Thread by @PamelaParesky

THREAD: @MoiraWeigel’s review of The Coddling in @Guardian illustrates the very problems we describe in the book. I was chief researcher & in-house editor. We expected some reviewers to cast aspersions rather than use arguments, so we put that in a footnote in ch4. 1/13

The review does not respond to or rebut @glukianoff and @JonHaidt’s core arguments about the 3 Untruths, rising depression/anxiety, or the damaging effects of overprotection and social media. Rather, the central tactic is ad hominem. 2/13

The review indicts them as “white men who hold power” and uses guilt by association and moral pollution to discredit them. For example, some bad people dislike Marcuse & like @nntaleb. @glukianoff and @JonHaidt critique Marcuse & agree with @nntaleb so they must be bad, too. 3/13

Another example: Trump thinks his views are “common sense.” The book sometimes appeals to common sense, so somehow our argument “shares a structure that carried the enemy… to the White House.” The authors are morally polluted by association with “the enemy.” 4/13

The review notes our reference to Solzhenitsyn. But @jordanbpeterson likes Solzhenitsyn. This supposedly discredits Haidt & Lukianoff by (weak) association & moral pollution. 5/13

Weigel imagines @glukianoff & @JonHaidt would have voted for Obama a 3rd time. But a creepy murderer from a horror film would have, too. Morally polluting authors by imagining an association with a fictional murder takes this kind of tactic to a new level. 6/13

Using an anthropological lens: Some things are taboo. Contact w/ taboo foods, objects, people, places, and even words causes moral pollution, which is contagious. People become polluted by even touching anything a polluted person has touched. An association is like touching. 7/13

The review exemplifies aspects of the new moral culture we describe in the book: For example, attempting to morally pollute and vilify a PERSON rather than doing the work of engaging with and trying to critique their IDEAS is an aspect of “The Untruth of Us Versus Them.” 8/13

This “guilt by association” review lumps together a wide array of very different writers (e.g. @jonathanchait, @sullydish, @sapinker, @DineshDSouza, @rogerkimball, @jon_rauch, & Allan Bloom) as if the sheer number of associations somehow taints our distinct arguments. 9/13

Relying on guilt by association evinces a worldview of life as a battle between good people and evil people. This mindset makes intellectual life impossible––allegedly evil people & their books cannot be allowed to pollute discourse; even their presence pollutes a campus. 10/13

Weigel makes a few good points: For example, we did not cover the very real problem of burgeoning student debt. That certainly may contribute to anxiety, but unlike the student tuition protests of 2011, recent students protests focus on articles & speakers, not debt issues. 11/13

Read the review for yourself. Count the number of actual arguments made against the *arguments* in the book versus the number of attempts to get readers to dislike the *authors* of the book (generally based on tenuous associations). 12/13

theguardian.com/books/2018/sep…

Then I hope you’ll give the book a chance. We do not blame students, nor do we lament “kids these days.” We discuss six threads that came together to create a new moral culture on many campuses, and the rising problem of teen anxiety & suicide. 13/13

amzn.to/2jUNWRp

Whoops. I misspelled the reviewer’s handle. It’s @moiragweigel. Apologies!