note - but he outta give me a commission!) is really big on viewpoint diversity and the need for a broader range of voices in the conversation. He talks about how lack of diversity in the faculty of colleges and universities is a terrible thing in the long run, for the culture and for democracy. He founded Heterodox Academy as an attempt to push back against the tide and encourage more viewpoint diversity. https://heterodoxacademy.org/our-mission/
ugh... unbelievable, curiosity is prohibited.
Right! People are all about self-promotion. Anyone on social media is there for affirmation and attention. And there’s nothing like the illusion of affirmation when your favorite Hollywood morons and such confirm your misperceptions.