up:: [[HD 2580 Six Pretty Good Books]] # How The Coddling Of The American Mind Shows Us The Importance Of Empathy And Nonjudgement Jonathan Haidt's and Greg Lukianoff's book The Coddling Of The American Mind argues that good intentions but bad practices by parents, professors, K-12 teachers, and school administrators are creating a generation more riddled with anxieties and depression than ever before. They explain that society is instilling in Generation Z three great untruths that are hurting mental health. In this article, I will analyze the flipside to the two great untruths--truths--that I mostly agree with: - Life Isn't A Battle Between Good And Evil - You Shouldn't Always Trust Your Feelings After discussing this, I will discuss the aspects of these untruths with which I disagree with the authors. I will look at all these ideas through the lens that we need to foster a society that is **more empathetic and less judgmental than ever.** In the digital age, social media has divided us by siloing the information we see compared to others. And more recently generative language models, while they have their uses (like writing fiction romances between Harry Potter and Dwayne The Rock Johnson), are increasing the spread of misinformation and disinformation by giving more people the ability to create online with low effort. **Thus, we must be more empathetic and less judgmental than ever, because the world is more ambiguous than ever before.** ### Life Isn't A Battle Between Good And Evil One of the greatest ideas from the book that I agree with is life isn't a battle between good and evil. This is because people perceive the world differently based on their unique [[KSAOs]], knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs), where "other" typically includes traits like personality, attitudes and interests. This means two people coming to the same objective situation will perceive it differently. For example, when you see a jar of peanut butter, you might feel nothing, whereas when I see a jar of peanut butter, I might feel the urge to eat the entire thing in one gulp (I like peanut butter if you can't tell). **We have two different perceptions of the same situation!** With this understanding, seeing life as a battle between good and evil doesn't make sense. Everyone has a unique perception of the world that gives merit to their position. Seeing life as a battle between good and evil causes the [[Minimal group effect]], which describes how people tend to favor their ingroup--in this case, people they see as good--compared to the outgroup--in this case, people they see as bad. **Recognizing that people who disagree with us aren't evil but rather have different opinions can help foster more empathy and less judgment by fighting against the minimal group effect.** ### You Shouldn't Always Trust Your Feelings The second most important idea from the book I agree with is that you shouldn't always trust your feelings. This is because as discussed in Danielle Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, our feelings are subject to many biases, heuristics, and irrational tendencies. Our feelings come from what Danielle Kahneman calls [[System 1]], our automatic, rapid, associative mode of thinking. System 1 evolved to serve us well in the limited resource world of the African Savanah. However, nowadays, it's System 2, our slow, conscious, effort-based mode of thinking, that we must prioritize. **We live in a world with vastly more information and thus ambiguities than our ancestors would have come across on an average day.** As mentioned earlier, social media algorithms and the internet are creating echo chambers, confined information spaces in which people feed themselves information that agrees with their pre-held beliefs. Being too apt to fall for our System 1 thinking is something we can't afford in a world filled with such ambiguity because it can lead us to rash conclusions. **Thus, we must be more empathetic and non-judgmental than ever; we must prioritize System 2 thinking.** Now that we have discussed the areas of the first two untruths, I agree with the authors in, let's discuss some issues I have with both. ### Sometimes Devoicing Is Valid The authors claim that we should never reduce freedom of speech because life isn't a battle between good and evil. They believe hearing the others side's perspective will reduce the minimal group effect, and we shouldn't restrict someone's voice just because they disagree with us. While I agree we should protect freedom of speech, I disagree it should never be restricted. The authors claim that as long as the speech doesn't directly incite violence, it's okay. What they fail to understand is speech can insight violence indirectly. For example, if you have ten people surround a kid and taunt them daily with words, **then you should muzzle them**. Technically the bullies are exercising their free speech **but it's crossing the line**. **If that kid harms himself, it's the bullies violent words that caused it.** Coming to the world with a more empathetic and non-judgmental view is essential, but there is a line (which I can't define) at which devoicing someone must be done. Because it causes more harm to never devoice than to do so sparingly. ### Sometimes You Should Trust And Act On Negative Feelings Towards Others Words While I agree with the idea that you shouldn't always trust your emotions, the authors make it sound like, particularly in communication, the intent behind a statement is always more important than the emotional impact. According to Haidt in our Q and A on his book, _"words can't do harm."_ But as Margaret Atwood points out in her novel Surfacing, **"stupidity is the same as evil if you only look at the result."** Our immediate feelings toward someone else's statements even taking into account they have different perspectives on the world, hold merit. Because if their words genuinely inflict emotional pain, like in the case of the ten bullies and the child from earlier, it's likely for a reason. It could be worth having a constructive conversation with them. They might not be aware of the negative impact of their words, especially with how much we communicate through digital means now. I'm not suggesting you should get offended at every word or sentence which offends, like if someone said, "Oakenshields is the best dining hall." However, talking with someone about your feelings toward their words _in some circumstances_ can lead to both of you coming out as less judgmental, more empathetic human beings. ### Conclusion The Coddling of The American Mind puts forth two great ideas, that life isn't a battle between good and evil, and you shouldn't always trust your feelings. Following these can help us live more empathetic, less judgmental lives in the digital age of social media and generative language models. However, as the authors themselves argue, life is more complex than any one human can fully understand. So knowing the problems with both of these ideas is also essential.