Reddit reviews The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure
We found 36 Reddit comments about The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Bra tekst, men det er flere faktorer her, og dette er ikke særnorsk; vi er uten tvil del av en vestlig trend. F.eks. så snudde nedgangen i selvmordsrate i USA rundt år 2000 og har steget hvert år etter det. Selvmord blant unge jenter har virkelig økt de siste årene, og de starter nesten å ta igjen guttene.
Jonathan Haidt har skrevet en veldig interessant bok[1] om disse trendene.
Faktorene som nevnes er bl.a. endring i barneoppdragelse til mer overbeskyttende foreldre, mindre uorganisert lek uten oppsyn, og sist, men ikke minst, fremveksten av sosiale medier.
Resultatet blir at en stor gruppe ungdommer ikke har lært seg å takle motgang, ikke har lært seg konflikthåndtering, og i tillegg er psykologisk nedbrutt av å ha levd de formative årene på sosiale medier.
Hjelper vel heller ikke at disse ungdommene vokser opp i en Verden som blir mer ustabil og segmentert, og hvor effekten av klimaendringene begynner å bli synlige.
Det hjelper vel heller ikke at de vokser opp i et sekulært og nihilistisk samfunn med enormt fokus på individualisme/hedonisme. De får ingen hjelp fra religion eller ideologi, de må selv finne en mening i en kaotisk Verden.
Vanligvis skal vel vi gamlinger se ned på nyere generasjoner og skryte over hvor hardt vi hadde det, men slik situasjonen er nå ser det ut som GenZ kommer til å ha mye hardere liv enn oss. Iallfall vi som er millenials som akkurat slapp unna SoMe i ungdomstiden.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897
You should check out this book The Coddling of the American Mind. It talks about just this! There's basically three untruths that people are clinging to: (1) what doesn't kill you makes you weaker, (2) always trust your feelings, and (3) life is a battle between good and bad people. There's this mentality that everyone is so inherently fragile that we must be protected all the time. Couple this with the fact that people conflate their feelings with reality. This is the exact opposite of what cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) teaches people who are recovering from anxiety disorders. Just because you think something is scary/wrong, doesn't mean it actually is.
I agree that just a u-turn back to the Hard Knocks method probably isn't right, but we need to teach people that it's OK to feel uncomfortable and anxious sometimes. It isn't always reality and it's rarely the end of the world.
My kid just started at Montessori pre-school last month. We had all of the same concerns and observations. I can add a few things, all anecdotal...
​
TL;DR: lots of qualitative data; no quantitative data; long-read
​
Part 1: My oldest
​
First, I have a college aged kid and a toddler (life is crazy). When the 20yr old was pre-k aged, I was essentially broke and sent her to a pretty normal, school-based, pre-k. The pre-k was in the basement of a Montessori school and was probably influenced by it, but was definitely not Montessori. From there she went on to a parochial Kindergarten and then to suburban public school for the rest of her pre-college career. She now is a 3.6-ish GPA junior at U of I, so academically, she did fine (not outstanding, but good enough).
​
The issue, however, in my opinion, was all of the non-academic stuff: low self-esteem, a seeming lack of stake in the outcomes, an inability to make life choices or long-term plans, lack of functional skills (i.e. knowledge of banking and credit, time management) and a general fragility a la Haidt. I was not pushing college on her, but it ultimately seemed like the right call, partly because there was no other plan, but largely because she needed to get out from under her parents and take some responsibility for her future. So far it seems that this has been effective in that she has really started blossoming into a person who has interests and takes initiative and hasn't had an issue with her academics.
​
The difficult thing to suss out is if any of her success or failure modes had anything to do with pre-k. Maybe? A little bit? Most of the difficulty in her teenage years might be due to a healthy dose of normal juvenile issues coupled with a major personal disruption during her high-school years with her mother's living situation. She definitely seemed to regress somewhere around 14 or 15 and I'm happy that she's getting back on-line, so to speak.
​
Part 2: My Youngest
That said, my plan for the current kid is a bit reactionary, but largely influenced by my personal circumstances. First, I'm in almost the opposite financial situation and able to absorb both college and pre-k costs, which, 20 years later seem to have sky-rocketed across the board. All formal options (excluding home day-care/pre-k) in my area seem to be in the range of $1-1500/mo. There are probably more affordable options but I haven't researched them. The Montessori was less expensive than the day-care she had been in from 9 months to 2.5 years.
​
Second, I have a lot more experience with kids and raising them this time around (in addition to child rearing, I've also been a teacher and a youth worker--I like kids and generally prefer them to adults). I'm able to envision the whole school career in a way I couldn't before, therefore it's easier for me to see where the mile-markers are. Also, my wife, child and I have a pretty good, high trust relationship going on. Everyone has a stake in the family functioning and there's little fussing, disobedience, or histrionics; it's really mostly pleasant and fun. I think this has a lot to do with us being older parents who are able to easily align ourselves with the child. To contrast, when my other daughter was little, I was 25 and in a rock band...I had goals and desires that weren't always aligned with hers. My guess is this will have a far bigger impact on my youngest daughter's outcomes than pre-school or even elementary school. Stable home life is no joke!
​
While, it will be another five years before I have a reasonable gauge of how it went, it seems ok right now, but not amazing. The teacher we were going to have left the school suddenly just prior to us starting and the school's founder and administrator is running the classroom. For some reason my kid has a beef with her and it's a bit of an issue. (It's also an opportunity where I get to teach my toddler that one of the most valuable skills we can learn in life is how to get along with people we dislike). We're going to stick it out and see what happens next, but if my kid still seems to hate it a few months from now, we're going to try something else.
​
Part 3: What Other People Have Told Me
​
I've heard plenty of good stories about Montessori, I've also heard that it doesn't work for all kids and the school will tell you if they think your kid needs the structure a more formal school provides. That said, I have two other direct examples of Montessori education.
​
The first is my coworker who attended Montessori as a kid in the 90's. His trajectory was Montessori pre-k, public school k-12, State University with Masters in CS to a cushy programming gig in the financial sector. He was also an Eagle scout, plays a musical instrument, is an avid gamer and, IMO, a very thoughtful, if soft spoken fellow. He seems to be popular in his group of friends and possibly even the Alpha of his pack (just an observation from going to a few of his parties--he's no 'Alpha' in the strict sense).
He said that he doesn't remember much about it but that it was fun and easy. He thinks his parents had more to do with his upbringing as they were very focused on him hitting certain age appropriate goals (ex. Eagle scouts). My take-away is that there's no telling if it had any benefit.
​
A second, ex-coworker has his daughter in Montessori at either Kindergarten or 1st grade level and they intend to continue with her at least through elementary. They are avid fans and the mom is very active with the school. Their daughter loves school so much she now takes supplemental classes--on the weekend-- at Northwestern University. In their area, there are Montessori High Schools, so it's possible for their kid to stay in Montessori all the way through to college if they so choose.
​
The anecdotes they told us were that once some sort of Montessori inflection point is reached, if the kids are put back into public school, they are so far ahead of their peers in terms of discipline and precociousness that school becomes a boring mess where they are surrounded by buffoons. I have no idea how true this is, but I can imagine that if Montessori were successful this would be the expected result.
​
Part 4: Conclusion
​
To sum up my feelings about all of this, I'd say that let your wallet be your guide. In terms of pre-K, I sincerely doubt that Montessori will forever impact your child in such a way that you'd regret not sending them. Other pre-k programs seem to be just fine at acculturating children for school and the long-term academic and personal benefits seem modest at best; I'd rank things like diet, rest, exercise and family cohesion as higher.
​
That said, if your plan was to keep the child going through some sort of alternate education system (i.e. alternate to U.S. public schooling) then you might see some real gains starting around elementary school and possibly rolling off around middle school. These benefits would be mostly in terms of personal development, which should prepare them for more rigorous academic study in a field of their choosing.
​
There seems to be little downside to Montessori, but the upside is hard to gauge at the pre-k level. If placing you child in Montessori causes familial strife, ex. long commutes, financial burden, then I doubt the cost outweighs the benefit. It's also important to understand that Montessori has fairly high expectations of the parents and your buy-in is important as well.
​
Let this little rant be the first entry in my diary of a Montessori educated child circa 2020 and I can follow up with observations in a few years after I've accrued some more experience and data.
​
They sit directly in front of us (we go middle/aisle with them in middle aisle in front of us). Because youngest is "6 and under", we get family boarding still.
In terms of "Chester", I don't fear that at all. Are some people weird? Sure. But the odds of "Chester" having the seat next to my kids is so infinitesimally small it's not something I concern myself with.
The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathan Haidt (the same guy who wrote The Righteous Mind) is a must read for parents. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Here is their Atlantic Article that was the primer for the book; but the book is significantly better and addresses over-coddling/overprotection of kids much more in depth than this article (which focuses primarily on the academics).
The Perilous State of the University: Jonathan Haidt/Jordan B Peterson
>I recently traveled to New York University to talk with Dr. Jonathan Haidt about, among other things, disgust, purity, fear and belief; the perilous state of the modern university; and his work with Heterodox Academy (https://heterodoxacademy.org/) an organization designed to draw attention to the lack of diversity of political belief in the humanities and the social sciences. Dr. Haid is Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business and a social psychologist. He studies the psychology of morality and the moral emotions. He has been described as a top global thinker by both Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines. Dr. Haidt is the author of three books: The newest is The Coddling of the American Mind: How Bad Ideas and Good Intentions are Setting up a Generation for Failure (http://amzn.to/2AN87a6). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (http://amzn.to/2yOOQnU) The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (http://amzn.to/2hJ0TzT) His writings on diversity viewpoint for the Heterodox Academy are at (http://righteousmind.com/viewpoint-di...)
>Triggered - I am fine, I just want to bully you with fake distress.
This is an interesting one. It seems like some younger students in universities are experiencing genuine mental illness because they've been told, from a young age, that they live in a hateful and dangerous world where words can be dangerous, where offence is given and not taken, and where emotions are fragile and even minor slights or "microaggressions" can be fundamentally debilitating. Certainly there are bad actors who abuse this discourse -- the majority, probably -- but there also seem to be genuine cases of people whose mental health is being harmed by the diffusion of these new beliefs.
Jon Haidt and Greg Lukianoff (CEO of FIRE)'s article on The Coddling of the American Mind discusses the "fragility" and "anti-fragility" phenomenon. For a deep study, Frank Furedi's new book What Happened to the University? is an incredibly detailed study of the weaponization of emotions, purification of language (words-as-diseases), and the disciplinary actions used to control thought on campuses. Haidt and Lukianoff's new book on this topic -- which promises to be the leading text on the subject -- will be released in September.
https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897
What are your thoughts about the current generation of emerging adults having poor resiliency and self-regulation skills, and its impact on mood disorders? This has been suggested in some recent pop-psych books, such as The Coddling of the American Mind. What do you think can be done to combat this?
A committed party that, you know, likes Democracy and upholds the values of Liberalism (that's large L not small l). This book does a good job of outlining the issues with the R party: https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465096204.
One can also do a thought experiment if instead of Trump this was a D President doing the actions. What would the R party be doing?
Please also know that what you see on Twitter or hear about happening on a college campus isn't also the D party's platform. There are lots of shades of grey when it comes to Free Speech and such a right is not absolute.
However, I do agree with Haidt that Speech does not also equal physical violence which is what the folks on College Campus seem to be equating: https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897.
With Due Process you need to be specific. Different actions have different Due Process steps. Some of which are in need of reform.
>Why would you call out something that doesn't exist. This whole left wing censorship crusade is just something to get the right wing base frothing at the mouth and nothing more.
There is a lot of evidence that there is an authoritarian culture, with a lot of power, on the left.
This David Pakman video has multiple examples.
Exiting the Vampire Castle, written by Mark Fisher, criticizes leftwing authoritarianism from a communist perspective.
The Grievance Studies affair highlights postmodern academic disciplines where many authoritarian ideas are coming from.
The books The Tyranny of Opinion and The Coddling of the American Mind also each have multiple case studies of authoritarianism.
​
>You MUST acknowledged a right wing propaganda talking point
It's true that the right is having a moral panic about this issue, but that doesn't mean that the problem isn't real.
It's not just conservatives either. For the most part, I actually am politically center-left. I'm not a Republican. I didn't vote for Trump. I don't even like half of the Republican platform. But I certainly can't vote for today's Democrats either. They've become a platform based purely on identity politics.
And it's not that identity politics is wrong in itself, as a lot of politics is really identity politics. In the book The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, the authors present a case that there are multiple types of identity politics. There's Humanistic Identity Politics, i.e. let's unite everyone because we all belong to a larger group. And there's Common Enemy Identity Politics, i.e. you're either with us or against us. And I've become classified as an enemy to the New Democratic Party.
As far as what's considered an unpopular opinion, there is a silent majority. During the 1960s, there was a poll about the Civil Rights Movement, that found out, even in the South, most people were for equality. What was disliked was the speed the movement was taking. And it turned out most people just assumed the majority were against it, because the loudest voices were against it. And that's how I hope that America sees this new SJW mental illness that's swept the country. The mainstream media has gone insane, our universities have gone insane, and corporations are going insane. But is America really going insane, or is it just a few, very loud people who need to be institutionalized who are presenting a specific narrative?
Social Media and less social interactions. Great book that breaks it down below.
The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0735224897/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_BzD1BbYJW4KM4
Thought this twitter thread by Jonathan Haidt was interesting. Also curiously looking forward to his new book this summer.
I'm not sure if this would work or not, but I would try redirecting people who have conservative or right-wing leaning views at least toward better thinkers than Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and toward optimistic views of the future of society, to cull some of the us-vs-them and zero-sum thinking that plagues these discussions.
Sometimes it feels like men, especially, feel existentially threatened by other modes of thought, so being at least sympathetic to the good bits of their ideas and offering something similar but that promotes openness and liberal ideas may help.
Hans Rosling's Factfulness presents a pretty optimistic view of the world. It's all getting better! Seriously!
Jonathan Haidt (and Greg Lukianoff for the first book)
I had worried that the first book would be a reiteration of right-wing talking points around safe spaces, but I was surprised to find it a good listen so far. It mentions several cognitive distortions and how cognitive behavioral therapy can overcome them as well. The second book is sympathetic to conservative views and gives a good tour of moral psychology. Really recommend.
Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is also good. Seriously, the world is getting better! Pinker is heavier on the nature side that most lefties, so knowing that may make people more receptive if they won't receive an gender argument without some mention of biology.
Thanks for your openess, I recognize your username from the sub and will do my best to summarize a pretty big issue down to a digestible size and will pop some resources at the bottom.
So Bret Weinstien was a evolutionary biologist at Evergreen state college down in the states. Since the 1970's that super leftist college has been doing radical things like having a day of absence that is designed to show how important People of Colour are to the campus by having all POC not show up on a particular day. In like 2017 (maybe 2016) the student organizers tried to switch it up to an all non POC don't come to campus day. Bret was objecting to this saying that it does not demonstrate the same message as the original protest. It takes it from how important POC are to isloating out non POC. IMO it took it from pro to con, which is never a great way for anyone to feel.
Bret wrote some staff emails about how he thinks they should shift it back to the old system and the student body goes wild. Start calling him racist, threatening him, threatening his wife who is also a professor there, demanding his resignation. Fast forward a few months and there are protests about him. Students are militarizing, holding university administration and making them listen to their demands, and being what can only be described as to an academic as radical.
That book I mentioned when through like 4 examples of things just as wild. The biggest thing I fear is that almost all of the targets that these radicalized call our culture folks are going after are fellow left learning people who were not towing the new party line. Layers who worked for the ACLU, Deans who started LGBT clubs in the 90's, and I just fear that it's people like me who since highschool have been out there grinding for progress.
The book I mentioned by Jonathan Haidt who also wrote great books in Cognitive Behavior Therapy, and what makes people become polarized is 100% the most important book for people to read right now. It goes over a 3 point outline of why the campus culture is so damaging to future progression. The website to support the book also has tons of great reading about how we can redirect it positively.
https://www.thecoddling.com/wiser-kids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein
https://www.amazon.ca/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897/ref=asc_df_0735224897/?tag=googleshopc0c-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=234376523249&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1315636621752488639&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9001621&hvtargid=pla-293946777986&psc=1
Certainly open to discuss it more, I think it's super neat, but does scare me.
Related to this thread: The Coddling of the American Mind
I think Frenchy needs to be on Uni grounds during student elections. There are some A Grade dickheads who make the campus a very unpleasant place to be
In any event, rather than wasting time on a stupid code, University Academics should read The Coddling of the American Mind
There’s some interesting points the authors make on Academic institutions not supporting discourse.
Dette er et fryktelig skummel global (vestlig) trend, og det ser bare ut til å bli verre.
Et nytt studie viste nettopp at polariseringen i USA er verre enn mange tror. Og det blir ikke bedre med det første.
Tverrpolitisk samarbeid er ikke-eksisterende, fiendskapet er ekstremt, det hagler med merkelapper og skjellsord, det er ikke rom for nyanser, det er ekstrem vi-mot-dem-tankegang. Mye er svart-hvitt.
Se f.eks. på Kavanaugh-høringene nå. Twitteren min koker iallfall enda.
Leser Coddling of the American Mind av Jonathan Haidt nå, som ser ut til å toutche litt i innpå noen av fenomene man ser nå. Det gjelder kanskje først og fremst den nye generasjonen (iGen) som nå er kommet opp på universiteter, arbeidsliv og politikk.
Det er trist, mange snakker om polariseringen og ønsker å gjøre noe med det, men ingen ser ut til å vite hva som skal til.
Kanskje forby sosiale medier? :)
Read Coddling of the American Mind and get back to me. The universities have been historically left leaning but recently they have become echo chambers. Intentionally or not, they are taught to further their cause rather than try to find the truth. This is not your grandpa's civil rights movement, it is a trojan horse.
Yep, if anyone is interested to learn more, I suggest reading The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure
I'm in the middle of a book on a similar subject to this called The Coddling of the American Mind. I discovered it through an interview with the author on the Waking Up with Sam Harris podcast. The book doesn't really explore gender, but it does explore some of things you've mentioned. It has some interesting stuff to say on how risk aversion, political polarization, social media, and overprotective parenting are contributing to mental health problems among young people.
It took me about 10 minutes to read the first article (pausing twice for reflection) and eight minutes to get through the second. So 18 minutes. I commend you for the accuracy of your estimate!
​
That said, I am going to leave a fragmented response, because it is what I do...so let me make sure I address you central questions first.
​
>To what extent would you agree that society has moved or is attempting to move to a moral framework which prizes "victimhood" as the most effective means for rallying support?
"Us" vs. "them" is central to politics, no matter your political alignment. As a supporter of our President, I am highly skeptical of a framework that prizes "victimhood." I agree with George Will's assessment that "victimhood" is a "coveted status." In the article where he advanced this idea, he talked about how people who allege that they are victims of sexual assault self-apply the label "survivor," and how this is never questioned, and how questioning it is seen as regressive. But he made the very good point that the language itself pre-judges circumstances, in a way that anyone who wants to put serious thought into this very serious issue ought to think about. I agree that the left uses the mantle of "victimhood" to rally support and to dismiss what I view as fair critiques of anyone who claims this status. It has a polarizing effect that is counter-productive to the notion that people on the left and right can find common ground.
​
>Does the statistic that 80% of Americans oppose political correctness as it currently operates seem accurate to you and where do you see yourself in the categories presented:
I see myself as a moderate. I'm sympathetic to a lot of progressive ideas (we should strive to reach equal outcomes and discrimination does exist). I am repulsed by identity politics and the notion that equal outcomes are a by-product of (conscious nor non-conscious) "oppression." I don't think people on the right want to keep others down. I believe they want everybody to be held to the same standard. Since we are different, that isn't always possible. But I have an abiding belief that the way to reach sustainable positive outcomes is to focus on fairness, not strict equality.
​
The rambly part:
​
Anyone who is interested in the ideas in these two articles should definitely check out Johnathon Haidt and Greg Lukianoff's new book The Coddling of the American Mind. It goes into much greater detail about the issues raised in these essays, and includes a section on "honor culture" vs. "dignity culture." One of the most important ideas that can be drawn from it, that isn't mentioned explicitly here, is how the left weaponaizes shame in a way that I find completely dishonorable and completely unacceptable.
​
One of the most frustrating things for me, as a moderate who has great sympathy to conservative points of view, is how we do not properly mark progress in issues that are important to those who are not troubled by "Political Correctness." PC-believers seem to constantly be portraying our current society as a backward sliding one, where the original sins of slavery and discrimination threaten to consume minorities. But opportunities for minorities have actually grown exponentially in the last thirty years. When I was younger, there were no female sports casters. A few weeks ago, we had a broadcast of a football game that ONLY featured female sportscasters. To quote Uncle Joe Biden, "This is a big fucking deal!"
​
Also, I don't care for the ahistorical perspective of a lot of people who insist on PC culture. Also within the last 40 years, we have seen the argument that black football players could not make successful quarterbacks because they were not intelligent enough (yes, that was an actual valid argument that was put forth until it was destroyed by Doug Williams winning a Superbowl as quarterback of the Washington Redskins in the late 1980's (!!!!)) put to rest. Now we live in a time where the blatant racism of our past is constantly before us, but many on the left insist on "dogwhistles" and "microagressions."
​
In 1987, Baseball Executive Al Campanis gave an interview on the TV program "Nightline." You can view a relevant clip from that program here. He was promptly fired from Major League Baseball for suggesting that the reason that there were not more black managers and black pitchers in the game was because of "certain deficiencies." I personally agree with his firing, and I'm only referencing it here, because I think Radio Personality (and master of offensive humor) Steve Dahl really captured the zeitgeist of the multiple disciplinary actions and outright firings of people who said things that were far less inflammatory in a wonderful song he recorded called, "Al Companis of the Week." (Can't find a version of this song online, unfortunately, or else I would link it.) The relevant lyrics epitomize disgust with PC culture, so I want to share them from memory:
>It's not what you say/It's about who you say it/That's just no way for a white guy to play it..."
And I'll summarize my disgust this way: we are not moving toward a society where your race, gender, and other things that you DO NOT chose do not define you. We are rushing headlong into a society where they PREdefine you, irredeemably. That is a mistake.
A review of The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, Penguin Press (September 4, 2018) 352 pages.
Just read a great book, Very Interesting. Don't let the title turn you off.
The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure
https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897
You might like this
https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897
The victim culture is definitely a problem but mainly because we swung too far for it trying to compensate. (humans am i right?)
Hopefully we reach equilibrium to make a good balance
Two general thoughts, not related to the specific news item:
Here’s some great books I’m reading/have read recently that I recommend:
The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure
Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
Columbine
On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century
And here’s my favorite book about writing ever:
Invisible Ink: A Practical Guide to Building Stories That Resonate
https://www.amazon.de/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897
Cartea vorbește la un moment dat de screen time la adolescenți si cum sunt influențați de el. It's a good read.
For Skepticism:
> an attitude of doubting that claims or statements are true or that something will happen
I don't think that is what you're looking for either.
> What word should i be using if i want to say cynicism but it's not about self interest?
I'm not really sure, you'd have to explain more about what you're trying to describe.
> disenchantment
> the state of no longer feeling enthusiasm for somebody/something; a lack of belief that something is good or worth doing
I think this is the closest so far and helps clarify why you said, "defend yourself against having to put in effort."
Maybe a little pessimism too?
> a feeling that bad things will happen and that something will not be successful; the tendency to have this feeling
For
> . Better to say everything is just… silly, or pointless
That sounds like nihilism:
> nihilism is the philosophical viewpoint that rejects, denies, or lacks belief in any or all of the reputedly meaningful aspects of life.
Without a proper definition and just a vague maybe slightly incorrect sense for how we're defining cynicism, it has left me unsure of what view it is that you're exactly trying to change.
For example, if we go wild and define cynicism using a snippet from the lecture as:
> the refusal and the fear of dealing with complexity
Then, by definition, those people would fear complexity.
Anyway, if you're really trying to get at what is driving some of the issues with modern society (while I'm sure there are a million people that will give you a million different answers) the source I'd recommend is the book "The coddling of the American mind" or you can also read the original article the book was based off of by the same name.
they are teaching students to nurture a kind of hypersensitivity that will lead them into countless drawn-out conflicts in college and beyond. Schools may be training students in thinking styles that will damage their careers and friendships, along with their mental health.
The Coddling of The American Mind
https://samharris.org/podcasts/137-safe-space/
touche! i was trying to find a link to this book, when I posted, but instead found that old Atlantic article. i am trying to figure out if this book and the article are related. https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897
Also, recent discussion with the authors on Youtube with Jordan B Peterson. I think the discussion was regarding their book (no affiliate) on Amazon.
No phone till 16
No "Social Media" till 18
https://www.amazon.ca/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897
https://www.amazon.ca/Arguments-Deleting-Social-Media-Accounts/dp/125019668X
https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897
Well, there's so little context here so it's hard to say if everyone was ok with the situation.
I'm not sure laughter is enough to say everything is ok. Sure, the person tripped is laughing - but laughing is also a defense mechanism... like when you do something embarrassing like trip. Laughing doesn't necessarily say he's not hurt for 100% sure.
Just to review:
People I'm commenting have said: It's rude to open a door when someone is cleaning the glass and they deserve the increased risk of getting hurt.
I say: regardless of how rude your perceive someone to be, you shouldn't set them up to possibly hurt themselves, like this person fake cleaning the door.
I'm with you about taking offense - we would all do well to try to both take less offense and give less where we can. Lots of good reading on that here: https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897
Of course this short clip is missing a lot of context. Is he not hurt? He looks to be limping at the end. We can't actually ask him.
I actually don't think it matters if he's hurt or not. If he came on here and somehow authenticated himself saying "I'm the guy that tripped and everything is fine" - that's not the point.
The point is that if you repeated this situation X number of times - someone would get hurt - especially with that step up from the door. That's why I say the guy fake cleaning the window is in the wrong.
I also think it's fair to say everyone should be offended if they are hurt by someone playing a prank on them. Whether it happened in this video or not doesn't even matter - the guy pulling the prank is increasing risk of injury.
today on 2 degrees of joe rogan: