I'm gonna say that she meant "discussion," not "debate." Or she meant one for the other. Look, there is a lot of silencing going on in American colleges, and it comes from every side (left, right, top [admins and professors], inside [the tendency to self-censor out of fear]). Why you or anyone else would degrade this valid criticism to a single side behaving badly is beyond me.
Debates are rarely even useful as a classroom tool anyway.
There are dozens upon dozens of the same article out there. It’s always some variation on, “The woke left might criticize me if I say what I actually think” (which is usually something awful). What people who write these articles want is for their speech to be allowed but criticism to be banned. That’s the problem with so many of those pieces.
I'm interested in your inference where you say "We also found that more experienced politicians hung onto their incorrect beliefs more than newly elected officials. Over the years, they had learned how to debate the facts in a way that reinforced their beliefs even when those beliefs were contrary to the facts." That's plausible, but it seems like it could be not learning so much as selection: the inexperienced politicians who were not good at constantly declaring themselves correct either quit being politicians because it's less fun when you're plagued by doubt or were less effective/charismatic/whatever and so less likely to be selected to run again or, if so selected, to be nominated. Did you and your co-author happen to follow up with the inexperienced politicians a few years later to see if the ones who started out less-good at sticking to their errant positions were equally likely to still be in that line of work?
One of the great things about twitter, and admittedly there aren't many, is that you have academics carrying intimidating titles like "McCourt Chair at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University" revealing themselves to be among the dumbest motherfuckers alive
I'm gonna say that she meant "discussion," not "debate." Or she meant one for the other. Look, there is a lot of silencing going on in American colleges, and it comes from every side (left, right, top [admins and professors], inside [the tendency to self-censor out of fear]). Why you or anyone else would degrade this valid criticism to a single side behaving badly is beyond me.
Debates are rarely even useful as a classroom tool anyway.
There are dozens upon dozens of the same article out there. It’s always some variation on, “The woke left might criticize me if I say what I actually think” (which is usually something awful). What people who write these articles want is for their speech to be allowed but criticism to be banned. That’s the problem with so many of those pieces.
Cope, Libtard! Seethe!
I'm interested in your inference where you say "We also found that more experienced politicians hung onto their incorrect beliefs more than newly elected officials. Over the years, they had learned how to debate the facts in a way that reinforced their beliefs even when those beliefs were contrary to the facts." That's plausible, but it seems like it could be not learning so much as selection: the inexperienced politicians who were not good at constantly declaring themselves correct either quit being politicians because it's less fun when you're plagued by doubt or were less effective/charismatic/whatever and so less likely to be selected to run again or, if so selected, to be nominated. Did you and your co-author happen to follow up with the inexperienced politicians a few years later to see if the ones who started out less-good at sticking to their errant positions were equally likely to still be in that line of work?
Is this an attempt at reason? Or just a disguise? Because this is non-sense.
One of the great things about twitter, and admittedly there aren't many, is that you have academics carrying intimidating titles like "McCourt Chair at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University" revealing themselves to be among the dumbest motherfuckers alive