Here’s a puzzle I think about a lot. If any academic field is associated with the contemporary debate surrounding free speech, it’s psychology. Haidt, Pinker, Peterson, Saad, Jussim, even Lehmann. All specialize or have backgrounds in academic psych.
So what’s the puzzle?
So what’s the puzzle?
If psychology has any core premise, it is that we do not observe or make sense of the world unmediated. Our brains “get in the way”, both for good and for ill. Our biases, habits, and biologies shape what we’re willing to do, say, or believe.
And if that’s an accurate description of psych, why are psychologists so optimistic about the potential for democratic discourse and deliberation? One would expect them to be the least confident in the power of “good speech” to overcome “bad speech”.
I don’t have an answer, just some very uncharitable guesses about psychologists as historically ignorant cognitive elitists who would blanche if forced to grapple with the actual existing nature of American political discourse.
Like I said, uncharitable.
Like I said, uncharitable.
So if you ARE a psychologist, I would very much like to know what you think is going on here.
