The Coddling of the American Mind

About the Author

Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt are two influential voices in contemporary discussions about free speech, education, and the mental health of young people. Their combined expertise provides a unique lens through which to examine the cultural shifts that have taken place in American society, particularly in the realm of higher education.

Greg Lukianoff is a constitutional lawyer by training and the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). His career has been dedicated to defending free speech on college campuses, where he has witnessed firsthand the erosion of free expression. His background in law and his role at FIRE give him deep insights into the legal and cultural dynamics at play in today’s universities.

Jonathan Haidt, on the other hand, is a social psychologist whose research focuses on the intuitive foundations of morality. He is a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business and the author of several influential books, including "The Righteous Mind." Haidt’s work explores how moral reasoning shapes political and cultural attitudes, providing a psychological perspective on the issues discussed in "The Coddling of the American Mind."

Together, Lukianoff and Haidt blend their perspectives on law, psychology, and education to explore how contemporary cultural trends are impacting the development of young minds. Their work is a critical examination of the unintended consequences of well-meaning efforts to protect and support young people, particularly in academic environments.

Main Idea

"The Coddling of the American Mind" argues that three "Great Untruths" have taken root in American culture, particularly among younger generations. These untruths are:

• "What doesn't kill you makes you weaker." This untruth suggests that adversity is harmful and should be avoided at all costs. Lukianoff and Haidt argue that this belief undermines the development of resilience and strength, leading to a generation that is less capable of handling challenges.
• "Always trust your feelings." This untruth encourages people to prioritize their emotions over reason, leading to a culture where subjective feelings are treated as more important than objective facts. The authors argue that this has dangerous implications for critical thinking and intellectual discourse.
• "Life is a battle between good people and evil people." This untruth fosters a black-and-white worldview, where people are divided into moral absolutes. Such thinking, the authors argue, is simplistic and leads to increased polarization and intolerance in society.

Lukianoff and Haidt contend that these untruths are deeply embedded in educational institutions, where they have contributed to the rise of "safetyism," the suppression of free speech, and a culture of victimhood. The book explores the origins of these untruths, their impact on young people, and what can be done to counteract their influence.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Untruth of Fragility: What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Weaker
3. The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: Always Trust Your Feelings
4. The Untruth of Us Versus Them: Life Is a Battle Between Good People and Evil People
5. Bad Ideas in Action
6. How Did We Get Here?
7. Wising Up
8. The Call to Action

The Untruth of Fragility: What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Weaker

The first "Great Untruth" that Lukianoff and Haidt address is the idea that adversity is inherently harmful and should be avoided whenever possible. This notion has led to the rise of "safetyism" in educational settings, where the primary goal is to protect students from any form of discomfort or challenge.

Lukianoff and Haidt argue that this belief is fundamentally flawed. They draw on psychological research to show that adversity, far from being harmful, is essential for the development of resilience. They explain that human beings are "antifragile"—a concept introduced by Nassim Nicholas Taleb—which means that we grow stronger when exposed to stressors and challenges. By shielding young people from these experiences, society is inadvertently making them more vulnerable and less capable of handling future challenges.

"Stressors and risks are necessary parts of human emotional development. And young people are no exception." - Lukianoff and Haidt

The authors point out that the rise of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" on college campuses is a symptom of this broader cultural trend. While these practices are often well-intentioned, they contribute to a culture where students are encouraged to avoid anything that might cause them discomfort, rather than learning to confront and overcome challenges. This, in turn, leads to a weaker, more fragile generation.

For instance, consider the growing demand for trigger warnings before discussing potentially upsetting topics in the classroom. While such warnings are meant to protect students from emotional distress, they can also lead to the avoidance of important but difficult discussions. This not only limits students’ exposure to diverse perspectives but also undermines their ability to engage critically with challenging material.

• A university implements a policy requiring professors to provide trigger warnings before discussing sensitive topics, leading to a reduction in the depth and complexity of classroom discussions.
• Students demand the cancellation of a speaker on campus because the speaker's views are deemed too controversial or offensive, depriving the community of the opportunity to engage with different viewpoints.

Lukianoff and Haidt emphasize that the ability to cope with adversity is a crucial part of human development. By insulating young people from challenges, we are not protecting them; we are preventing them from developing the skills and resilience they will need to navigate the complexities of adult life.

The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: Always Trust Your Feelings

The second "Great Untruth" that Lukianoff and Haidt discuss is the idea that one’s feelings are always correct and should be trusted without question. This untruth encourages what the authors call "emotional reasoning," where individuals interpret the world through the lens of their emotions rather than through rational thought and evidence.

Emotional reasoning can lead to distorted thinking and poor decision-making. When people rely solely on their emotions to interpret events, they are more likely to misperceive situations and make errors in judgment. This is particularly problematic in educational settings, where the development of critical thinking skills is essential.