Critical Thinking

Lukianoff and Haidt mention the term “critical thinking” in their article many times in relation to microaggressions and offensiveness on college campuses. To define it they write: “critical thinking requires grounding one’s beliefs in evidence rather than emotion or desire, and learning how to search for and evaluate evidence that might contradict one’s initial hypothesis.” They suggest that to think critically one should think objectively without bias; similar to using the scientific method. This is very hard for humans as we are deeply emotional beings. Often, in times of feeling emotionally charged, we resort to the opposite of critical thinking: emotional reasoning. We do this because it is very hard to ignore our feelings and look at a situation objectively, so we pay attention to how we are feeling in that moment and react accordingly. This way of thinking is being steadily more accepted in society today as a reaction to the exposure of injustices that occur across the country. Lukianoff and Haidt say that one reason critical thinking is being diminished in schools is when a student feels offended you are not allowed to analyze their thinking, as that would be “blaming the victim.” Instead, you must simply accept that they are offended and you are in the wrong. Feeling offended is accepted as evidence in harassment cases, no matter the content.

“Fortune Telling and Trigger Warnings”

Fortune telling and trigger warnings are two methods used to prevent people from encountering offensive content. Fortune telling is defined by Leahy, Holland, and McGinn as “predict[ing] the future negatively,” meaning that I may see something online and think that someone else might have a negative emotional reaction by this and be triggered. As a result, I may write a comment in some way demanding that this content should have a “trigger warning,” something that will tell the viewer that this content may give them a negative emotional reaction. On the surface, this may seem to be a good thing. In some cases it probably is. The problem, though, is that trigger warnings are being applied more liberally than ever before and the outcomes of this can be worse than seeing the content in the first place. One example of this can be seen in law schools where students want their professors to avoid teaching rape law as it may cause distress to students listening to the lecture. “[Jeanie] Suk compares this to trying to teach ‘a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he’ll become distressed if he sees or handles blood.'” Another example is that colleges are beginning to ban books such as “Mrs. Dolloway” and “Metamorphoses” which depict suicide and sexual assault. The reason why banning this content is ultimately a bad practice is because for people who feel affected by this, avoiding any stimuli from experience can actually worsen and reinforce those experiences. I agree with Lukianoff and Haidt not out of speculation, but out of my personal experience. In my life, I have faced intense anxiety, depression, and traumatic memories. For many years I struggled to handle my emotions which prevented me from experiencing life in a number of ways. In the last year, I finally escaped the grasp of these emotions and realized that the reason I couldn’t before was because I was trying to run away from any stimuli that made me feel bad. When I took the time to face my trauma and anxiety, I was able to make progress. I took part in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy – a practice Lukianoff and Haidt mention in the article – and found that facing “triggering” stimuli was the only way to grow out of my despair. Putting “trigger warnings” on everything that might make someone upset is only supporting the national mental health crisis this generation is facing and that is why I agree with Lukianoff and Haidt’s judgments of “fortune telling and trigger warnings.”