You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Interesting
On Fridays I share articles/resources about broad cultural, societal and theological issues likely to be of interest to Christians in college. Be sure to see the explanation and disclaimers at the bottom. I welcome your suggestions, so if you read something fascinating please pass it my way.
Things Glen Found Interesting
- Is Therapy Tearing Us Apart? (Jonathan Alpert, The Free Press): “Too many therapists now function less as clinicians than as reinforcers of the most self-protective interpretation available, teaching patients to locate the problem everywhere but themselves.… The patient doesn’t gain greater agency, but instead, a more polished story about why someone else is to blame. If you feel injured, the injury must be real. If you feel unsafe, the threat must be there. If a relationship creates discomfort, the relationship itself becomes the problem.… This is how therapy can quietly become an engine that keeps people stuck. Patients leave not more capable of tolerating frustration, ambiguity, or ordinary disappointment, but less. They become more fluent in explaining why they feel the way they do while becoming less practiced at changing what they do next.”
- Which religions are the least tolerant of campus speakers? (Chapin Lenthall-Cleary, FIRE): “When it comes to nearly every ideology or gender, Protestants are significantly more tolerant than their non-Protestant counterparts, and not only that, they’re usually more tolerant of both sides. So the Protestant effect isn’t (primarily) a result of gender or ideology. For some reason, Protestants are just unusually tolerant of controversial speakers.” — This is super interesting! (recommended by a student)
- Actually, Democracy Dies in H.R. (Amanda Taub, New York Times): “The incentives for elites to stay loyal [to dictators] have been studied extensively, but the rank and file have remained something of a black box.… It turns out that the kinds of career pressures familiar to employees everywhere — the desire to revive a stalled career or obtain a minor promotion — can be enough to incentivize lower- and midlevel officials to violate professional obligations, fundamental norms and even basic morality. The people who make those decisions, the research suggests, are neither extremists nor victims. They are often just middling workers looking for a way to get ahead.”
- This is a fascinating insight.
- Two articles reflecting on sexual violence in the war between Israel and Hamas.
- What I Learned Cataloging the Sexual Violence of October 7 (Cochav Elkayam-Levy, The Free Press): “Some acts were carried out with a level of cruelty that exposes a difficult truth: Our vocabulary is insufficient to describe what human beings are capable of doing to one another.… Sexual violence, when used as an instrument of terror, is too often imagined in ways that diminish its gravity, cruelty, and function. It is frequently reduced, mischaracterized, and at times resisted precisely because it defies comprehension. The difficulty, even now, lies not in the absence of evidence, but in the limits of comprehension.”
- This is a high-level summary without the disturbing graphic details that some reports foreground.
- Your Questions About Nicholas Kristof’s Column on Palestinians and Sexual Assault (Kathleen Kingsbury and Nicholas Kristof, New York Times): “Before publication, Nick’s reporting underwent a rigorous vetting process by Opinion’s fact-checking department to ensure that every testimony and anecdote he personally reported was supported by independent sources, as is the case with all sensitive pieces. The Times’s standards and legal teams also reviewed the column and offered feedback. After publication, we reviewed the factual challenges that readers and others raised, as is standard practice with any published piece. Editors found no errors.… Critics who focus on the backgrounds of specific sources often overlook the overwhelming volume and consistency of such accounts. Nick’s column, ultimately, was a call to action, urging those in power to condemn sexual violence in all its forms.”
- What I Learned Cataloging the Sexual Violence of October 7 (Cochav Elkayam-Levy, The Free Press): “Some acts were carried out with a level of cruelty that exposes a difficult truth: Our vocabulary is insufficient to describe what human beings are capable of doing to one another.… Sexual violence, when used as an instrument of terror, is too often imagined in ways that diminish its gravity, cruelty, and function. It is frequently reduced, mischaracterized, and at times resisted precisely because it defies comprehension. The difficulty, even now, lies not in the absence of evidence, but in the limits of comprehension.”
- An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry (OpenAI): “This proof is an important milestone for the math and AI communities. It marks the first time that a prominent open problem, central to a subfield of mathematics, has been solved autonomously by AI. It also demonstrates the depth of reasoning these systems now support.… Fields medalist Tim Gowers, writing in the companion paper, calls the result ‘a milestone in AI mathematics.’ ”
- Students deserve better than COLLEGE (Iván Marinovic, Stanford Daily): “By my count, the syllabus assigns roughly 45 pages of canonical Western philosophical writing across the entire quarter, against more than 500 pages of contemporary work organized around identity, oppression and indigenous ways of knowing — Freire, Dangarembga, Westover and Kimmerer. The ratio is 11:1. There is no Aristotle, no Augustine, no Aquinas, no Montaigne, no Locke, no Mill, no Newman, no Steiner, no Bloom — none of the writers who built the case for liberal education that the course claims to defend. A course advertised as a defense of liberal education has been built without the thinkers who defined it.”
- The author is an accounting professor in the GSB. This was picked up and reprinted by The Free Press as Stanford’s War on the Western Canon. The bit at the end comparing Stanford to its peer institutions was instructive.
- This one generated a lot of student discussion on our Slack, mostly emphasizing that more students should choose to enroll in SLE rather than the default route of COLLEGE. In one student’s words, “Especially with COLLEGE being expanded to 3 quarters, it’s hard to see why students would prefer to take it over SLE. SLE feels, at least for me, to be more efficient (covering COLLEGE, PWR, and several of the WAYS) and effective (in terms of the learning and preparing students for the rest of their academic career).” Another student noted “even when SLE does get noticed by the press it still seems hated on. Before frosh year I read an Atlantic piece that criticized it for having too much of a modern focus and not engaging with older staples of the Western canon like Gilgamesh and the Odyssey. The problem is that WE DO cover those texts and it was clear that the author misunderstood the premise of the program and only read the spring syllabus.… Anyways, the point is that SLE is great and everyone should take it!” Incoming frosh, take note!
- The Secret Elite One Freshman Discovered at Stanford (Anand Giridharadas, New York Times): “Baker’s first book, ‘How to Rule the World,’ is a rigorous, self-assured, propulsive, at times terrifying portrait of a dweebocracy that ‘sets the agenda for the planet.’ In every age, there is some place that epitomizes how power works. Baker’s Stanford is a strong candidate, and his book follows in the tradition of Michael Lewis’s Wall Street chronicle ‘Liar’s Poker,’ but with more pimples and less eye contact.”
- I love this paragraph. This is the same book I posted another review of a few weeks ago.
Why Do You Send This Email?
In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar produced shrewd warriors “who understood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a similar way, we need to become wise people whose faith interacts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may continue the tradition of Issachar.
Disclaimer
Chi Alpha is not a partisan organization. To paraphrase another minister: we are not about the donkey’s agenda and we are not about the elephant’s agenda — we are about the Lamb’s agenda. Having said that, I read widely (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ideological Turing test and in part because I do not believe I can fairly say “I agree” or “I disagree” until I can say “I understand”) and may at times share articles that have a strong partisan bias simply because I find the article stimulating. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with everything an author says in an article I mention, much less things the author has said in other articles (although if I strongly disagree with something in the article I’ll usually mention it). And to the extent you can discern my opinions, please understand that they are my own and not necessarily those of Chi Alpha or any other organization I may be perceived to represent. Also, remember that I’m not reporting news — I’m giving you a selection of things I found interesting. There’s a lot happening in the world that’s not making an appearance here because I haven’t found stimulating articles written about it. If this was forwarded to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.