The Coddling of the American Mind

by Greg Lukianoff

  FORTUNE-TELLING: You predict the future negatively: Things will get worse, or there is danger ahead. “I’ll fail that exam,” or “I won’t get the job.”

  CATASTROPHIZING: You believe that what has happened or will happen will be so awful and unbearable that you won’t be able to stand it. “It would be terrible if I failed.”

  LABELING: You assign global negative traits to yourself and others. “I’m undesirable,” or “He’s a rotten person.”

  DISCOUNTING POSITIVES: You claim that the positive things you or others do are trivial. “That’s what wives are supposed to do—so it doesn’t count when she’s nice to me,” or “Those successes were easy, so they don’t matter.”

  NEGATIVE FILTERING: You focus almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notice the positives. “Look at all of the people who don’t like me.”

  OVERGENERALIZING: You perceive a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident. “This generally happens to me. I seem to fail at a lot of things.”

  DICHOTOMOUS THINKING: You view events or people in all-or-nothing terms. “I get rejected by everyone,” or “It was a complete waste of time.”

  SHOULDS: You interpret events in terms of how things should be, rather than simply focusing on what is. “I should do well. If I don’t, then I’m a failure.”

  PERSONALIZING: You attribute a disproportionate amount of the blame to yourself for negative events, and you fail to see that certain events are also caused by others. “The marriage ended because I failed.”

  BLAMING: You focus on the other person as the source of your negative feelings, and you refuse to take responsibility for changing yourself. “She’s to blame for the way I feel now,” or “My parents caused all my problems.”

  UNFAIR COMPARISONS: You interpret events in terms of standards that are unrealistic—for example, you focus primarily on others who do better than you and find yourself inferior in the comparison. “She’s more successful than I am,” or “Others did better than I did on the test.”

  REGRET ORIENTATION: You focus on the idea that you could have done better in the past, rather than on what you can do better now. “I could have had a better job if I had tried,” or “I shouldn’t have said that.”

  WHAT IF?: You keep asking a series of questions about “what if” something happens, and you fail to be satisfied with any of the answers. “Yeah, but what if I get anxious?” or “What if I can’t catch my breath?”

  EMOTIONAL REASONING: You let your feelings guide your interpretation of reality. “I feel depressed; therefore, my marriage is not working out.”

  INABILITY TO DISCONFIRM: You reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict your negative thoughts. For example, when you have the thought “I’m unlovable,” you reject as irrelevant any evidence that people like you. Consequently, your thought cannot be refuted. “That’s not the real issue. There are deeper problems. There are other factors.”

  JUDGMENT FOCUS: You view yourself, others, and events in terms of evaluations as good–bad or superior–inferior, rather than simply describing, accepting, or understanding. You are continually measuring yourself and others according to arbitrary standards, and finding that you and others fall short. You are focused on the judgments of others as well as your own judgments of yourself. “I didn’t perform well in college,” or “If I take up tennis, I won’t do well,” or “Look how successful she is. I’m not successful.”

  APPENDIX 2

  The Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression

  The Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression (“The Chicago Statement”) was created in January of 2015 by a committee led by Geoffrey Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law. The committee was charged with crafting a statement “articulating the University’s overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community.”1 Below is an abridged and adapted version of the statement FIRE has created in order to help schools tailor the concepts in the Chicago Statement to their own schools. By early 2018, over forty institutions had adopted it. One of the easiest things you can do to improve the situation on campus is to urge any school with which you have a relationship to adopt its own version of the Statement.

  Because the [INSTITUTION] is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the [INSTITUTION] community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. Except insofar as limitations on that freedom are necessary to the functioning of the [INSTITUTION], the [INSTITUTION] fully respects and supports the freedom of all members of the [INSTITUTION] community “to discuss any problem that presents itself.”

  Of course, the ideas of different members of the [INSTITUTION] community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the [INSTITUTION] to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the [INSTITUTION] greatly values civility, and although all members of the [INSTITUTION] community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.

  The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The [INSTITUTION] may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the [INSTITUTION]. In addition, the [INSTITUTION] may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the [INSTITUTION]. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the [INSTITUTION]’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.

  In a word, the [INSTITUTION]’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the [INSTITUTION] community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the [INSTITUTION] community, not for the [INSTITUTION] as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the [INSTITUTION] community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the [INSTITUTION]’s educational mission.

  As a corollary to the [INSTITUTION]’s commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the [INSTITUTION] community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the [INSTITUTION] community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the [INSTITUTION] has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

  This resolution is adapted and excerpted from the 2015 University of Chicago Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression. The full statement can be found at:

  https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/page/report-committee-freedom-expression

  NOTES

  For full information on books
and academic journal articles, cited here by last name(s) and date only, see the References section. These notes are available at TheCoddling.com, to make it easy for readers to access the many online resources listed.

  Epigraph

  1. In Byrom (1993), chapter 3, verses 40–43. The more literal rendering in Mascaro (1973), chapter 3, verses 42–43, has the same meaning but is not as elegant: “An enemy can hurt an enemy, and a man who hates can harm another man, but a man’s own mind, if wrongly directed, can do him a far greater harm. A father or a mother or a relative, can indeed do good to a man; but his own right-directed mind can do to him a far greater good.”

  2. Solzhenitsyn (1975), p. 168.

  Introduction: The Search for Wisdom

  1. Nietzsche (1889/1997). Maxim number 8.

  2. Ponos was a minor Greek god of toil, pain, and hardship. Miso means “hatred” (as in “misogyny”), so the ancient Greek word misoponos means a hater of painful toil and hardship. We thank Professor Ian McCready-Flora, specialist in ancient Greek philosophy at the University of Virginia, for guiding us to this name. We cast Misoponos as the oracle of Koalemos. Koalemos is mentioned briefly in Aristophanes’ play The Birds as the god of stupidity.

  3. For readers outside the United States, let us take a moment here to clarify a few terms and Americanisms. We’ll use the words “college” and “university” more or less interchangeably to refer to what in the United Kingdom and Canada is called “university.” We’ll often refer to “campus” to refer to the grounds, setting, and culture of universities. “High school” refers to grades nine through twelve, roughly ages fourteen to eighteen. We’ll generally avoid using the word “liberal” to refer to the left, as is commonly done in the USA; we’ll speak of left and right, progressive and conservative.

  4. Find out more at http://www.theFIRE.org

  5. Jarvie, J. (2014, March 3). Trigger happy. The New Republic. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/article/116842/trigger-warnings-have-spread-blogs-college-classes-thats-bad

  6. Medina, J. (2014, May 17). Warning: The Literary Canon Could Make Students Squirm. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/us/warning-the-literary-canon-could-make-students-squirm.html

  7. Columbia College. (n.d.). The Core curriculum: Literature Humanities. Retrieved from https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/lithum

  8. Johnson, K., Lynch, T., Monroe, E., & Wang, T. (2015, April 30). Our identities matter in Core classrooms. Columbia Daily Spectator. Retrieved from http://spc.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2015/04/30/our-identities-matter-core-classrooms [inactive]

  9. The “canon wars” that erupted after the publication of Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind (1987) were mostly fought by faculty, but students often sided with the faculty favoring the inclusion of more women and people of color. For example, in a 1987 rally at Stanford celebrating such diversification, students chanted, “‘Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture’s got to go.’” See: Bernstein, R. (1988, January 19). In dispute on bias, Stanford is likely to alter Western culture program. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/19/us/in-dispute-on-bias-stanford-is-likely-to-alter-western-culture-program.html

  10. Pinker (2016), p. 110.

  11. Haidt (2006).

  12. Nelson, L. (2015, September 14). Obama on liberal college students who want to be “coddled”: “That’s not the way we learn.” Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correctness

  13. There were hints in the United Kingdom as early as 2014; see O’Neill, B. (2014, November 22). Free speech is so last century. Today’s students want the “right to be comfortable.” Spectator. Retrieved from https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable. But the number of news reports about “safe spaces” and related phenomena seemed to increase after the attention they got in the United States in the fall of 2015. See, for example: Gosden, E. (2016, April 3). Student accused of violating university “safe space” by raising her hand. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he

  14. See a summary of research and news reports from several countries at https://heterodoxacademy.org/in ternational

  15. There were dozens of cases, among them Eric Garner, Mike Brown, Tamir Rice, and Freddie Gray. It is less well-known that there were also several black women who were victims of police violence, including Michelle Cusseaux, Tanisha Anderson, Aura Rosser, and Meagan Hockaday. For more information on police shootings, see: Kelly, K., et al. (2016, December 30). Fatal shootings by police remain relatively unchanged after two years. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/fatal-shootings-by-police-remain-relatively-unchanged-after-two-years/2016/12/30/fc807596-c3ca-11e6-9578-0054287507db_story.html

  16. Dorell, O. (2016, June 29). 2016 already marred by nearly daily terror attacks. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/29/major-terrorist-attacks-year/86492692

  17. Parvini, S., Branson-Potts, H., & Esquivel, P. (2017, February 1). For victims of San Bernardino terrorist attack, conflicting views about Trump policy in their name. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-san-bernardino-trump-20170131-story.html

  18. Ellis, R., Fantz, A., Karimi, F., & McLaughlin, E. (2016, June 13). Orlando shooting: 49 killed, shooter pledged ISIS allegiance. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/index.html

  19. Branch, J., Kovaleski, S, & Tavernise, S. (2017, October 4). Stephen Paddock chased gambling’s payouts and perks. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/stephen-paddock-gambling.html. See also: AP. (2018, January 19). The latest: Timeline offers look at Vegas shooter’s moves. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from: https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2018-01-19/the-latest-no-motive-uncovered-for-las-vegas-mass-shooting

  20. Coddle [Def. 2]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coddling

  21. You can find accessible, comprehensive data on these trends at the website humanprogress.org

  Chapter 1: The Untruth of Fragility

  What Doesn’t Kill You Makes You Weaker

  1. The Book of Mencius, in Chan (1963), p. 78.

  2. Hendrick, B. (2010, May 14). Peanut allergies in kids on the rise. WebMD. Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/allergies/news/20100514/peanut-allergies-in-kids-on-the-rise

  3. Du Toit, Katz et al. (2008).

  4. Christakis (2008).

  5. Du Toit, Roberts et al. (2015).

  6. LEAP Study Results. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.leapstudy.com/leap-study-results

  7. LEAP Study Results. (2015); see n. 6.

  8. Chan, S. (2001). Complex adaptive systems. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/Complex%20Adaptive%20Systems.pdf. See also: Holland (1992).

  9. Okada, Kuhn, Feillet, & Bach (2010).

  10. Gopnik, A. (2016, August 31). Should we let toddlers play with saws and knives? The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-we-let-toddlers-play-with-saws-and-knives-1472654945

  11. Taleb (2012), p. 5.

  12. Taleb (2012), p. 3.

  13. Child Trends Databank. (2016, November). Infant, child, and teen mortality. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/infant-child-and-teen-mortality

  14. Gopnik (2016); see n. 10.

  15. Office of Equity Concerns. (2014). Support resources for faculty. Oberlin College & Conservatory [via Wayback Machine internet Archive]. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20131222174936 [inactive]

  16. Haslam (2016).

  17. American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). DSM history. Ret
rieved from https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/history-of-the-dsm

  18. Friedman, M. J. (2007, January 31). PTSD: National Center for PTSD. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/ptsd-overview/ptsd-overview.asp. See also: Haslam (2016), p. 6.

  19. Bonanno, Westphal, & Mancini (2011).

  20. “Most trauma survivors are highly resilient and develop appropriate coping strategies, including the use of social supports, to deal with the aftermath and effects of trauma. Most recover with time, show minimal distress, and function effectively across major life areas and developmental stages.” Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (U.S.). (2014). Trauma-informed care in behavioral health services, chapter 3, Understanding the impact of trauma. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (U.S.). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207191

  21. Trauma. (n.d.). SAMHSA-HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions. Retrieved from https://www.integration.samhsa.gov/clinical-practice/trauma. Note: This tautological definition of “trauma” uses the reaction to the “experience” as the definition of whether trauma occurred.

  22. This is particularly troubling, because if the effect is included in the definition of “trauma,” when a person experiences what has come to be called “post-traumatic growth,” whatever happened will no longer be defined as trauma, no matter how far outside the range of normal experience. This will eliminate the ability for people to experience post-traumatic growth, because if they are not suffering, the original events will not be defined as “traumatic.” See: Collier (2016).