He seems to spend half of this hand-wringing that right-wing perspectives aren't being represented enough in the research.
The most interesting bit of this is a quote from something someone else wrote:
I [Jill Filipovic] am increasingly convinced that there are tremendously negative long-term consequences, especially to young people, coming from this reliance on the language of harm and accusations that things one finds offensive are “deeply problematic” or event violent. Just about everything researchers understand about resilience and mental well-being suggests that people who feel like they are the chief architects of their own life — to mix metaphors, that they captain their own ship, not that they are simply being tossed around by an uncontrollable ocean — are vastly better off than people whose default position is victimization, hurt, and a sense that life simply happens to them and they have no control over their response. That isn’t to say that people who experience victimization or trauma should just muscle through it, or that any individual can bootstraps their way into wellbeing. It is to say, though, that in some circumstances, it is a choice to process feelings of discomfort or even offense through the language of deep emotional, spiritual, or even physical wound, and choosing to do so may make you worse off. Leaning into the language of “harm” creates and reinforces feelings of harm, and while using that language may give a person some short-term power in progressive spaces, it’s pretty bad for most people’s long-term ability to regulate their emotions, to manage inevitable adversity, and to navigate a complicated world.
That smells like anti-fragile, that concept by Stephen Pinker. The idea that hurting children makes them better. Hey Pinker, did you get that idea while you were on one of the dozens of flights you took on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express?
I can see how it rings of that. There is a good point, though, that our tools for handling this can over-focus on the harm.
Being alive means experiencing some kind of trauma. It's unavoidable. Part of being made of meat. Shit happens. Acknowledging harm, feeling it - not just bottling - is important. And doing so makes it easier to learn from, to figure out what to do next. Asking, "What shall I do next? What do I want to happen next? What shall I do if it happens again?" That's also important.
It does seem like a lot of attention is put of the former importance and the latter importance gets a bit neglected.
He seems to spend half of this hand-wringing that right-wing perspectives aren't being represented enough in the research.
The most interesting bit of this is a quote from something someone else wrote:
That smells like anti-fragile, that concept by Stephen Pinker. The idea that hurting children makes them better. Hey Pinker, did you get that idea while you were on one of the dozens of flights you took on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express?
I can see how it rings of that. There is a good point, though, that our tools for handling this can over-focus on the harm.
Being alive means experiencing some kind of trauma. It's unavoidable. Part of being made of meat. Shit happens. Acknowledging harm, feeling it - not just bottling - is important. And doing so makes it easier to learn from, to figure out what to do next. Asking, "What shall I do next? What do I want to happen next? What shall I do if it happens again?" That's also important.
It does seem like a lot of attention is put of the former importance and the latter importance gets a bit neglected.
Pinker, is that you?