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

Cool beans. Learn something new everyday.

Yes, that's him!

I'm not sure that it is-- at least not exclusively so. I think it's a local and cultural one. Because I definitely live in a different culture than I grew up in, and yet the communication styles that I'm surrounded by are largely similar (and fairly broad in terms of individual norms/styles).

The problem identified in the article, in fact, could equally be characterized as people who have been raised to be socially incompetent at communication styles outside of THEIR narrow range (which has never been stretched to be more inclusive, either).

College, however, is supposed to do that 'stretching' for a student whether they enjoy it or not. Think "Green Eggs and Ham." Students have always been empowered to treat it like a cultural buffet, or they can approach it like Goldilocks and staunchly refuse to participate in aspects that they are not comfortable with, or find strange. The article is pointing out that now, a fair number of Goldilocks-like students are complaining that there is sushi or other "weird" food there to be had-- that it bothers them. Personally, I think it's that they object to feeling MARGINALIZED by their extant worldview or cultural beliefs. They ALL want to be "normative." I think that a generation of children has grown to adulthood with the notion that any observation of a thought, practice, or belief being unshared by others constitutes BULLYING.

In response, all of our culture has gone kind of insane trying to PREDICT what Goldilocks wants and does NOT want. Our modern Goldilocks, in fact, would be suing the bear family for her pain and suffering given how awful her breaking and entering and the subsequent vandalism was for her. How DARE they keep all that stuff in their home, after all-- they should have anticipated that some people would be highly sensitive to food temperature, at least.



I also have to wonder at the class observation. It is possible that when you've never worried about your basic needs-- for safety, food, shelter, etc.-- that you wind up in a place where verbal interactions might loom larger in relative importance. I don't deny that for some individuals the word "hate" might well seem threatening but coming FROM a lot of people, it just isn't so, anymore than the term "fastidious" or "obsessive" is exactly a menacing one. They are all just WORDS and IDEAS. One need only examine the use of verbiage and its relative variance in local dialect to see how attempting to categorize emotional value in language is a losing exercise-- there IS no agreement on the emotional value even of the term "cold" for example. To a resident of San Antonio or Delhi, this term doesn't mean the same thing as it does to someone who lives in Barrow or Edinburgh. Highly subjective.

That's just my suspicion. Obviously, suffering from PTSD is probably more common in the group that has come from lower SES, as such events are more commonplace there during one's childhood-- but it doesn't seem to translate into greater sensitivity/vulnerability in the context that the article is discussing. At least not in studies that I've seen on PTSD, it doesn't.

I also have to agree with the article's implication that trying to purge the world of PTSD triggers is a foolish and fruitless endeavor, given how the human brain retains and processes trauma. The sensory information that is most likely to trigger PTSD is often not speech in the first place. It's things like smells or environmental sounds/sights.
Of course, even if one COULD purge the world of, say-- the scent of lysol (just as one example)-- would it really be doing the PTSD-afflicted individual any favors long-term? Not really.

All very good points!

No, I am in the northeast! I lived in the south (Louisiana) for about three years, though, and noticed it was worse there definitely! I think I notice it so much because I really went from one extreme to the other and have to go back and forth between the two. When I bring my suburban mannerisms to my working poor family, they are very annoyed and distrustful of me and when I bring my working-poor catholic me to my WASP family (in-laws, for example) they are shocked/offended. I'll be the first to admit, I seem to have trouble being completely one with one group and the other way with the other group. Sometimes, I forget where I am LOL... I'm sure there are many other factors at play - sexism, mental health issues, etc . I am not sure it is something one would readily notice unless you really are traveling deeply between and communicating in both groups. I do like the WASP world better ... it is 'nice' albeit annoying, fake and stifling at times.... I love my inlaws as batty as they drive sometimes with all of their "niceness." But I am a bit of an outsider still with the women in my particular neighborhood and that's fine.

A few posts by others may indicate a similar theory. However, is it possible that the inverse may be true?

Might an emphasis on:
- developing vocabulary,
- understanding and being able to articulate varying degrees of concepts,
- using precise language,
- and having a personal word bank large enough to be able to rephrase as needed for clarity,
help bring about circumstances in which a person is better able to:
- maintain positive interpersonal relationships (including with those having a different background and knowledge base),
- negotiate and self-advocate,
- be welcomed in a variety of social circles,
- and influence the ability to position one's self on a positive path to attaining/maintaining safety, food, shelter, etc?
Decades of immigrants have taken this approach, highly valuing the myriad educational opportunities and the mixing/mingling of various regions, ethnicities, and SES which is commonplace in the USA. Enhancing one's ability to communicate may enhance one's environment. Expanding one's vocabulary may be a key component.

Getting beyond an initial internal emotional reaction to a stimulus and processing it intellectually before making a response may be made easier with practice - the types of practice which may come from exposure to a rich array of positive and negative experiences, both in-person and vicariously such as through reading books, conversing with others, etc. This may also include being exposed to a broad variety of concepts and ideas at the post-secondary level, as mentioned in the article: Without such exposure individuals may lose resilience.

The definition of hate, found online, includes: "Hatred (or hate) is a deep and emotional extreme dislike. It can be directed against individuals, groups, entities, objects, behaviors, or ideas. Hatred is often associated with feelings of anger, disgust and a disposition towards hostility."

Some may say that a widespread/commonplace use or over-reliance on words incorporating extreme emotions of anger/hostility may create a more angry, hostile environment.

This may be akin to "smacking the oobleck with a spoon and creating an unyielding solid," which works against one's self.

Either bullying or profound error.

And error has no rights.

Eloquent profundity.

Some might, alternatively, suggest that a habit of AVOIDING such terms, even when accurate, merely leads to a more passive-aggressive culture. This kind of thing then becomes a metaphorical game of "chicken" with emotional regulation and verbal acuity with euphemism governing the winners, because the underlying hostility is certainly not kept in check. It's my own hypothesis that such passive-aggressive games which tamp down negative feelings and leave them few/no outlets probably play some role in explosive acts of violence (such as school or workplace shootings).

Such cultural norms result in hidden and covert violence and barriers which then become more difficult to confront effectively-- they don't go away because of papering them with "nice." However, if one complains of being the victim of such antics, one is labeled as "difficult" or "antagonistic" or even "inappropriate."

It's just more dishonest. The best example of this is the patronizing elements of racist culture in the early 20th century "Jim Crow" laws-- separate wasn't equal, and everyone knew it, but saying so was "rude" or "offensive." Because apparently if one was African American, it was more "appropriate" to be pleased to have racially designated drinking fountains, schools, entrances, etc. Complaining was seen as "offensive." Offensive to those who maintained the status quo, to be sure.

It is also what lay under misogynistic cultural norms of "protecting" women from the harsher realities of life-- like literacy, current events, politics/governance, ownership of property, equal pay, workforce participation, engaging in male-dominated activities.... that kind of thing.

Human beings are not particularly "nice" as a general rule, and pretending that they are by papering over the less savory aspects of human history, thought, and lived experience merely gives the most predatory human beings more room in which to operate.

This is the problem with passive-aggression: there IS no way to "win" without sinking to that same level of dishonesty or appearing to be a horrible, aggressive (perhaps even "abusive") person. Anyone who was raised by such a parent knows that one all too well. Passive-aggression is, at its heart, about controlling and manipulating others using their finer instincts (compassion, conscience, etc) to work the magic of getting whatever you want from them and making THEM look bad if they don't comply.

Coming from lower SES means that one becomes socially and functionally less "literate" somehow as a direct result? I doubt this very much.

So the word "hate" is just-- because the individual lacks a better, nuanced, more erudite term? That seems fairly presumptuous without more information. What if she MEANT it? I've read books that I felt that way about. Perhaps this is instead a result of having a prevailing cultural perspective which devalues emotional intensity,, hmmm?


I do agree that at the other end of the SES, a rich array of experiences which include NEGATIVE experiences is probably a bit lacking during childhood, which is to say that some of those individuals lack emotional coping skills (and social ones, too, in my experience) for negative concepts, emotions, and social interactions. This seems to be what is being stated in the original article, in fact. That particular skill set is one that develops in those from poor childhood circumstances alongside resilience (which obviously is far from universal); some people develop poor or maladaptive coping, certainly-- and some do not.

I think that the corollary for those from privileged circumstances might be the development of empathy and unselfishness versus entitlement as a result of living with no unmet needs and few unmet wants. So sure-- some people from hostile beginnings fail to develop resilience or social literacy, but some of them develop such things quite well.



The verbiage generally isn't what people have a problem with in this sort of peer group censoriousness in action. What they really seem to be objecting to is the underlying sentiments being expressed. However, that is something that it is not appropriate for any human being to control in another. This is brainwashing, in fact; the control of what is acceptable to believe, think, or feel in another. If one prevents others from speaking their minds, alternatively, then all you have done is made a false world to exist within-- in ignorance of the reality around one. It's just got the veneer of gentility-- and make no mistake, ONLY the veneer of it. People are not different because of their choice of language or their manner of dress or customs, though many human beings would like to believe that they are. In fact, sociopaths make pretty clever use of this particular quirk of human nature.


In the case of the book club incident, I'd humbly submit that perhaps those who were deeply offended by the opinion of one member re: her personal feelings about the selection should consider a less internalized and personalized view of the world. Assuming that this was genuine in the first place, and not just a means of "othering" someone that the mean girls elected to oust for their differences-- and the extensive gossiping after the fact rather argues for that, IME.

You know, they could have considered it a way of expanding their own social literacy and thinking, which I'd have said was a pretty key reason to be attending a book club in the first place. Or, coming full circle, to attend COLLEGE for that matter.

In the two examples upthread, other words may have been more accurate than "hate"?

1. We later learned that a less emotionally extreme, angry, hostile response may have better expressed the sentiment; The woman disliked the book:
2.
Hopefully extreme emotions of anger and hostility are not cultured within a person for such everyday disappointments as grocery store check out lane inconvenience or side dish of vegetables, as alluded to in this post.



The article makes reference to "common cognitive errors" and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which may be useful for any individual to engage in meta-cognition or thinking about what one thinks, and why.



* The words "extreme emotion, anger, hostility" sourced from online definition of hate.