Whatever happened to Common Sense?

Finding wisdom in an age of intolerance and stupidity

Common Sense: The ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions. 

This definition is a bit abstract. Common = shared. Sense = perception. Seems simple. Then why has dealing with problems – political and social – become so maddeningly difficult? Did Occam’s Razor suddenly vanish from all deliberation? Have we lost our collective minds? 

Well, the short answer is yes. 

The Tower of Babel

Think of it another way. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt¹ explains our national disconnect in a recent article in The Atlantic. 

(Click to view article)

In this piece, Haidt uses the biblical story of “The Tower of Babel” as an allegory for modern America. Common sense would have told the Babylonians they couldn’t build a tower to “the top of the heavens.” 

Over the past decade, Haidt argues that intolerance and stupidity have fractured national unity. It is as if we are the descendants of Babylon arguing over how to build the stairway to heaven, and God, shaking his hoary head at the nonsense, cursed us all with universal gibberish. 

Instead of addressing real problems with goodwill and civility, we bicker incoherently. The infighting undermines rationality and reason and paralyzes progress and

judicious policy-making. It happens not only between red and blue, but within the left and right, as well as media, corporations, institutions, popular culture and even families. 

Cities are decaying, trust in institutions is fraying, the country is $30 trillion in debt, and technology is swallowing our lives. “Existential” threats (i.e. climate change, war) compound daily. 

And we argue over pronouns.

We simply cannot talk to each other. 

But perhaps our biggest threat looms from within, obscured by the volatility of modern rhetoric. And this threat affects all human interaction, existential or otherwise. 

The annexation of Common Sense. 

“Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom.” — Samuel Taylor Coleridge

The Trans Phenomenon

Like most people, I view the culture war raging over the transgender movement like rubbernecking past a car wreck. 

It all seems rather sudden. The acronym LGBT came to prominence in the early 2010s. As the decade progressed, the rainbow grew — another three letters in the name of inclusiveness — until it became impractical to type or say the acronym. So a plus (+) has been suffixed. As of today it is LGBTQIA+.

I’m all about equality, rationality and enlightenment, and usually turn to liberalism and its core values to approach issues and calibrate common sense. I’m open, accepting, and consciously lean to fairness in all interactions. 

But it is the T (and maybe the plus+) that has me nonplussed. 

Which one are you?

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates about 0.6 percent of American adults identify as transgender. A fractionally small demographic. But in recent years, exponentially more young people are claiming trans identity, teen girls in particular. In surveys by the American College Health Association, the number of females embracing “non-binary” gender status soared from one in 2,000 in 2008 to 1 in 20 today. That’s an increase of 2,000 percent. 

… the number of females embracing “non-binary” gender status soared from one in 2,000 in 2008 to 1 in 20 today. That’s an increase of 2,000 percent. 

Why the sudden spike in gender confusion? Is “gender fluency” a latent adolescent psychological disorder undetected in previous generations? Has the human species evolved in a decade from dimorphic to multi-morphic? 

There certainly is cause for concern. It is estimated that 42 percent of trans kids attempt suicide.

Social Media: A pox upon us

There may be multiple influences affecting today’s youth, but it appears one factor outweighs others .. the elephant in the room. The spike in social disorders – depression, anxiety, etc. –  coincides perfectly with the rise of social media as Gen Z (b. 1996-beyond) hit puberty. 

“And while social media has eroded the art of association throughout society, it may be leaving its deepest and most enduring marks on adolescents. A surge in rates of anxiety, depression, and self-harm among American teens began suddenly in the early 2010s. The cause is not known, but the timing points to social media as a substantial contributor—the surge began just as the large majority of American teens became daily users of the major platforms. Correlational and experimental studies back up the connection to depression and anxiety, as do reports from young people themselves, and from Facebook’s own research, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.” – Jonathan Haidt, The Atlantic, April 2022

Source: Haidt, J., & Twenge, J. (2021). Social media use and mental health: A review. Unpublished manuscript, New York University. Accessed at tinyurl.com/SocialMediaMentalHealthReview

These were cosseted kids Haidt and co-writer Greg Lukianoff identified in their 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind. Haidt and Lukianoff argue that Gen Z was overprotected by “helicopter parents,” whose attempts to shield them from outside threats or harm led to long-term coping deficiencies and stunted emotional growth. For example, these children were never left unsupervised to play outside. Social interaction was tightly curtailed. No scrapes or bruises. No hurt feelings. Participation trophies for all. 

Later, this generation was handed smart phones just as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram began to flourish. When Gen Z arrived on campus circa 2013-2014, it was no coincidence that so did microaggressions and safe spaces, the soft, hypersensitive hallmarks of post-teen neuroses. 

At the same time, the ideology of gender fluidity went from being an obscure strain of thinking on the academic left in the 80s and 90s to becoming the centerpiece of a radical program of social engineering carried out simultaneously by media, corporate, and academic institutions. All pandered to an already angst-filled generation. 

The Result: A Non-Binary Epidemic?

The trans argument has become a grinding political issue and a battlefield in cultural wars. The question is: is gender fluidity a singular social-psychological issue, or is it a medical misread … a biology-free diagnosis looking for a disorder? 

After careful consideration I have come to common sense conclusions:

• Social media have created general depression and sadness — dysphoria — and frequently leads to misguided or mistaken psychological diagnoses.

• “Identity” struggles are dramatically inflated by peer pressure and influences generated through social media

• Intervention treatments – “gender reassignment” therapies² – often are not only ineffectual in addressing the core issue, they are dangerous and frequently irreversible. Decisions should be made with maximum caution, involving the child (upon reaching puberty at the very earliest), the parents and mental health professionals only … and no one else.

Early ‘transitioners’ often suffer later on. Read about Chloe, Helena, Mia, Phoenix and Julia. This is confirmed by adult transitioners. 

As for gender identity instruction in public schools³ … let's put it this way … .

The overwhelming majority of six-year-old children are preoccupied with things like Superheroes, playgrounds, socializing and exploring their imagination. Constructing a coherent sentence and reading an analog clock are challenging enough. To them, LGBT etc. is a misaligned alphabet. They are far more wary of the boogeyman under the bed than a random, transitory sexual impulse. 

Human cognition is a deliberative and complex process. Development is slow for a reason. There’s a lot to learn and experience. 

How about letting children be children? 

That’s just common sense.

“San Fransicko”

At one time San Francisco was the jewel of the West Coast, with a unique skyline, a thriving and diverse cultural stage and a proud intellectual vibe unmatched anywhere in North America. 

Today it is broken. The streets are littered with filth and remnants of overnight drug frenzies. Tents for the homeless (euphemistically called the “unhoused”) line the

Photo courtesy of Business Insider

alleys and sidewalks of once burgeoning retail and civic districts, especially the Tenderloin⁴. Drug dealers and users operate openly and with impunity. The streets claim four deaths every day to overdose. 

Today, one of every 100 residents is homeless. Between 2005 and 2020, the number of people sleeping on the streets or in tents nearly doubled. A full 73 percent of San Francisco’s homeless are “unsheltered” — meaning they sleep out of doors, in tents, under highway overpasses. (In New York City, by comparison, just 3 percent are unsheltered.)

San Francsicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, the aptly-named 2021 book by Michael Shellenberger, outlines the city’s homeless/crime/drug epidemic and the urban decay it is causing.

Shellenberger delineates how the crisis has been decades in the making. He also points the finger of accountability: the City’s progressive leadership, who Shellenberger says has failed catastrophically in planning, strategy and policy. 

Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Times

San Francisco allocated $1.25 billion for homelessness and related services from 2018 to 2021. It spends more per resident than Los Angeles or New York City. Even with funding, San Francisco mayor London Breed and the City Council largely ignored the problem, either turning a blind eye to the open selling and usage, or simply cleaning the streets – at great cost – after the nightly drug orgies. 

Their reasoning: humanitarian, compassionate care of the “unhoused” as an exclusive providence of poverty.  

Linkage Center: Supervised Consumption

Four months ago the city opened the Linkage Center in the Tenderloin, a sort of triage center to provide temporary care. But instead of aggressively attacking the problem, they have exacerbated it. They became enablers. 

Michael Shellenger

The homelessness crisis, Shellenberger says, is actually an addiction and mental health crisis, compounded by misguided policies that permit open-air drug scenes on public property, prevent police enforcement against crime, and undermine the creation of a functional mental health care system. The Linkage Center, Shellenberger says, has simply become a “supervised consumption site,” where usage continues both within and outside its gates. 

Moreover, the city pays homeless people a monthly stipend – up to $800 a month – while also providing breakfast, lunch, dinner and temporary relief/outpatient services. What’s required of Linkage Center clients? Nothing. They return to the streets. The cycle simply continues. In fact, homeless people from all over the country have been drawn to San Francisco, attracted by lax policies and easy access.

Common Sense: The real humanitarian treatment

Shellenberger⁵ posits compelling questions, and I concur: What is humanitarian and compassionate about people dying in the street? Why can San Francisco not recognize nor acknowledge the realities before them? Isn’t failed policy failing everybody, not just the afflicted, but also the citizenry in general?

Instead of aggressive initiatives and intervention, civic leaders’ actions are akin to handing out cigarettes in a cancer ward.

I do not question the good intentions of decision-makers. However, good intentions do not necessarily equate to good policy. And the body count is rising.

In 2018, Shellenberger called for a State of Emergency, which California Gov. Gavin Newson gave audience to but failed to act. A year later, he posed mandatory psychiatric care and rehabilitation for addicts and the mentally ill who break the law.

Finally, he advocated for a statewide psychiatric and addiction care system (“Cal-Psych”), a crackdown on open air and online drug markets, and a change from the state’s de facto “camp anywhere” policy to a ban on illegal camping.

Extreme measures? Maybe. But the first step to solving any problem is admitting there is problem. A natural next step is finding a restoration to sanity. Alcoholics Anonymous realized this 100 years ago.

Sounds like Common Sense to me.

###

Jim Geschke was inducted into the prestigious Marquis Who’s Who Registry in 2021

1. Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist and professor of Ethical Leadership at the Stern School of Business at NYU, and one of the founders of the Heterodox Academy. He is the author of several best-selling books on social morality and ethical issues. This article is the fourth in a series in The Atlantic dating back to 2015. 

2.  Sex reassignment therapies include hormone therapy, puberty blockers, surgical removal or alteration of sex organs and surgery on other primary sex characteristics.

3. Evidence of overreach in activism in public schools is ubiquitous … in curriculum guides, learning material and personal testimony from zealous/activist educators. . 

4. The Tenderloin Center is on Market Street next to the UN Plaza in downtown San Francisco. 

5. Michael Shellenberger is a candidate for governor of the State of California in 2022. He is running as an independent.