How to Shrink

When personal development is not your goal

I went to a consciousness-raising meeting recently. Forged in the seventies in feminist circles, the format involves posing a question to a group of women, then letting each speak in turn without interruption for as long as they like. The idea is that women's stories, often overlooked or even silenced, provide powerful personal glimpses into larger social problems.

The responses to the question prompts are messy: meandering, uncertain, angry, confessional, and sad as often as loving and grateful. Sexuality is explored, family relationships dissected, painful memories excavated. Sometimes abusers are named. It's not for polite society. But that's exactly what makes these meetings cathartic, and therapeutic, and special. Women bond and build strong friendships.

The content of such a meeting, like that of a support group, therapy session or Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, is private. To work through issues in a supportive space is to learn about yourself, to clarify your thoughts, to evaluate your options. A way to get stronger, emotionally. A way to grow.

Imagine if the revelations uncovered in such meetings were subjected to public scrutiny, especially in today's political climate. They'd be deemed problematic, censored, their speakers subjected to cancellations, doxxing and smear campaigns. We'd lose such opportunities to grow. That isn't likely to happen, thankfully, but the point is that growth happens where people let their guards down and speak freely. It doesn't happen where everything is curated and scrutinized and sanitized.

You know how to grow, emotionally and intellectually.

Ask questions. Socrates intuited that questions “stimulate critical thinking,” and in and of themselves, are not objectionable. Be curious. Creatives and intellectuals from Elizabeth Gilbert to Albert Einstein have extolled the virtues of curiosity, and even underground poker runner Molly Bloom names curiosity as her superpower for getting close to the rich and powerful. Read banned books. This was once a liberal mantra, or at least a cool pin. Brainstorm. Make mistakes. We learn from our mistakes, not from our successes.

Attend a consciousness-raising, a support group or a 12-step program. Get cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), one of the three practices associated with increased happiness, with a track record as good as antidepressants. Learn to foster an internal locus of control, which puts you in charge of your own healing and development, allowing you to face your fears and challenge “learned patterns of unhelpful behavior.”

Employ the scientific method, a way to “minimize errors and bias.” Learn to debate. Not to win, but to uncover truth. Fearlessly welcome alternative views, taking on a spirit of inquiry. Use logic and reason and avoid logical fallacies. Extend the principle of charity to your opponent (also called steelmanning their view). That means assuming they're telling the truth and considering the strongest possible interpretation of their argument.

Most importantly, think. If you can't bravely discuss hot-button issues with others, then please, at least explore them inside your own head. Don't lie to yourself. Face facts, however unpleasant, whatever actions they may recommend.

How to Shrink

If you're with me so far—if you think it's good to ask questions, to read, to talk through things, to reason, to think, and all the rest—then you should be opposed to that which thwarts these habits.

Unfortunately, much does these days. Here are some ways to shrink.

Squash questions.

Stop questions in their tracks, your own and those of other people.

When I was raised by Christian fundamentalists, there were questions you couldn't ask. Questions like, “If everything demands a creator, who created God?” and “Why does God allow evil to exist?” Those questions were met with thought terminating clichés: “That isn't for us to know.” “God works in mysterious ways.” “Have faith.”

But the conservative and the religious have no monopoly on resisting inconvenient questions. To put a liberal spin on your incuriosity, try using accusations of bigotry, saying “Just be nice,” and showing “yawning" indifference.

Ban books.

Banning Harper Lee is passé; nowadays we burn J.K. Rowling's books or try to get Abigail Shrier “demonetized.”

Publishers cease to publish Dr. Suess and alter the works of Roald Dahl, men who started writing when Glenn Miller topped the music charts and Disney films covered rifle safety. Dahl's works are scoured for allegedly problematic words and phrases, like “diet,” “white,” and “she is working as a cashier,” presumably so we don't think about weight, race, or the underpaid jobs historically available to women.

Heather Heying has written my favorite analysis of that foolhardy endeavor. “The luckiest among us, the most privileged,” she writes, “have houses already full of books, with the original text intact, and family and friends eager to read to children, to engage the ideas therein with both wonder and criticism.” But this is not the case for “the under-served, the under-privileged, the historically oppressed”—these, she argues, are who censorship will “harm the most.”

Stop talking it out.

Push your feelings down. Develop an external locus of control. No need to explore. No need to face your fears. Just blame your problems on others—your parents, society, the government.

When it comes to those who struggle with gender dysphoria, suppress any exploratory therapy that might uncover reasons for such distress, perhaps calling it “unethical” or recasting it as “conversion therapy.” Show a “lack of curiosity,” as professional counselor Sasha Ayad has called it, and defend “affirmation” as the only acceptable approach—ensuring agreement with only one set of ideas.

Hobble Language

Innumerable words and phrases that once seemed benign are now recognized as problematic; you can call for their elimination, making it difficult for people to speak freely and creatively. Start with the list of terms used to modify Roald Dahl's books. Or try this handy guide, which decries "killing it" as violent, "lame" as ableist and "tribe" as culturally appropriative. Or this one, which adds “addict,” “blind study,” “sanity check,” “tone deaf,” and “guru” to the list of forbidden words. It also calls for the elimination of “he” and “she,” confusingly—as preferred pronouns and neo-pronouns apparently give way to the assumption that everyone is non-binary. In therapeutic settings: ban the phrases “birth sex,” “natal sex,” “biologically,” and “genetically.”

Ensure no nouns are available so you can control the discourse around certain topics. In a world where we can name homosexuals and homosexuality, Jews and Judiasm, and liberals and liberalism, you can declare parallel forms completely off limits: “transgender” an “incorrect use” and “transgenderism” a “derogatory term.” Repurpose other nouns, like “woman,” so that they behave more like adjectives.

The harder it is to speak clearly and plainly, the harder it is to make sense or practice free speech—things you don't want to do, anyway, because they are “white supremacist.”

Embrace Pseudoscience.

Years ago, while hiking in a park, I stumbled across a group of "creation scientists” gathering fossils from a stream. When I asked what they were up to, they said they were finding evidence of God's existence. Whatever they found, they were going to retroactively fit to the conclusion that God exists, because concluding otherwise was not on the agenda. Science draws conclusions from the results of experiments. Pseudoscience reinterprets experiments to fit desired conclusions.

Now, researchers from UC Berkeley and Loyola University Chicago have assembled a scientific-looking paper aimed to “push back” against the sex “binary,” on the grounds that it may “enact harm on marginalized communities,'" as if the job of science is to align with prevailing attitudes. Colin Wright does a fantastic job of debunking the paper’s claims here.

Just as a foregone conclusion directed the activities of those creationists, a different foregone conclusion directed the activities of these biologists. Both groups use the term “science,” but neither are practicing science. An activity can't both uncover the truth and aim for certain predetermined conclusions at the same time, whether in the service of religion or activism.

Stifle debate.

After making a statement, add the phrase “full stop.” If this doesn't prevent a rebuttal, try these thought terminating clichés: “It's not my job to educate you.” “Sit down and shut up.” “I don't feel safe.” “This isn't a debate.”

Try invoking “standpoint theory,” which confers authority by virtue of minority status. If you don't think you belong to a minority, never fear: the scope of micro-identities and micro-sexualities is broad enough to accommodate everyone. If nothing else suffices, “queer” will do—as an “open ended” term free of specific meaning, it will accommodate your interpretation.

Get challenging speakers canceled, so that no one will have to respond to their arguments. This works for speakers across a broad spectrum of views, from feminist Julie Bindel to conservative Ben Shapiro.

Use technical means to avoid online disputes: Unfriend. Block. Report as spam. Become a mod and start banning.

When all else fails, just be mean. Decry liberals as power-hungry libertines who hate children and conservatives as racist oafs. Ridicule anyone who's ever made a mistake. Join the ranks of the commenters reacting with anger to recent articles pushing back on meanness.

Whatever you do, don't think.

A paralyzing fear of guilt-by-association can help you ignore those well reasoned, convincing claims you're told will rub off on you and make you one of the bad guys. Don't forget—they're probably “dog whistles” for something else. Don't reserve thought terminating clichés for others; apply them to your own thoughts before they can flourish.

And practice saying this: “it's none of my business.”