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.
3 replies 13 retweets 75 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”.
29 replies 14 retweets 92 likesShow this thread
The same biases that make free speech "problematic" will also skew censorship and thought-police systems in perverse directions, so it's a wash, at worst.
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.