Much of the discussion here misses the thrust of Haidt's "structurally stupid" model. Party X could have an utterly insane platform, but still not be structurally stupid, if it allowed its politicians and members to dissent from portions of that platform. Party Y could have a perfectly reasonable platform, but still be structurally stupi…
Much of the discussion here misses the thrust of Haidt's "structurally stupid" model. Party X could have an utterly insane platform, but still not be structurally stupid, if it allowed its politicians and members to dissent from portions of that platform. Party Y could have a perfectly reasonable platform, but still be structurally stupid, if it required rigid and unquestioning adherence to every plank from all of its members. The "structurally" part doesn't mean that the platform is smart or stupid, but that the party itself is missing the element of internal dissent and criticism that could lead it to better ideas.
My main criticism of Haidt's position on this is its application. Pointing out that two Senators can dissent from the party leadership -- Senators Sinema and Manchin are the obvious cases -- doesn't mean that the Democratic party allows dissent generally. Let a Democrat say that he's pro-life, disagrees with affirmative action, or thinks believes that society needs to support male-female marriage specifically, and see how long he remains in good standing.
But let's suppose he's thinking about the factionalization in the Democratic party, such as the Squad vs. Speaker Pelosi, which might be seen as making it not "structurally stupid". Such factionalization also exists in the GOP, and is so deep-seated that the term "RINO" (Republican in Name Only) has been around for years to pinpoint it, long before Donald Trump fragmented the party further. Compare Romney and Boebert. If the factionalization of the Democratic party represents the dissent that could possibly make the Democratic party smarter, doesn't the factionalization of the Republican party represent the same thing on their side?
This leads me to think that Haidt knows his own party well but the opposing party only through stereotypes, which necessarily wipe out important distinctions -- and that suggests to me further that Haidt is living in a bubble that doesn't let in relevant information about the Republican party. I don't know him well enough to say, but it's possible that he has a personal level of structural stupidity that blocks out important information, thereby preventing him from seeing the full picture, and, because he's blocking that information out, he may _never_ see the full picture. I could hope otherwise, but that's what it looks like to me.
Ikr. I'm a big fan of Haidt's work to help kids and his ideas about reforming social media. But I think he's biased about the GOP. I also don't appreciate how he's always hating on Fox News. They have turned out to be right on many important news stories. I wonder if he has ever really watched it? I hope he's not like the people who criticize the Catholic church but have never attended one mass. Or worse, criticize a book without reading it. If he can't stomach Fox, he could always watch Fox Business. The stock market can't be biased.
Much of the discussion here misses the thrust of Haidt's "structurally stupid" model. Party X could have an utterly insane platform, but still not be structurally stupid, if it allowed its politicians and members to dissent from portions of that platform. Party Y could have a perfectly reasonable platform, but still be structurally stupid, if it required rigid and unquestioning adherence to every plank from all of its members. The "structurally" part doesn't mean that the platform is smart or stupid, but that the party itself is missing the element of internal dissent and criticism that could lead it to better ideas.
My main criticism of Haidt's position on this is its application. Pointing out that two Senators can dissent from the party leadership -- Senators Sinema and Manchin are the obvious cases -- doesn't mean that the Democratic party allows dissent generally. Let a Democrat say that he's pro-life, disagrees with affirmative action, or thinks believes that society needs to support male-female marriage specifically, and see how long he remains in good standing.
But let's suppose he's thinking about the factionalization in the Democratic party, such as the Squad vs. Speaker Pelosi, which might be seen as making it not "structurally stupid". Such factionalization also exists in the GOP, and is so deep-seated that the term "RINO" (Republican in Name Only) has been around for years to pinpoint it, long before Donald Trump fragmented the party further. Compare Romney and Boebert. If the factionalization of the Democratic party represents the dissent that could possibly make the Democratic party smarter, doesn't the factionalization of the Republican party represent the same thing on their side?
This leads me to think that Haidt knows his own party well but the opposing party only through stereotypes, which necessarily wipe out important distinctions -- and that suggests to me further that Haidt is living in a bubble that doesn't let in relevant information about the Republican party. I don't know him well enough to say, but it's possible that he has a personal level of structural stupidity that blocks out important information, thereby preventing him from seeing the full picture, and, because he's blocking that information out, he may _never_ see the full picture. I could hope otherwise, but that's what it looks like to me.
Ikr. I'm a big fan of Haidt's work to help kids and his ideas about reforming social media. But I think he's biased about the GOP. I also don't appreciate how he's always hating on Fox News. They have turned out to be right on many important news stories. I wonder if he has ever really watched it? I hope he's not like the people who criticize the Catholic church but have never attended one mass. Or worse, criticize a book without reading it. If he can't stomach Fox, he could always watch Fox Business. The stock market can't be biased.