Arnold, Are the assigned materials, or a list thereof (i.e., a syllabus), available at your course website? I can navigate the seminar discussions but can't seem to find the syllabus at the course link.
I might be able to provide better feedback about exit questions if I knew what materials have been assigned.
My guess is that there is a relatively small number of factors responsible for most of the decline in fertility rates.
1. First, I would guess that 2/3rds of it is coming from the women. Collectively they've decided to marry less often, and marry later. This is because they increasingly believe they can lead fulfilling lives without husbands, or at least defer the marriage decision until they've checked off other "boxes" in their lives. I think this is also true for men. As a race, us humans now have many more "callings" in life than marriage and family.
2. Don't underestimate the effect of media, both "legacy" media and newer forms (e.g., social media). These portray the single life as something quite glamorous. This started maybe with the advent of movies int he 1930s and came from America (Hollywood) and maybe Britain too. I think this fear of missing out (FOMO) factor is big.
3. I would also not underestimate the self-reinforcing element of declining fertility. For decades now, the trend has consistently been down. China presents a good case for this momentum effect because the downward trend in the fertility rate didn't budge when the One Child policy was lifted years ago. So even though this "momentum" element is not a primary driver of declining fertility, I would guess that it is magnifying the magnitude of the decline
I miss these types of discussions, point-counterpoint in a free-form environment every month. I used to host such discussions. The format was great. Pull four names out of a hat of the willing participants and give them a topic for next month. 30 min before the topic by the toss of some dice, their side for or against was assigned. The discussions were timed, and they had 75 min, always lively. The post-discussion reception and conversation were even better.
These are all good topics for discussion. Most would be perfect for discussion between liberals and conservatives. I could see that discussion improving understanding of differing viewpoints while being relatively easy to moderate. For many of the topics conservatives could be asked to give factors supporting the liberal view and the reverse for liberals.
“America is systemically racist” and the people claiming this are not “liberals”; they are decidedly il-liberal left advocates.
The fact that the further left is illiberal these days - literally being against free speech - is why I now refer to those on the political left as “leftists”.
Because they simply are not liberal.
If you call them “progressives” then even though that word is imperfect too, I don’t have a per se objection.
You can make a somewhat similar argument about the right and “conservative” and I probably wouldn’t argue with you much, but I don’t have nearly as much problem with that word or the word “progressive” as label/decriptor as I do with the effectively Orwellian claim that today’s activist leftists are “liberal”.
Maybe I should have said left of center rather than liberal but I never said anything about progressives, leftists, or any type of extremists. It's not relevant.
Likewise, I don't know why you are bringing up racists or defending. That's not really relevant either. I don't think those would be good topics for what I am suggesting. Do they se m comparable to AK's list of exam questions? Not to me. Be that as it may, the goal has nothing to do with who is right. It's about understanding how they reached the positions they hold and focusing on the strongest points, not their weakest.
At this point, I think most of the electorate understands the issues and has sorted themselves into their competing tribes. Thus, the exercise you propose is probably less useful than you imagine.
For example, the best arguments for open borders, drug legalization, unilateral free trade, the existence of systemic racism and defunding the police will probably fall flat on me since I have better rejoinders for all of it. I honestly don’t care, at this point, what anyone has to say as my mind is made up. The end.
I even agree with your “I’m closed-minded” point re: systemic racism and defund the police. There DO exist some things that one should not be open to, especially if one listened the first times they were brought up.
But not caring what anyone else has to say on the other three topics - and being sure you have “better rejoinders” for “all of it” - I find sad.
Even as I have little doubt that net I’m on your side of each of the other three topics.
Because the first two topics I note are insane premises / insane positions. Where the other 3, reasonable people should be able to disagree, and open-minded people should be able to learn new things.
The only way to evaluate these things, and I’m not trying to be snarky is - you would need to get into fundamentals like, are you trying to turn the world upside down, or are you trying to preserve it.
There are no insane premises if you understand that lots of people have their foot in the first camp.
As long as that real subject is off the table, none of this is a very great interest.
One on one with a person I know and at least mostly respect, I agree with what you are saying 100%.
Online and/or with a person who is clearly a leftist activist, then I respectfully disagree; in that case, accepting the premise - at least now in 2025, as opposed to when those ideas were first becoming widespread - that their position is anything akin to reasonable is imo worse than not accepting said premise as legit in our real-life, still mostly civilized world.
And of course, retroactively the leftists have tried to defend “Defund the police” by claiming “we didn’t *really* want to stop funding the police, we didn’t really want there to be fewer police officers in inner city neighborhoods to protect law abiding citizens from criminals, we just wanted there to be more money for the other leftist ‘social justice’ causes we favor”. Which, of course, is NOT the reality of what they were doing when they were chanting this.
It's not about whose position is better. Nobody wins the argument because it isn't one. It's all about improving one's understanding of why people have different positions on issues.
You should read "I Never Thought of It That Way" or look into Braver Angels.
*The Righteous Mind* by Haidt, which, to me, is the definitive book on this topic, was published in 2013. Those were the halcyon days before the left got taken hostage by the irrational left.
As I wrote to Bobby M above, on at least some of these - here, “systemic racism” and especially “defund the police” - it ABSOLUTELY is about the fact that one position is better because the other position is insane/idiotic, and to accept the premise that it might not be is *itself* the problem.
For the others, I agree with you 100%, and made the same comment above.
You can make the faculty lounge argument that you can learn about the other, etc. even for topics like “defund the police”, and I’d actually agree with that if it was early on in the discussion of those topics, when they are first introduced.
But there comes a time when - and it clearly has come for “America is systemically racist” and “defund the police” - for some topics accepting the premise that they are worthy of serious discussion indeed is worse than just saying no.
If *you* think leftist activists haven’t introduced the ideas “defund the police” and “America is systemically racist” in order to win the argument and change public policy… then I cannot help you.
I zeroed in on those two bits as opposed to the other 3 because those ideas were introduced by and are exclusively the domain of leftist activists.
As I said, what to do when you are in a faculty lounge environment and/or with those who aren’t activists is very different.
Where the other 3 topics Bobby mentioned are legit public policy discussions which were not invented whole cloth by leftist activists. And on those topics I’m pretty sure we are agreeing 100%.
Now be clear, I am not saying *your* position on this meta-topic is meritless or that *this* argument is not worth having. I’m just saying we disagree.
Arnold, Are the assigned materials, or a list thereof (i.e., a syllabus), available at your course website? I can navigate the seminar discussions but can't seem to find the syllabus at the course link.
I might be able to provide better feedback about exit questions if I knew what materials have been assigned.
My guess is that there is a relatively small number of factors responsible for most of the decline in fertility rates.
1. First, I would guess that 2/3rds of it is coming from the women. Collectively they've decided to marry less often, and marry later. This is because they increasingly believe they can lead fulfilling lives without husbands, or at least defer the marriage decision until they've checked off other "boxes" in their lives. I think this is also true for men. As a race, us humans now have many more "callings" in life than marriage and family.
2. Don't underestimate the effect of media, both "legacy" media and newer forms (e.g., social media). These portray the single life as something quite glamorous. This started maybe with the advent of movies int he 1930s and came from America (Hollywood) and maybe Britain too. I think this fear of missing out (FOMO) factor is big.
3. I would also not underestimate the self-reinforcing element of declining fertility. For decades now, the trend has consistently been down. China presents a good case for this momentum effect because the downward trend in the fertility rate didn't budge when the One Child policy was lifted years ago. So even though this "momentum" element is not a primary driver of declining fertility, I would guess that it is magnifying the magnitude of the decline
I miss these types of discussions, point-counterpoint in a free-form environment every month. I used to host such discussions. The format was great. Pull four names out of a hat of the willing participants and give them a topic for next month. 30 min before the topic by the toss of some dice, their side for or against was assigned. The discussions were timed, and they had 75 min, always lively. The post-discussion reception and conversation were even better.
These are all good topics for discussion. Most would be perfect for discussion between liberals and conservatives. I could see that discussion improving understanding of differing viewpoints while being relatively easy to moderate. For many of the topics conservatives could be asked to give factors supporting the liberal view and the reverse for liberals.
One additional not-small point.
“America is systemically racist” and the people claiming this are not “liberals”; they are decidedly il-liberal left advocates.
The fact that the further left is illiberal these days - literally being against free speech - is why I now refer to those on the political left as “leftists”.
Because they simply are not liberal.
If you call them “progressives” then even though that word is imperfect too, I don’t have a per se objection.
You can make a somewhat similar argument about the right and “conservative” and I probably wouldn’t argue with you much, but I don’t have nearly as much problem with that word or the word “progressive” as label/decriptor as I do with the effectively Orwellian claim that today’s activist leftists are “liberal”.
I have no idea how you got off on this tangent.
Maybe I should have said left of center rather than liberal but I never said anything about progressives, leftists, or any type of extremists. It's not relevant.
Likewise, I don't know why you are bringing up racists or defending. That's not really relevant either. I don't think those would be good topics for what I am suggesting. Do they se m comparable to AK's list of exam questions? Not to me. Be that as it may, the goal has nothing to do with who is right. It's about understanding how they reached the positions they hold and focusing on the strongest points, not their weakest.
At this point, I think most of the electorate understands the issues and has sorted themselves into their competing tribes. Thus, the exercise you propose is probably less useful than you imagine.
For example, the best arguments for open borders, drug legalization, unilateral free trade, the existence of systemic racism and defunding the police will probably fall flat on me since I have better rejoinders for all of it. I honestly don’t care, at this point, what anyone has to say as my mind is made up. The end.
Hmmmm…
I really do agree with your first paragraph.
I even agree with your “I’m closed-minded” point re: systemic racism and defund the police. There DO exist some things that one should not be open to, especially if one listened the first times they were brought up.
But not caring what anyone else has to say on the other three topics - and being sure you have “better rejoinders” for “all of it” - I find sad.
Even as I have little doubt that net I’m on your side of each of the other three topics.
Because the first two topics I note are insane premises / insane positions. Where the other 3, reasonable people should be able to disagree, and open-minded people should be able to learn new things.
The only way to evaluate these things, and I’m not trying to be snarky is - you would need to get into fundamentals like, are you trying to turn the world upside down, or are you trying to preserve it.
There are no insane premises if you understand that lots of people have their foot in the first camp.
As long as that real subject is off the table, none of this is a very great interest.
We probably agree.
One on one with a person I know and at least mostly respect, I agree with what you are saying 100%.
Online and/or with a person who is clearly a leftist activist, then I respectfully disagree; in that case, accepting the premise - at least now in 2025, as opposed to when those ideas were first becoming widespread - that their position is anything akin to reasonable is imo worse than not accepting said premise as legit in our real-life, still mostly civilized world.
And of course, retroactively the leftists have tried to defend “Defund the police” by claiming “we didn’t *really* want to stop funding the police, we didn’t really want there to be fewer police officers in inner city neighborhoods to protect law abiding citizens from criminals, we just wanted there to be more money for the other leftist ‘social justice’ causes we favor”. Which, of course, is NOT the reality of what they were doing when they were chanting this.
It's not about whose position is better. Nobody wins the argument because it isn't one. It's all about improving one's understanding of why people have different positions on issues.
You should read "I Never Thought of It That Way" or look into Braver Angels.
*The Righteous Mind* by Haidt, which, to me, is the definitive book on this topic, was published in 2013. Those were the halcyon days before the left got taken hostage by the irrational left.
Wonderful book even if more focused on understanding the right. Don't forget ""Three Languages" too.
While both are related to what I am saying, they do not do what I am suggesting.
“It's not about whose position is better.”
As I wrote to Bobby M above, on at least some of these - here, “systemic racism” and especially “defund the police” - it ABSOLUTELY is about the fact that one position is better because the other position is insane/idiotic, and to accept the premise that it might not be is *itself* the problem.
For the others, I agree with you 100%, and made the same comment above.
You can make the faculty lounge argument that you can learn about the other, etc. even for topics like “defund the police”, and I’d actually agree with that if it was early on in the discussion of those topics, when they are first introduced.
But there comes a time when - and it clearly has come for “America is systemically racist” and “defund the police” - for some topics accepting the premise that they are worthy of serious discussion indeed is worse than just saying no.
If you think it's about whose position is better you've missed the point. Read the book I mentioned or go to a Braver Angels meeting
If *you* think leftist activists haven’t introduced the ideas “defund the police” and “America is systemically racist” in order to win the argument and change public policy… then I cannot help you.
I zeroed in on those two bits as opposed to the other 3 because those ideas were introduced by and are exclusively the domain of leftist activists.
As I said, what to do when you are in a faculty lounge environment and/or with those who aren’t activists is very different.
Where the other 3 topics Bobby mentioned are legit public policy discussions which were not invented whole cloth by leftist activists. And on those topics I’m pretty sure we are agreeing 100%.
Now be clear, I am not saying *your* position on this meta-topic is meritless or that *this* argument is not worth having. I’m just saying we disagree.