The Coddling of the American Mind

[Cerebus]

The Coddling of the American Mind

In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.

---

Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education describing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her. In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said. A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.

---

 Republicans and Democrats have never particularly liked each other, but survey data going back to the 1970s show that on average, their mutual dislike used to be surprisingly mild. Negative feelings have grown steadily stronger, however, particularly since the early 2000s. Political scientists call this process “affective partisan polarization,” and it is a very serious problem for any democracy. As each side increasingly demonizes the other, compromise becomes more difficult. A recent study shows that implicit or unconscious biases are now at least as strong across political parties as they are across races.

So it’s not hard to imagine why students arriving on campus today might be more desirous of protection and more hostile toward ideological opponents than in generations past. This hostility, and the self-righteousness fueled by strong partisan emotions, can be expected to add force to any moral crusade. A principle of moral psychology is that “morality binds and blinds.” Part of what we do when we make moral judgments is express allegiance to a team. But that can interfere with our ability to think critically. Acknowledging that the other side’s viewpoint has any merit is risky—your teammates may see you as a traitor.

---

For millennia, philosophers have understood that we don’t see life as it is; we see a version distorted by our hopes, fears, and other attachments. The Buddha said, “Our life is the creation of our mind.” Marcus Aurelius said, “Life itself is but what you deem it.” The quest for wisdom in many traditions begins with this insight. Early Buddhists and the Stoics, for example, developed practices for reducing attachments, thinking more clearly, and finding release from the emotional torments of normal mental life.

Cognitive behavioral therapy is a modern embodiment of this ancient wisdom. It is the most extensively studied nonpharmaceutical treatment of mental illness, and is used widely to treat depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and addiction. It can even be of help to schizophrenics. No other form of psychotherapy has been shown to work for a broader range of problems. Studies have generally found that it is as effective as antidepressant drugs (such as Prozac) in the treatment of anxiety and depression. The therapy is relatively quick and easy to learn; after a few months of training, many patients can do it on their own. Unlike drugs, cognitive behavioral therapy keeps working long after treatment is stopped, because it teaches thinking skills that people can continue to use.

The goal is to minimize distorted thinking and see the world more accurately. You start by learning the names of the dozen or so most common cognitive distortions (such as overgeneralizing, discounting positives, and emotional reasoning; see the list at the bottom of this article). Each time you notice yourself falling prey to one of them, you name it, describe the facts of the situation, consider alternative interpretations, and then choose an interpretation of events more in line with those facts. Your emotions follow your new interpretation. In time, this process becomes automatic. When people improve their mental hygiene in this way—when they free themselves from the repetitive irrational thoughts that had previously filled so much of their consciousness—they become less depressed, anxious, and angry.

The parallel to formal education is clear: cognitive behavioral therapy teaches good critical-thinking skills, the sort that educators have striven for so long to impart. By almost any definition, critical thinking requires grounding one’s beliefs in evidence rather than in emotion or desire, and learning how to search for and evaluate evidence that might contradict one’s initial hypothesis. But does campus life today foster critical thinking? Or does it coax students to think in more-distorted ways?

First, the article is pretty lengthy but I think is a great read, and you probably need to read it in order to add to the discussion. 

Second, before this turns into a "kids today" sort of discussion:  I am highly troubled to see this sort of avoidance behavior among my peers of all ages.   Suddenly all of my liberal friends only have liberal friends and refuse to even speak with conservatives, or even entertain conservative thoughts.  The same things goes for conservative friends in regard to liberals.    The mere fact that someone is on the opposite end of the spectrum means they are stupid and not worth your time.

People: STOP LIVING IN ECHO CHAMBERS.   It is lazy and intellectually dishonest.  Look at your facebook list, is is mostly people who think exactly like you?  How about the the people you go to lunch with or spend time on the weekends?  When you do argue with someone on the other side, are you discussing the points of the argument, or the merely painting them wrong because the idea is liberal  or conservative.

Put up with a little discomfort, challenge yourself, a little self examination never hurt killed anyone.  If you are surrounded by a peer group that would threaten to disown you for even considering the other side, they are part of the problem.  

In the end it will make you a happier person, like the article says:

One of the great truths taught by Buddhism (and Stoicism, Hinduism, and many other traditions) is that you can never achieve happiness by making the world conform to your desires. But you can master your desires and habits of thought. 

[LongJim]

That's a great article, and I read something similar (might have been this one) a few weeks ago.  One of the things I think it illustrates--and I'm sure I'm boiling this down WAY too much--is that society today doesn't teach us to take care of our own discomforts, or even work through them ourselves with a little help from our friends.  We're taught that discomfort--whether caused by different ideas or different ideologies--is no longer part of what we used to call "life", and in many ways, made us what we are and stronger, and healthier.  No, no matter.  Discomfort or things that we don't agree with are ABNORMAL.  Those things are dangerous, or stupid, or require immediate destruction.

The idea is that we are offended, indignant, and *shouldn't have to be bothered* with it. 

What we're encouraged to do now when we experience discomfort is to sue someone, or blame someone for that discomfort--even if it's self-inflicted and even if we understood that we MIGHT experience discomfort from the situation beforehand--and if that doesn't work, smear the source of our discomfort publicly and savagely, hopefully in such a manner that the source is destroyed or at least incapacitated.

It's pitiful, but it's all part of the "Me-first, right now, FU" mindset.  Instant on, instant gratification.  100mbps down, b!tch.  All the time.  No time for losers, only time for me.

Edited August 11, 2015 by LongJim

[UNT90]

Upside down America. This will continue until a breaking point is reach. I seriously fear what will occur at that point.

[HoustonEagle]

Call me crazy but I think many of you have a weak grasp on history.  We have gone through times of ultra-polarization before. College students have always been out spoken and confrontational. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. The difference is your vantage point.

The 24/7 media has us sensitive to world problems on the micro level but that is not a bad thing it is a good thing.  We get up in arms about all sorts of issues now that have always been there but were hard to shine a light on. Racism, high minority crime rates, wage inequality, sexism, police brutality, gun violence and on and on. The world has not changed as much as we all now have a front row seat to human dysfunction. The internet and 24/7 media has turned the room lights on and we don't like what we see.  Yet maybe we should.  By most metrics life is as good now as it has ever been. Crime rates are low. Racism,believe it or not, is less. Wage inequality has shrunk. Are you homosexual? Most people don't care. Poverty is less now than the "good ole days".

It's tough when you shine a bright light into the deepest crevices of our society. You will not like what you see but let's not pretend it was never there. This modern life where nothing is left in the shadows takes some getting used to but we are better now than ever before. 

Edited August 12, 2015 by HoustonEagle

[GreenMachine]

What happens when these people enter the real world where they aren't catered?  Maybe I am a grumpy ole sh*t but I find it hard to believe people get upset over such trivial things. I believe people have been programmed to think every little thing gets them butt hurt but in reality, they probably wouldn't give it a second thought. Grow a pair of nads and toughen up a bit. 

[Censored by Laurie]

Call me crazy but I think many of you have a weak grasp on history.  We have gone through times of ultra-polarization before. College students have always been out spoken and confrontational. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. The difference is your vantage point.

The 24/7 media has us sensitive to world problems on the micro level but that is not a bad thing it is a good thing.  We get up in arms about all sorts of issues now that have always been there but were hard to shine a light on. Racism, high minority crime rates, wage inequality, sexism, police brutality, gun violence and on and on. The world has not changed as much as we all now have a front row seat to human dysfunction. The internet and 24/7 media has turned the room lights on and we don't like what we see.  Yet maybe we should.  By most metrics life is as good now as it has ever been. Crime rates are low. Racism,believe it or not, is less. Wage inequality has shrunk. Are you homosexual? Most people don't care. Poverty is less now than the "good ole days".

It's tough when you shine a bright light into the deepest crevices of our society. You will not like what you see but let's not pretend it was never there. This modern life where nothing is left in the shadows takes some getting used to but we are better now than ever before. 

I think this is a very well-thought out answer and I agree in large part...if a person is offended, even by what may seem an innocuous, off-hand comment, then they should feel perfectly safe and comfortable in expressing their thoughts and feelings. that expression should lead to more frank, honest and open dialogue. the problem for me arises when that expression serves as the conversation ender and that ending seems to be institutionally affirmed, as the article implies.  

I disagree with the article's assertion that this is direct response to more protective parenting or schooling...I certainly do feel society has over-corrected and I like that there does seem to be "movement" back toward more free-range parenting (though to site examples like zero-tolerance of bullying, the removal of dangerous play-ground equipment and not potentially poisoning students in the cafeteria, the author certainly fails to recognize what he's implying in the inverse...that being pushed around, breaking your arm after a fall on the merry-go-round and breaking out in hives at lunch made tougher, better people. that's lunacy).

I think this is borne purely out of an over-correction to our overly-litigious society. an institution would rather simply pander to the complainer rather than risk a potential lawsuit. this response is harmful on two levels, as it ends the conversation without proper dialogue and it marginalizes future, more legitimate complaints. 

in the end though, I'm continually driven back to a line from very early in the article the the author seemingly presents as the dark cloud: " It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up" 

 

when really that ought be the silver-lining. 

 

Upside down America. 

actually, it's far more likely that it's just upside-down UNT90.

you continually assert that when America doesn't fit into the template that you ascribe it, that the problem is with America...not you...though I assume it is considerably easier to simply lay responsibility on society, rather than doing some self-assessment and introspective thought. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

I think this is a very well-thought out answer and I agree in large part...if a person is offended, even by what may seem an innocuous, off-hand comment, then they should feel perfectly safe and comfortable in expressing their thoughts and feelings. that expression should lead to more frank, honest and open dialogue. the problem for me arises when that expression serves as the conversation ender and that ending seems to be institutionally affirmed, as the article implies.  
I disagree with the article's assertion that this is direct response to more protective parenting or schooling...I certainly do feel society has over-corrected and I like that there does seem to be "movement" back toward more free-range parenting (though to site examples like zero-tolerance of bullying, the removal of dangerous play-ground equipment and not potentially poisoning students in the cafeteria, the author certainly fails to recognize what he's implying in the inverse...that being pushed around, breaking your arm after a fall on the merry-go-round and breaking out in hives at lunch made tougher, better people. that's lunacy).

I think this is borne purely out of an over-correction to our overly-litigious society. an institution would rather simply pander to the complainer rather than risk a potential lawsuit. this response is harmful on two levels, as it ends the conversation without proper dialogue and it marginalizes future, more legitimate complaints. 

in the end though, I'm continually driven back to a line from very early in the article the the author seemingly presents as the dark cloud: " It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up" 

when really that ought be the silver-lining. 

... 

This is certainly a big part of it.  To introduce the other side of those arguments you disagreed with above though:  When a dude spills a cup of coffee in his lap, sues McDonalds because it was hot, and WINS, you know our society is ridiculously over-litigious.

[Coffee and TV]

This is certainly a big part of it.  To introduce the other side of those arguments you disagreed with above though:  When a dude spills a cup of coffee in his lap, sues McDonalds because it was hot, and WINS, you know our society is ridiculously over-litigious.

People love to bring up that lawsuit as an example of being over litigious, but in reality it was actually a completely fair lawsuit. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

 

[MeanGreenTexan]

People love to bring up that lawsuit as an example of being over litigious, but in reality it was actually a completely fair lawsuit. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

 

You know, I've never read that article before, but I hope there is even more to the story if you're going to say it was fair.  

Coffee is hot.  I'm betting this lady had coffee before (being 79 years old).  She knew it was going to be hot.  When, by her own volition, she spills on herself, I don't understand why McDonalds can be held liable.  People need to take more ownership of their own faults.  Now, if the McDonalds employee threw the coffee at the woman, that's different.

Seems the whole argument was around the temperature of the coffee... even though the temp of the coffee was within industry standards.  

If I accidentally trip & my face lands on my Jen-air stove while it's on high, and I find that my stove's high temperature is higher than Maytag's high temp, can I sue Jen-air?   Probably.  Should I?  No.

Freak accidents happen.  It's sad, but that doesn't mean it has to be anyone else's fault.

That's just, like, my opinion, man.

[UNT90]

I think this is a very well-thought out answer and I agree in large part...if a person is offended, even by what may seem an innocuous, off-hand comment, then they should feel perfectly safe and comfortable in expressing their thoughts and feelings. that expression should lead to more frank, honest and open dialogue. the problem for me arises when that expression serves as the conversation ender and that ending seems to be institutionally affirmed, as the article implies.  
I disagree with the article's assertion that this is direct response to more protective parenting or schooling...I certainly do feel society has over-corrected and I like that there does seem to be "movement" back toward more free-range parenting (though to site examples like zero-tolerance of bullying, the removal of dangerous play-ground equipment and not potentially poisoning students in the cafeteria, the author certainly fails to recognize what he's implying in the inverse...that being pushed around, breaking your arm after a fall on the merry-go-round and breaking out in hives at lunch made tougher, better people. that's lunacy).

I think this is borne purely out of an over-correction to our overly-litigious society. an institution would rather simply pander to the complainer rather than risk a potential lawsuit. this response is harmful on two levels, as it ends the conversation without proper dialogue and it marginalizes future, more legitimate complaints. 

in the end though, I'm continually driven back to a line from very early in the article the the author seemingly presents as the dark cloud: " It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up" 

 

when really that ought be the silver-lining. 

 

actually, it's far more likely that it's just upside-down UNT90.
you continually assert that when America doesn't fit into the template that you ascribe it, that the problem is with America...not you...though I assume it is considerably easier to simply lay responsibility on society, rather than doing some self-assessment and introspective thought. 

This from you? Lol.

[oldguystudent]

You know, I've never read that article before, but I hope there is even more to the story if you're going to say it was fair.  

Coffee is hot.  I'm betting this lady had coffee before (being 79 years old).  She knew it was going to be hot.  When, by her own volition, she spills on herself, I don't understand why McDonalds can be held liable.  People need to take more ownership of their own faults.  Now, if the McDonalds employee threw the coffee at the woman, that's different.

Seems the whole argument was around the temperature of the coffee... even though the temp of the coffee was within industry standards.  

If I accidentally trip & my face lands on my Jen-air stove while it's on high, and I find that my stove's high temperature is higher than Maytag's high temp, can I sue Jen-air?   Probably.  Should I?  No.

Freak accidents happen.  It's sad, but that doesn't mean it has to be anyone else's fault.

That's just, like, my opinion, man.

Couple of things.  First, don't google pictures of the injury if you value keeping your lunch down.

McDonald's had been brewing coffee at the higher temperature for years because it extracted more flavor from fewer beans, thus keeping costs down -- to the tune of $1.8 million a day if I recall.

The temperature that they brewed at was known to cause considerably more severe burns than the temperature competitors brewed at.  In fact, McDonald's had received hundreds of complaints of burns from customers, and ignored them all.

The plaintiff in this case merely wanted medical bills covered.  McDonald's refused.

When it went to court, the McDonald's legal staff presented this as a case of a fumbling old woman, and really, wink wink nudge nudge, who cares about a dusty worn out coot anyhow?

The jury did not find humor in this argument and awarded the plaintiff an amount that was intended to equal "a couple days corporate savings from brewing at the higher temperature."

So what this really boiled down to (pun intended, I'm a dad. what!?!?) is that the jury imposed what equated to a class action lawsuit, but awarded the judgment to one woman.

Please note, that the jury didn't assign 100% negligence to McDonald's, but taking into account that they had received and ignored hundreds of complaints, finding them negligent in the realm of tort is completely reasonable.

And once again, I cannot stress this enough.  If you value keeping your lunch in your stomach where it belongs, do not google pictures of the injury.  You see your wife come home with something like that and tell me you're not going to seek some kind of recompense. 

[Censored by Laurie]

This from you? Lol.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Couple of things.  First, don't google pictures of the injury if you value keeping your lunch down.

McDonald's had been brewing coffee at the higher temperature for years because it extracted more flavor from fewer beans, thus keeping costs down -- to the tune of $1.8 million a day if I recall.

The temperature that they brewed at was known to cause considerably more severe burns than the temperature competitors brewed at.  In fact, McDonald's had received hundreds of complaints of burns from customers, and ignored them all.

The plaintiff in this case merely wanted medical bills covered.  McDonald's refused.

When it went to court, the McDonald's legal staff presented this as a case of a fumbling old woman, and really, wink wink nudge nudge, who cares about a dusty worn out coot anyhow?

The jury did not find humor in this argument and awarded the plaintiff an amount that was intended to equal "a couple days corporate savings from brewing at the higher temperature."

So what this really boiled down to (pun intended, I'm a dad. what!?!?) is that the jury imposed what equated to a class action lawsuit, but awarded the judgment to one woman.

Please note, that the jury didn't assign 100% negligence to McDonald's, but taking into account that they had received and ignored hundreds of complaints, finding them negligent in the realm of tort is completely reasonable.

And once again, I cannot stress this enough.  If you value keeping your lunch in your stomach where it belongs, do not google pictures of the injury.  You see your wife come home with something like that and tell me you're not going to seek some kind of recompense. 

I'll take your advice on not googling pictures.   I googled a picture of my scenario though and found this:

The "class-action" comparison makes a little more sense.  If McDonalds were to have been made to provide info on those additional complaints and pay out equally, then there's maybe some good to this.  Instead, awarding all of it to one 79-year-old woman reeks of a vindictive ruling by the jury because McDonalds brewed at higher temps, but still within industry standards to make money.  

It sucks that it happened to her (and anyone else), but coffee is hot (temps obviously vary, but either way, it's hot).  If you spill on yourself, isn't it your fault?

[oldguystudent]

 

It sucks that it happened to her (and anyone else), but coffee is hot (temps obviously vary, but either way, it's hot).  If you spill on yourself, isn't it your fault?

Did you see the part about how McDonald's wasn't found 100% negligent?  They assigned 20% of the blame on the woman.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Did you see the part about how McDonald's wasn't found 100% negligent?  They assigned 20% of the blame on the woman.

I personally would swap that... but eh, (hot) water under the bridge.
 

Sorry to hijack your insightful thread Cerebus.  I agree, especially around politics.  You're either with "us" or against "us", appears to be the American political motto now.

[UNTFan23]

People love to bring up that lawsuit as an example of being over litigious, but in reality it was actually a completely fair lawsuit. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

 

Thank goodness the lawsuit alleging fast food restaurants (and their food) were at fault for making people fat failed to get its day in court.

[FirefightnRick]

Interesting article.  But I think the coddling starts way before college.  It starts in the home. 

 

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

....don't google pictures of the injury if you value keeping your lunch down....

And once again, I cannot stress this enough.  If you value keeping your lunch in your stomach where it belongs, do not google pictures of the injury. 

This made me chuckle.

 

 

Rick

[UNT Five&Dime]

Mods, the discussion in this thread causes me discomfort. Can you please remove?

[oldguystudent]

Mods, the discussion in this thread causes me discomfort. Can you please remove?

You of all people should have no concern with this as you can simply hide in your turtle shell when you find things offensive.

[Censored by Laurie]

You of all people should have no concern with this as you can simply hide in your turtle shell when you find things offensive.

Kermit the...turtle?

[oldguystudent]

Kermit the...turtle?

I errantly called him a frog once.  He correct me.  It's a turtle.

[Censored by Laurie]

I errantly called him a frog once.  He correct me.  It's a turtle.

oh, the micro-aggressions committed against amphibious puppets 

[UNT90]

no reason to debate you.  All you do is insult, which is what you just did.

 

It's actually funny at this point, as that is all you libs know how to do. Make it personal and imply or just flat out say the person that disagrees with your regressive "progressive" BS is stupid.

 

Its your playbook. Attempting to say it in an educated way doesn't change what you are saying, and actually reflects on your own intelligence.

 

But, thanks for providing a great example of what this article attempts to address. 

Edited August 13, 2015 by UNT90

[MeanGreenTexan]

no reason to debate you.  All you do is insult, which is what you just did.

 

It's actually funny at this point, as that is all you libs know how to do. Make it personal and imply or just flat out say the person that disagrees with your regressive "progressive" BS is stupid.

 

Its your playbook. Attempting to say it in an educated way doesn't change what you are saying, and actually reflects on your own intelligence.

 

But, thanks for providing a great example of what this article attempts to address. 

The blackest-of-black-pots-enveloped-in-a-black-hole calling the kettle black?