4 Comments

Anonymous wrote "But her highly politicized and catastrophizing tone was frequently untethered from reality." The question always is, whose reality?

Expand full comment

Thanks for writing what looks like very much a true and faithful account of another conference with group conformity and idea calcification at work. It's good to know, in a way, that a public library conference can carry the same valence in this way as many academic library conferences do.

Specific point, one speaker used the term "psychological safety"? I assume that the speaker was referring to Amy Edmondson's well-researched concept there, and not "safetyism"? Because the two are getting conflated or confused very often now. Workplaces need "psychological safety" to counter preference falsification and self-censorship. Edmondson's research is based on extensive work with companies and other organizations who are trying to change their culture to promote employees' speaking up with questions and dissenting views instead of concealing them. "Safetyism" comes right out of the "Coddling" book (Haidt & Lukianoff). Possibly the speaker confused the two?

Expand full comment

Well it may be that psychological safety came from Edmondson’s concept, it is for sure being used in the safetyism form in practice as the people carrying out the program twist it to support their own goal: safetyism, which receives much popular support and government funding. Also, the councillors, staff, management are not at all interested in other points of view as “surely everyone agrees with them and those who don’t are “bad”.

Expand full comment

Having a thought that strays from proclaimed dogma means shunning. Having to be anonymous demonstrates that there is not intellectual freedom.

Expand full comment