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

That is what I pointed out when I joined in the gossip/discussion of the "incident" ... I said "well, c'mon it is not as if [person who choose book selection and others who did like it, me included] wrote the book! I don't think there is a reason to take what she said as so offensive or so personal." My contribution was politely ignored LOL.

LOL, Irena-- I think that your anecdote really nailed this one. Treating an opinion as though it were hate-speech or a racial epithet of some kind is just bizarre.


It's subjective. Ergo, it's free speech, and it's not "violence" of some sort to express a subjective opinion, though it may be the minority one.


The more concerning thing to me is the anecdote re: the classroom experience that another poster mentions. THAT kind of passive-aggressive controlling of an open intellectual environment is very much "aggression" in my book. I'm sure that the student in question didn't see it that way. S/He was probably thinking only of him/herself-- which is sort of the point that the article is making, when you get right down to it.

It may be pursued in a way that indicates that the person conducting themselves that way is feeling persecuted or "revictimized," but make no mistake, they were simultaneously controlling the rights to free speech and freedom of thought, for that matter within that classroom.

That's bad, bad news in a lot of ways. It goes beyond the scope of the article's rather astute observations, in fact, into a dulling of what the term "education" even means.

If open and frank-- maybe even "heated" discussion isn't welcome, then only ONE communication style is "acceptable" and only dogma is permissible... but that isn't critical discourse or learning. Not by a long shot.


Now I'm wondering if it's even okay if say that I "hate" Hitler. Maybe I'm not allowed to mention Hitler at all, given what an unpleasant sort of guy he turned out to be. The thing is, if we don't examine unpleasant history, aren't we neglecting to learn from it??

The other thing that I wonder is if, in the push for "acceptable" which seems to be an ever-narrowing sort of window, frankly, with pathologizing on either side of it (perhaps Irena's book club friend might have-- GASP-- a conduct disorder... )--

we're making it (as a society, I mean) harder and harder to live on the edges of the distribution.

It's possible that this phenomenon is driving intolerance for gifted persons, as well. We make people... what is the word? Oh yes--

uncomfortable-- with our intensity, drives, divergent thinking, observations, quickness, etc.


I have to wonder if people have less tolerance for things that make them personally uncomfortable, and feel far more empowered to COMPLAIN and "make it right" for themselves at every turn, leading to a sort of vanilla kind of world, where the only complaining which is permitted is; "you're offending me with your differences (of opinion, speech, thought)-- stop that!"

Fabulous insight, thanks for sharing. As a parent you now have control over the choice in norms which you set for your son, including alerting him to when different modes of communication and word choice may tend to be most effective.

Eco mentioned Ruby Payne, are you familiar with her work? It may be of interest to you.

Might children benefit from learning more precise words for various degrees of dislike and disappointment? For example, in this case the card may have been "inconvenient", or clutter, or more work than it was worth.

Many people try to find the balance, acknowledging both the good and the bad. As new facts and information are gathered, a person's vantage point may change. Focusing on facts and information may provide the freedom to change one's view easily, and not feel locked in or in defense of an idea which may no longer be relevant or true.

This may be "relational aggression", a form of bullying often described as occurring among girls. Many people find the books by Rosalind Wiseman insightful: the best known may be Queen Bees and Wannabees, and Queen Bee Moms & Kingpin Dads.

If you avoid the "common cognitive errors" listed in the article in formulating your response, you should be fine.

Very true but it has even happened here to on this forum, people have played the 'I'm so offended and everyone else has to abide by my borderline neurotic sensibilities' card to shut down intelligent dialogue and even get someone (22b) banned even.

I don't know the context of the discussion, it was likely just part of a larger talk about psychopharmacology and history of drug use, etc... Whether the type of follow up discussion about the source, research, etc.. was part of it, likely not. Althrough it probably could have been to allieviate his stress a bit.

I was coming to peruse for some information for my daughter...we have ongoing schooling fun with her, and 2E issues, have had some insight recently and thought maybe I'd come here and see what was new. Then I saw this thread. It's an interesting article - the state of higher education concerns me since I get to see the results of all kinds of education through the students at various college. Not posted as "bait," just an example of a situation per the article.

If a person desires to not be perplexed by social norms, and desires to not find social situations difficult to navigate, there are resources and information available.

Another poster likened learning different social norms to a language, in a post here. It is up to the individual to decide if they would benefit from learning the language of a group they may wish to belong to.

This may be different than the changing post-secondary norms discussed in the article, which specifically mentioned trigger-warnings and micro-aggressions.

LOL indeed.

To clarify -
Not "bait", as in an allegedly inappropriate post on a forum...
"click-bait", as in a high-interest story found online, often posted by news agencies with a high number of ads per page.

The lesson you mentioned would be interesting as click-bait.

Is it possible that posters may get themselves banned by not abiding by the board rules? Unless, of course, there are rules made up on-the-fly and/or selective enforcement of the documented rules and policies. Some may say that would be poor role-modeling on the part of a gifted support organization, as gifted advocacy is largely based upon holding schools and other institutions accountable to abiding by their documented rules and policies.

One of the "common cognitive errors" described in the article was blaming others. This is different than expecting an organization to follow its documented policies.