This Article Annoyed Me Haidt is a prolific pundit, author, and social psychologist. His recent Atlantic article has been widely touted (on twitter) as a “must-read.” And especially touted on Haidt’s own prolific twitter account. Its clickbait title: “
I haven't read "leitmotif" in too long. I also liked your Jets shout out but believe you were a little too generous there in terms of since when. I agree with you generally about Social (an annoying abbreviation) because I have had such pleasant, pleasurable and surprising and actual relationships due to FB and Twitter. Randomly now: The blame game is a lame game. I hope that Elon buys Twitter. I hope that Minnie wears a skirt. I hope that the Yankees don't continue to gulp with runners at the corners. I hope that the Rock kills Putin. I hope that Kelloggs finally answers my many calls for frosted lemon Pop Tarts. And I hope that your superior brain continues to be so prolific and good. Just don't be such a Haidter. See what I did there? ("SWIDT?"). ("uniquely" and "very" should have cautionary signs before usage.)
Agree. Extremism has been around forever, as war has been around forever. But war with swords is different than war with nuclear weapons – meaning that social media has given extremist a far more effective tool to use in their pursuit of the extreme and has given a lot more people a lot more motivation to assume extremist positions (fame, fortune, power, a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging). Mobs are now born in an instant and they form at every doorstep. Canceling is another form of guillotining. The founders placed great barriers between us and the mob, but social media has found a way to penetrate those barriers and I find it frightening. I don’t blame the left or right. I blame human nature. It is who we are. But we have a better side too, as does social media. So, agree on that too.
What it does is congregate the entire mob in one place at one time with the ability to communicate to each other. That's extremely powerful and very unique. Neither cable nor extremist radio (both are one way mediums) can do that. Social media also allows for a level of extreme, even violent rhetoric that we are unlikely to find nearly so often on radio or cable. You're right. It's hard to define exactly what extremism is and some (e.g., Barry Goldwater) might argue that all extremism isn't necessarily a bad thing. You're also right to question wether or not we have more extreme "doers' than before (those who actually act on their extreme views). It's hard to say. But however many there are, social media gives them more access and louder voices and fewer governors than they have ever had. All this aside, I agree with your premise - Haidt greatly, perhaps grossly, oversimplifies a very complicated and nuanced moment in our history - ironically, a signature of social media.,
I have found that people are accused of being stupid - or in this case "uniquely stupid" - when they don't vote the way you like or otherwise support causes you don't. That doesn't undermine every argument Haidt makes - David takes care of that - but does remind this is coming from a certain predisposition to be unhappy about a lot of things going on in the world, looking for a culprit.
One of his suggestions to fix social media, that David likes, reminded me of a lecture I heard from Martha Nussbaum and Saul Levmore five years ago when they revisited the book they wrote together in 2012 about hate speech on the Internet. They thought eliminating anonymity (as Haidt proposes for social media) would be enough to fix the problem. After five more years of looking at this, they admitted in 2017 they were wrong about the ameliorating effects of disclosing your identity.
I will disagree with David a little bit here. While I agree that there has been a lot to explain the last decade beyond social media, and that it is not entirely bad, I think for many people its use becomes a special kind of illness that we cannot cure, an addiction with predictably destabilizing results.
Apr 24, 2022·edited Apr 24, 2022Liked by david roberts
A big problem for Haidt's thesis is that polarization is greatest among age groups who use social media the least, according to this NBER study: https://www.nber.org/papers/w23258. Likely culprit: TV news (IMO).
“America has done both great things and awful things. I think students can understand that.”
I’m not so sure. I often get the feeling that students today do not understand this, and judging historical figures according to present mores w/o consideration for the context in which they lived is very much in vogue.
You cherry-picked a few attention getting tropes of Professor Haidt's piece...which, in fairness, he might have felt he needed to pump up an analytical article for a post-literate world, and then completely disrespected the care with which he constructed his arguments for the "uniquely" dimension. Of course certain human tendencies are always with us, Fred Flintstone to Stephen Hawking...totally not the point. I conclude your interest is scoring points, not a search for truth and some pathway to solutions...and what about his recommendations? They comprise a start, and serious engaged people can build out and up from such initiatives (ranked choice voting exists in what, five states now?). Good luck with your following; I won't be among them.
I haven't read "leitmotif" in too long. I also liked your Jets shout out but believe you were a little too generous there in terms of since when. I agree with you generally about Social (an annoying abbreviation) because I have had such pleasant, pleasurable and surprising and actual relationships due to FB and Twitter. Randomly now: The blame game is a lame game. I hope that Elon buys Twitter. I hope that Minnie wears a skirt. I hope that the Yankees don't continue to gulp with runners at the corners. I hope that the Rock kills Putin. I hope that Kelloggs finally answers my many calls for frosted lemon Pop Tarts. And I hope that your superior brain continues to be so prolific and good. Just don't be such a Haidter. See what I did there? ("SWIDT?"). ("uniquely" and "very" should have cautionary signs before usage.)
Agree. Extremism has been around forever, as war has been around forever. But war with swords is different than war with nuclear weapons – meaning that social media has given extremist a far more effective tool to use in their pursuit of the extreme and has given a lot more people a lot more motivation to assume extremist positions (fame, fortune, power, a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging). Mobs are now born in an instant and they form at every doorstep. Canceling is another form of guillotining. The founders placed great barriers between us and the mob, but social media has found a way to penetrate those barriers and I find it frightening. I don’t blame the left or right. I blame human nature. It is who we are. But we have a better side too, as does social media. So, agree on that too.
What it does is congregate the entire mob in one place at one time with the ability to communicate to each other. That's extremely powerful and very unique. Neither cable nor extremist radio (both are one way mediums) can do that. Social media also allows for a level of extreme, even violent rhetoric that we are unlikely to find nearly so often on radio or cable. You're right. It's hard to define exactly what extremism is and some (e.g., Barry Goldwater) might argue that all extremism isn't necessarily a bad thing. You're also right to question wether or not we have more extreme "doers' than before (those who actually act on their extreme views). It's hard to say. But however many there are, social media gives them more access and louder voices and fewer governors than they have ever had. All this aside, I agree with your premise - Haidt greatly, perhaps grossly, oversimplifies a very complicated and nuanced moment in our history - ironically, a signature of social media.,
I have found that people are accused of being stupid - or in this case "uniquely stupid" - when they don't vote the way you like or otherwise support causes you don't. That doesn't undermine every argument Haidt makes - David takes care of that - but does remind this is coming from a certain predisposition to be unhappy about a lot of things going on in the world, looking for a culprit.
One of his suggestions to fix social media, that David likes, reminded me of a lecture I heard from Martha Nussbaum and Saul Levmore five years ago when they revisited the book they wrote together in 2012 about hate speech on the Internet. They thought eliminating anonymity (as Haidt proposes for social media) would be enough to fix the problem. After five more years of looking at this, they admitted in 2017 they were wrong about the ameliorating effects of disclosing your identity.
I will disagree with David a little bit here. While I agree that there has been a lot to explain the last decade beyond social media, and that it is not entirely bad, I think for many people its use becomes a special kind of illness that we cannot cure, an addiction with predictably destabilizing results.
Social media was fine when it was just young people. Once everyone else started using it around 2010-2012 suddenly it’s the cause of all ills? Hmm…
A big problem for Haidt's thesis is that polarization is greatest among age groups who use social media the least, according to this NBER study: https://www.nber.org/papers/w23258. Likely culprit: TV news (IMO).
“America has done both great things and awful things. I think students can understand that.”
I’m not so sure. I often get the feeling that students today do not understand this, and judging historical figures according to present mores w/o consideration for the context in which they lived is very much in vogue.
Sounds like the only problem you truly had is the headline someone other than Haidt wrote.
You cherry-picked a few attention getting tropes of Professor Haidt's piece...which, in fairness, he might have felt he needed to pump up an analytical article for a post-literate world, and then completely disrespected the care with which he constructed his arguments for the "uniquely" dimension. Of course certain human tendencies are always with us, Fred Flintstone to Stephen Hawking...totally not the point. I conclude your interest is scoring points, not a search for truth and some pathway to solutions...and what about his recommendations? They comprise a start, and serious engaged people can build out and up from such initiatives (ranked choice voting exists in what, five states now?). Good luck with your following; I won't be among them.
Well,done