Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The Atlantic takes on post-secondary PC/coddling

This was a a fascinating read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

I happen to agree with a LOT of the sentiment in that article. True education is about considering things that could not and would not have occurred to you in a vacuum. Gotta say that often, those opportunities are initially a bit unpleasant or jarring by definition.

DD has noted a bit of this. Some professors are wary-- and others are downright DEFIANT over it. The latter tend to be those with tenure, by the way... and I'll also add, here, that this is precisely the sort of situation that tenure was intended to combat.

You know what I think of as I read this? Not the whole "free range" vs. Helicopter" (which annoys me to no end, btw) or any of that. I just strikes me as something very simple... The WASP tendency to be indirect about EVERYTHING and never really say anything too strong. I am from inner-city working-class (which I in no way idealize, mind you, and looking back I'd choose to be raised in the upper-middle class WASP culture I am about to criticize somewhat anyday!) and I now live in WASP world - where I have found it very striking that my in-laws and my neighbors never say anything directly... everything is passive-aggressive. Example - book club with my neighbors, one other woman there is also from inner-city, working-poor background, the rest all upper-middle class WASPS. Fellow inner-city woman announces that she "hated the book we read that month" about which we had gathered to discuss. This did not concern me at all. It is after all a book club. The others talked about this for weeks, maybe months after... they were absolutely shocked and appalled that 'she would say such strong direct words with no regard for the others in the club who liked it or the person who chose it!' They found it very offensive and there was much discussion for how she could have phrased her opinion in a more palatable manner. I was quite perplexed. This is one example of several such experiences I have encountered in the socioeconomic class not of my origin. And that particular woman? Not much liked at all for her directness... She is constantly misinterpreted and gossiped about routinely due to her direct nature.

I think it is just this type of culture taking over.

On the other hand, in my college days it was a horrible comedian was all over with these awful misogynistic jokes (I forget his name ... it will come to me) and two live crew, and other such things I had to deal with on a daily basis so I am not sure a more PC culture is bad...

And I wonder if people are not conflating the two unnecessarily? Be PC and respectful but also be able to discuss unpleasant things and express opinions strongly and directly.. must the two be mutually-exclusive? I don't think so. I feel like I am able to do both relatively well ... most of the time (with the exception of here just now where I in a very un-pc manner called people WASPs and then stereotyped them!)

Ugh and WHY are people/children with life threatening allergies always targeted in these things??? Does it really all start when "peanut butter was banned from student lunches" to permit children with peanut allergies to go to school without fearing on a daily basis for their lives? ... And, of course, if only we allowed children to be bullied!!! So annoying... My son has a peanut allergy and has definitely benefited for the schools quick reaction nipping bullying in the bud but he and I also have many interesting and animated discussions about all sorts of unpleasant topics such as racism, war, genocide, class, poverty, etc., etc.

LOL-- I wondered who else would pick up on that. It smacks of a writer that doesn't understand that such a thing really can be like a loaded firearm on a table in a preschool or primary setting-- something that MOST rational people would consider, er-- ill-advised. To say the least. I notice that there isn't any mention of "stranger danger" training, which I find pretty ridiculous myself.


My own DD is a pretty clear example of this-- we've sheltered her from NOTHING in terms of ideas and language or discourse. It feels like-- well, censorship of the worst kind. She isn't fragile, and the opinions of others don't really bother her all that much.

A food allergen in class, on the other hand... makes her very anxious, particularly if she is trying to focus on an assessment at the time. (Gee, who would have thought that being worried for your physical safety might impact learning or working memory, eh? )

I guess she has figured out that one of them is a real DANGER to her, and the other not-so-much. I'd say that is rather rational, all in all.

Yes, obviously someone without a clear, factual understanding of the life-threatening nature of some allergies...

But on the core thoughts, I did find myself nodding at many of the main points, both from my parenting perspective and my professional mental health perspective. One sentence in particular:


And its converse: even those whom we respect greatly for some particular trait, ideal, skill, thought, etc., are simultaneously deeply flawed humans. Neither should we reject their goodness because of their imperfections, nor should we emulate their flaws for the sake of their virtues.

Different than the article's discussion of
- Trigger Warnings required on some campuses prior to delving into curriculum,
- and the concern for micro-aggressions,
your friend's use of the word "hate", which you see as:
- refreshing "directness" VS passive-aggressive
may be seen by some as one or more of the following:
- emotional reaction against an entire work VS taking the time to compose a well-articulated intellectual response,
- thinking out loud VS having a filter, and boundaries,
- shooting from the hip VS caring enough to think and process beforehand,
- rigid thinking VS flexible thinking,
- close-mindedness VS open-mindedness,
- gravitating toward the negative VS being able to find the good,
- attacking VS being vulnerable in discussing perspectives,
- out-of-control rant VS normal give-and-take of asking questions & listening to others,
- lack of skill to deconstruct and analyze VS having acquired and practiced the skill of deconstructing and analyzing,
- not interested in finding commonality and areas of agreement VS genuinely liking the other book club members,
- lack of social skill and theory of mind VS demonstrating equal interest in what others think and why,
- a conversation ender VS a conversation opener.

This does not necessarily follow along the lines of SES or ethnicity, as you alluded.

It is possible that your friend may have grown accustomed to making brief replies, if earlier in life she has not had much opportunity to engage in lengthy back-and-forth conversation with audiences such as book club members who are interested in the variety of things which she may have to say... conversations where no particular view is "right" or "wrong", but the focus is on self-discovery.

She may find that she very much enjoys the luxury of asking questions of others about what they liked, challenging herself to deconstruct a work, and finding the good.

Possibly best done by exploring ones' thoughts internally, then using a filter and boundaries to express one's thoughts intellectually rather than at a visceral emotional level. This ties back to the theme of the article. The article discusses the benefits of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and lists some Common Cognitive Distortions.

Agreed.

Indigo, the other women were concerned that her honest criticisms, unfavorable feelings about the book and her strong dislike would offend people... They thought she should have been more PC because she may offend the people who liked the book or person who choose the book. She also got into hot water and called out publicly for sending the group an email that there was a community Easter egg hunt. She was literally scolded because not everyone is christian and such info was offensive. I notice it in school too. My son has been discouraged more than once from critiquing a book or a movie (even a food) because it may offend others who like whatever he is critiquing. And I do thonk the article is referring to such situations in college. Instead of a discussion and exploration of the different viewpoints and feelings ensuing , people become very uncomfortable and discourage honest critical discussion or discussion of unpleasant/uncomfortable so as not to offend or make those who feel differently uncomfortable. And that's what I notice about this upper middle class WASP culture. "We are not unpleasant here... We do not discuss any thing that will make anyone uncomfortable... We make everything smooth and nice." My point is that it is not because we protect our children ... It during even have much to do with that... My point is it is a prevailing attitude/culture of "we do not angry, we do not have strong feelings or have unpleasant discussions - we are NICE ." To me it's a culture.

People can disagree without being disagreeable.

The article warns against labeling, discounting positives, focusing on the negatives, overgeneralizing, all-or-nothing thinking, blaming, and other behaviors which may not serve a person well.

LOL, indigo... I don't know but this sounds a lot like what the author is railing against in the article and in the interview I saw with the author of another article in the same vein and quoted in this one - Caitlyn Flanagan!