Second, his approach reminds of something I noticed when I lived in London in the 90s. There were any number of Australians who would get media space if they tipped a bucket on aspects of Australian life. It is always much better to get a local to do the criticising and I guess history is full of examples of this. It's why I've never put much faith in dictums like “No one is a prophet in their own land” or even the idea that exiles/expats somehow see things more clearly. Often they are just grifters like Haidt.
Finally, someone with an honest opinion about Haidt, an apologist for the right who has created a career masquerading as a centrist. And Trump is what mollycoddling rightwing views gets you. I think the centre and left have played with kid gloves and are now watching Trump seize all the so-called ‘pillars of democracy’ without as much as a whimper of protest. People like Haidt with their ‘whataboutism’ perspectives and false arguments about equivalence of views are pretty much responsible for their steady decline into autocracy.
I think it is not irrelevant that Haidt, Pinker, and Jordan Peterson are all psychologists who have suddenly decided they are experts on social and political science. What they come up with is pretty standard hackneyed "folk," social and political views, and then pretend this means they are just reasonable centrists. When dismissed by experts in social and political science and theory, they claim their free speech is being suppressed and they are suddenly experts on the politics of free speech.
If there is ever a Concern Troll Hall of Fame, Jonathan Haidt will be an inaugural member, along with Charles Murray. The Right has learned that it can propagandize normies most effectively when it uses the rhetorical tropes of the center-left.
The distinction here is between respecting social science and treating every public-intellectual travelling circus as serious research.
The problem with Haidt-style centrism isn’t that he crosses disciplines or annoys people. Plenty of serious thinkers do both. The problem is that, yet again, conservative anxieties get laundered through the language of moderation, concern and “just asking hard questions”, then critics are dismissed as “tribal” when they spot the ruse.
Respect the research, absolutely. But respect doesn’t require turning every contested diagnosis into a school rule, phone ban or policy lever.
I am both amazed & appalled by the way in which this “critique” of Haidt (& Pinker) has unfolded. I have worked for many years in the field of social science, particularly psychology: I am very aware of the research challenges faced by those who attempt to discuss & understand human nature, the role of attitudes, values & beliefs & how we might address conflict in an increasingly divided & anxious world. The comments of Quiggan & Dunlop are particularly disappointing as I was of the opinion that you would study & respect the findings of social science academics & researchers. You talk about “an intellectual dark web” & say Haidt has “no relevant research background” - have you genuinely tried to study & apply his findings & insights? I only see evidence of name calling, condescension & ignorance in most of these comments. Research in the social sciences is difficult - we need more of it & these ill informed criticisms perpetuate the contemporary style of vicious rejection not respectful debate. Someone who presents a well researched point of view & is willing to face the consequences is not simply trying to be a prophet in their own time. I have read much more pontificating from bloggers like Quiggan & Dunlop. Please reconsider & show some respect.
Pinker did serious work in neuro-linguistics in the 1990s. But everything I’ve seen from The Blank Slate onwards has been opinionating on issues where he is no more qualified than I am (less so, when he ventures on to topics like nuclear power). And, from what he can see in Google scholar, he no longer does serious research.
Haidt’s did proper research on conservative value systems but used it dubiously, as I said. Again, everything since has been opinionating with no basis in research, published in places like The Atlantic and never subject to peer-review.
As for the “intellectual dark web”, that was the name they used for themselves, with the idea (looking a bit silly in retrospect wrt Weiss in particular) that they were heroic dissenters, standing up for intellectual freedom.
The cliff notes version of this post is, and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting: Haidt is bad because he a) writes on a range of topics and b) disagrees with you?
This is boring in-group/out-group shaming without any substance.
First, nice title. Lol.
Second, his approach reminds of something I noticed when I lived in London in the 90s. There were any number of Australians who would get media space if they tipped a bucket on aspects of Australian life. It is always much better to get a local to do the criticising and I guess history is full of examples of this. It's why I've never put much faith in dictums like “No one is a prophet in their own land” or even the idea that exiles/expats somehow see things more clearly. Often they are just grifters like Haidt.
Finally, someone with an honest opinion about Haidt, an apologist for the right who has created a career masquerading as a centrist. And Trump is what mollycoddling rightwing views gets you. I think the centre and left have played with kid gloves and are now watching Trump seize all the so-called ‘pillars of democracy’ without as much as a whimper of protest. People like Haidt with their ‘whataboutism’ perspectives and false arguments about equivalence of views are pretty much responsible for their steady decline into autocracy.
Excellent review of Haidt (pronounced height apparently)
Presumably he wouldn't want it pronounced hate.
Believe it or not, an honest mistake on my part
Yes, Iooked it up years ago through curiosity when reading his 'Happiness Hypothesis'. The German origin refers to 'standing' or 'position'.
I think it is not irrelevant that Haidt, Pinker, and Jordan Peterson are all psychologists who have suddenly decided they are experts on social and political science. What they come up with is pretty standard hackneyed "folk," social and political views, and then pretend this means they are just reasonable centrists. When dismissed by experts in social and political science and theory, they claim their free speech is being suppressed and they are suddenly experts on the politics of free speech.
If there is ever a Concern Troll Hall of Fame, Jonathan Haidt will be an inaugural member, along with Charles Murray. The Right has learned that it can propagandize normies most effectively when it uses the rhetorical tropes of the center-left.
I mournfully have to quibble that it is “Chait” that rhymes with “hate”, “Haidt” rhymes with “shite” so your title doesn't really work
I can't be the only person to think that that was John Q's game all along ;)
I was thinking it was a visual pun rather than an aural one.
short sharp & sadly necessary, thanks for banging this drum
For someone who made his mark in academia through the study of morals, Haidt himself evinces remarkably few of them.
No, you don’t understand. He just has *different* ones!
I never thought I would be living in Voltaire's Candide. But here we are and Haidt is just one more enabler.
Quiggo: You've polluted your first paragraph (and perhaps more) with XML tags. Your faithful fan.
I think it's fixed now
The distinction here is between respecting social science and treating every public-intellectual travelling circus as serious research.
The problem with Haidt-style centrism isn’t that he crosses disciplines or annoys people. Plenty of serious thinkers do both. The problem is that, yet again, conservative anxieties get laundered through the language of moderation, concern and “just asking hard questions”, then critics are dismissed as “tribal” when they spot the ruse.
Respect the research, absolutely. But respect doesn’t require turning every contested diagnosis into a school rule, phone ban or policy lever.
I am both amazed & appalled by the way in which this “critique” of Haidt (& Pinker) has unfolded. I have worked for many years in the field of social science, particularly psychology: I am very aware of the research challenges faced by those who attempt to discuss & understand human nature, the role of attitudes, values & beliefs & how we might address conflict in an increasingly divided & anxious world. The comments of Quiggan & Dunlop are particularly disappointing as I was of the opinion that you would study & respect the findings of social science academics & researchers. You talk about “an intellectual dark web” & say Haidt has “no relevant research background” - have you genuinely tried to study & apply his findings & insights? I only see evidence of name calling, condescension & ignorance in most of these comments. Research in the social sciences is difficult - we need more of it & these ill informed criticisms perpetuate the contemporary style of vicious rejection not respectful debate. Someone who presents a well researched point of view & is willing to face the consequences is not simply trying to be a prophet in their own time. I have read much more pontificating from bloggers like Quiggan & Dunlop. Please reconsider & show some respect.
Pinker did serious work in neuro-linguistics in the 1990s. But everything I’ve seen from The Blank Slate onwards has been opinionating on issues where he is no more qualified than I am (less so, when he ventures on to topics like nuclear power). And, from what he can see in Google scholar, he no longer does serious research.
Haidt’s did proper research on conservative value systems but used it dubiously, as I said. Again, everything since has been opinionating with no basis in research, published in places like The Atlantic and never subject to peer-review.
As for the “intellectual dark web”, that was the name they used for themselves, with the idea (looking a bit silly in retrospect wrt Weiss in particular) that they were heroic dissenters, standing up for intellectual freedom.
Yes!!! It is Smart Phones!!!
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!IA7g!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ffd8dab74-5d0a-4cd8-839f-f3c660b7f542_1344x2218.png
I hope this link to FT Alphaville works
The cliff notes version of this post is, and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting: Haidt is bad because he a) writes on a range of topics and b) disagrees with you?
This is boring in-group/out-group shaming without any substance.
Consider yourself forgiven
Really playing for the home crowd huh
And getting plenty of applause on this one, I'm glad to say. Please, keep sending setup lines.
Plenty of applause where?