How Gender Affects Your Ideals | Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott | EP 388

Added: Oct 17, 2023

Lukianoff and Schlott discuss the origins of their collaboration and how they came to write the book together. Schlott, a 23-year-old right-leaning libertarian, reached out to Lukianoff after reading his previous book and expressed her agreement with his ideas. They decided to work together on a follow-up book that would address cancel culture from a Gen Z perspective.

The conversation then turns to the concept of cancel culture and its impact on free speech. Lukianoff argues that cancel culture is not only real but also historic, with more professors being fired in recent years than during the McCarthy era. He suggests that cancel culture is a way of winning arguments without actually engaging in debate, as it creates a climate of fear and intimidation that stifles dissenting opinions.

Schlott adds that cancel culture is particularly prevalent in higher education, which has become feminized and politicized. She believes that the education system should emphasize rationality over emotions from an early age and foster a balance between male and female perspectives. She also expresses hope in alternative educational methods that can counterbalance the excesses of cancel culture.

The discussion then delves into the psychological aspects of cancel culture and its connection to gender. Peterson raises the idea that women may be more prone to engage in subtle forms of aggression, such as gossip and reputation-sabotaging, which are amplified on social media. He suggests that this behavior is rooted in women's higher levels of neuroticism and their historical roles as caregivers and protectors.

Lukianoff agrees with Peterson's hypothesis and acknowledges the existence of female aggression, particularly in relational forms. He also highlights the fact that women tend to be more skeptical of free speech, which can contribute to the prevalence of cancel culture in higher education. However, he emphasizes that there are women who push back against cancel culture and champion free speech, such as J.K. Rowling.

The conversation then shifts to the future of higher education and the potential for alternative models to challenge the current system. Lukianoff suggests that mechanisms allowing individuals to sidestep traditional higher education, such as objective assessments of cognitive ability and conscientiousness, could disrupt the status quo. He mentions the upcoming launch of Peterson Academy, a new university that aims to provide affordable education based on intellectual merit.

Lukianoff highlights the massive technological shift that has occurred with the rise of social media, which has allowed for the introduction of billions of additional people to the global conversation. This has resulted in an anarchical period where anyone can be torn down, leading to cancel culture. However, he also emphasizes that this period of craziness is not permanent and that cultures can adapt and learn new ways of utilizing social media to argue towards truth.

Schlott adds that the pessimism surrounding cancel culture is partially due to the early problems created by this technological shift. However, she remains hopeful and believes that the problems can be solved by encouraging more young people to speak out and be authentic. She suggests that courage is contagious and that if more young people are open and honest about their beliefs, it will help combat cancel culture.

The conversation then turns to the role of education in perpetuating cancel culture. Lukianoff criticizes the faculties of education, which he believes have produced destructive and counterproductive fads such as the self-esteem movement, whole word learning, multiple intelligences, and social-emotional learning. He argues that conservatives have failed to defend their territory in education, allowing progressive radicals to gain control of the education system.

Schlott shares her personal experience of facing cancel culture online. She acknowledges that women often face a higher level of brutality and personal attacks, particularly related to their appearance. However, she also emphasizes the importance of authenticity and courage in facing cancel culture. She believes that young people need to overcome the fear of being canceled and speak out, as this will inspire others to do the same.

Lukianoff discusses the Harvard University's low score on the campus freedom score, which was awarded by his organization, FIRE. He explains that the score is based on a comprehensive study of student opinion, speech codes, professor cancellations, and attempts to cancel professors. Harvard scored abysmally, earning a score below zero, indicating a poor environment for freedom of speech.

The discussion continues with a focus on Harvard University and its ranking on the "10 worst schools for freedom of speech" list. Lukianoff, who is associated with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), explains that Harvard has been on the list multiple times, indicating a lack of commitment to academic freedom and free speech. He mentions that Steven Pinker, a member of FIRE's advisory council, created a group to defend academic freedom and freedom of speech at Harvard, which highlights the need for the university to address these issues seriously.

The conversation then shifts to the broader issue of universities and their priorities. Peterson raises the question of whether Harvard is more of a university or a hedge fund, given its immense wealth. Lukianoff agrees, stating that the university's focus on its financial assets may overshadow its commitment to being an educational institution. He also notes that Harvard has become increasingly politically correct, with professors feeling afraid to express their opinions due to potential backlash from students.

The discussion then turns to the effectiveness of FIRE in advocating for free speech on campuses. Lukianoff explains that while FIRE has had success in convincing schools to change their policies through legal action or public pressure, Harvard has been resistant to change. Peterson suggests that alumni should stop donating to Harvard as a way to encourage the university to take the issue of free speech more seriously.

Schlott shares her personal experience as a student, highlighting the negative impact of social media and cancel culture on her generation. She describes a group discussion at university where all the girls had a history of self-harm, which she found heartbreaking. Schlott expresses concern about the state of her generation, describing it as bleak and marked by a sense of prolonged adolescence. She also mentions the challenges in navigating relationships between men and women in the current cultural climate.

The conversation then delves into the rise of self-destructive neuroticism and the negative effects of excessive self-consciousness. Lukianoff mentions research that shows a correlation between self-referential language and mental disorders, emphasizing the importance of focusing less on oneself for overall well-being. Schlott agrees, noting the prevalence of depressive tendencies and social contagions among her peers.

The podcast concludes on a more optimistic note, with Peterson acknowledging the demoralization of young people but also highlighting the potential for positive change. He commends Schlott for using her voice and the available technological tools to make a difference. Lukianoff expresses hope that their book, "The Coddling of the American Mind," along with other efforts, will contribute to a revitalization of ideals and a rejection of cancel culture.