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?
-
Show this thread
-
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.
7 replies 13 retweets 80 likesShow this thread -
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”.
35 replies 15 retweets 102 likesShow this thread -
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.
17 replies 10 retweets 108 likesShow this thread
You explained it yourself: Psychologists can't understand their own field, because their brains get in the way.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.