You can’t simply reject The Perfect Rhetorical Fortress (TPRF). You actually have to lay siege to it.
Rhetoric has more of a Mutually Assured Destruction logic to it—you try to destroy me, you will get destroyed as well. If you simply ignore people who use TPRF you’re simply allowing them to degrade you without any cost to themselves. But if you show them that you can degrade their reputation as well, if not better, than they can decrease yours, you give them an incentive to not use TPRF.
She’ll be lambasted for sure . Much of it will be personal attacks not anchored in debate but in silencing dissent. Which of course leads to criticism by those who would never sully themselves to read the book but to dismiss it out of hand . Bravo to Shrier for poking the bear once again. There are too few left who will
I whole heartedly agree with your description of the the rhetorical fortress problem. I find the same landmines when discussing race in America. Certain concepts are off limits. You are either a racist or a poor person of color who has been captured by self hatred. I find slow deliberate discussion of facts helps push conversations forward. Whether it's mental health for children or racial politics we have to overcome the victimhood starting line. How do you navigate when there is some fact to the story of past injustice or present day vulnerabilities? The "yes ,that is true but.... "
In fairness, there is some legitimate criticism of the book. Both Twenge on her Generation Tech Substack and Haidt on the Honestly podcast infer that her central thesis is not supported by research. Twenge goes on to challenge several additional conclusions Shrier makes, while acknowledging what she gets right—a very balanced review worth checking out.
Excited to read this after hearing good things so far. Also curious about ACEs as I’ve seen them first hand working with children and find myself worrying about where the ACEs will lead them.
"Did the speaker lose their cool? We dub this the “don’t get angry” barricade, in which someone hastens their own demise by voicing frustration." -- Bonus hypocrisy points are awarded when the person using this argument attacks others for "tone policing" when they criticize the non-cordiality of people if the criticized people happen to fit into marginalized identities.
Thanks so much for this lucid analysis of the anti-rational arguments that dominate public discourse. Wouldn’t it be great if students once again had training in rhetoric so they would know how to identify fallacies and fearlessly rebuff them? Frankly, I needed this refresher, myself.
After your comprehensive description of the rhetorical fortress, which is how things are taken down, another major contribution could go along the lines of assembling a compendium of bad ideas or practices. You got started in "Coddling" and this books looks like a continuation. Might be good to keep an ongoing count in an equally accessible format.
Excellent article. Will likely order the book. Albert Ellis’ REBT discourages people from being mired in their depression/anxiety. Is this similar to CBT?
I'm curious how you square your praise of her book with your praise of CBT. Shrier does say to go get therapy if you really need it, and I've only seen her interviews so far and not read the full book, so maybe she's more explicit there, but do you find her at all too flippant about it? From her interviews, it seems like she's railing against giving your kids therapy unless they "actually need it" a majority of the time without clearly articulating what it means to "actually need it." I can see this, in a warped depressed brain, becoming a justification for not helping oneself because of the risks of therapy she states. Do you have concerns that it will drive people away from getting the help they need?
Yes, name-calling has evolved on campus, names are now great mulittaskers, they are not only accusations, they are verdicts. The reason for this is that they are related to feellings, and feelings are part of lived experience and must be sanctified and treasured. I am in the fight of my life for my teaching position, I must respond to accusations of "racist" "islamophobe" and "violent" . My absurd response that I did not mention race or religion and I have never raised my voice let alone hit or threatened anyone is met by bemused looks from the "investigators." We don't rely on evidence in a uni court, only balance of probabilities they tell me - otherwise known as who is the better liar or who the investigator likes better. And when name calling is a combo accusation, trial and verdict we are waging war on reason, I'm not sure if we are moving back to earlier times or going back to kindergarten.
You can’t simply reject The Perfect Rhetorical Fortress (TPRF). You actually have to lay siege to it.
Rhetoric has more of a Mutually Assured Destruction logic to it—you try to destroy me, you will get destroyed as well. If you simply ignore people who use TPRF you’re simply allowing them to degrade you without any cost to themselves. But if you show them that you can degrade their reputation as well, if not better, than they can decrease yours, you give them an incentive to not use TPRF.
She’ll be lambasted for sure . Much of it will be personal attacks not anchored in debate but in silencing dissent. Which of course leads to criticism by those who would never sully themselves to read the book but to dismiss it out of hand . Bravo to Shrier for poking the bear once again. There are too few left who will
I whole heartedly agree with your description of the the rhetorical fortress problem. I find the same landmines when discussing race in America. Certain concepts are off limits. You are either a racist or a poor person of color who has been captured by self hatred. I find slow deliberate discussion of facts helps push conversations forward. Whether it's mental health for children or racial politics we have to overcome the victimhood starting line. How do you navigate when there is some fact to the story of past injustice or present day vulnerabilities? The "yes ,that is true but.... "
In fairness, there is some legitimate criticism of the book. Both Twenge on her Generation Tech Substack and Haidt on the Honestly podcast infer that her central thesis is not supported by research. Twenge goes on to challenge several additional conclusions Shrier makes, while acknowledging what she gets right—a very balanced review worth checking out.
Excited to read this after hearing good things so far. Also curious about ACEs as I’ve seen them first hand working with children and find myself worrying about where the ACEs will lead them.
"Did the speaker lose their cool? We dub this the “don’t get angry” barricade, in which someone hastens their own demise by voicing frustration." -- Bonus hypocrisy points are awarded when the person using this argument attacks others for "tone policing" when they criticize the non-cordiality of people if the criticized people happen to fit into marginalized identities.
Well said. But like so much in life, the excesses of the collectivists are self-correcting.
You will recall the trope that ends "...and hard men make good times."
Thanks so much for this lucid analysis of the anti-rational arguments that dominate public discourse. Wouldn’t it be great if students once again had training in rhetoric so they would know how to identify fallacies and fearlessly rebuff them? Frankly, I needed this refresher, myself.
Really interesting reading. I learned some things.
After your comprehensive description of the rhetorical fortress, which is how things are taken down, another major contribution could go along the lines of assembling a compendium of bad ideas or practices. You got started in "Coddling" and this books looks like a continuation. Might be good to keep an ongoing count in an equally accessible format.
I usually hate being a fanboy, but… this is the single best piece I have read on the Internet (which means, read) in the past year or two.
Which means you must be canceled…
Excellent article. Will likely order the book. Albert Ellis’ REBT discourages people from being mired in their depression/anxiety. Is this similar to CBT?
Really excited to see that interview! Any way to be notified?
I'm curious how you square your praise of her book with your praise of CBT. Shrier does say to go get therapy if you really need it, and I've only seen her interviews so far and not read the full book, so maybe she's more explicit there, but do you find her at all too flippant about it? From her interviews, it seems like she's railing against giving your kids therapy unless they "actually need it" a majority of the time without clearly articulating what it means to "actually need it." I can see this, in a warped depressed brain, becoming a justification for not helping oneself because of the risks of therapy she states. Do you have concerns that it will drive people away from getting the help they need?
Yes, name-calling has evolved on campus, names are now great mulittaskers, they are not only accusations, they are verdicts. The reason for this is that they are related to feellings, and feelings are part of lived experience and must be sanctified and treasured. I am in the fight of my life for my teaching position, I must respond to accusations of "racist" "islamophobe" and "violent" . My absurd response that I did not mention race or religion and I have never raised my voice let alone hit or threatened anyone is met by bemused looks from the "investigators." We don't rely on evidence in a uni court, only balance of probabilities they tell me - otherwise known as who is the better liar or who the investigator likes better. And when name calling is a combo accusation, trial and verdict we are waging war on reason, I'm not sure if we are moving back to earlier times or going back to kindergarten.
Shrier is a pale echo of what Thomas Szasz wrote decades ago.