Josh, I am super-impressed with the way in which Katy and you conducted what must have been a personally challenging conversation for you. You treated each other with dignity and respect. So rare these days. Bravo 👏
"Countless stories of a father searching for his son confirm the importance of biological parents," yeah but in just as many of those stories, the protagonist finds out the dad is a bum or otherwise not the answer to their prayers, and the message is that they have to get on and find their own way, so, what about that?
This isn't a fair debate, though highly enjoyable. Josh carefully articulates Faust's points better than she can, while simultaneously refuting them in a polite and thoughtful way. More please.
This was a masterclass from you Josh, very well done! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Calm, well argued and civil all the way to the end. You repeatedly presented the most charitable interpretations of her views, and argued against them in a very thoughtful manner.
I am 100% on your side of this particular debate, but the conversation itself was the real highlight here. And I took some points from Katy as well, and feel more educated for it. So bravo to the both of you!
Bravo to Josh for having this conversation. I’m also a dad with young kids who loves them dearly. If i had someone who didn’t know me suggest that my kids would be better off in other circumstances..? I’d completely lose my shit. Full credit to JS for exercising constraint.
Also, credit has to go to Katy Faust for making herself available and putting her views forward in the way she did.
First, need to echo what everybody has said: this is Josh at his best. Calm, gracious, sharp, unflappable. Proud to be a part of a community of minds who appreciate these conversations.
Substantively, so much to say (and I'm hoping Josh and I can unpack a few of these issues in our next fireside chat) but one thing strikes me, immediately, as something confusing about Ms. Faust's appeal to our "primal" natures.
What does a world look like in which we organize our institutions to "fit" our primal natures? Luckily, a few smart folks have covered this (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Smith, just to name a few obvious ones), and they've all arrived at essentially the same conclusion: we need civil society and institutions to shape and guide our natures away from destructive ends (of others and ourselves). That shaping can be heavy handed (Hobbes's Leviathan) or more delicate (the invisible hand of market dynamics from Smith), but any appeal to nature as a justification for civil institutions (marriage) shouldn't get to pick and choose which parts of our nature are good and should be left alone (in Faust's case, the biological drive to procreate between a biological man and a woman) and which need to be refined or weeded out (nasty tribalism, pillaging neighbors, killing weak members of a family due to scarce resources, etc.). She evokes and decries the justifications for all kinds of nasty atrocities, but it seems to me that a lot of awful things could be justified if we relied on an appeal to "nature".
At the end of the day, I think her argument would be much stronger if she abandoned the appeal to nature and stuck with a utilitarian argument about the benefits to children from growing up in a family with a father and a mother, as Josh encouraged her to do. The problem is, as was pointed out time and again, the data(r) just don't add up. All signs point to the special sauce of raising a healthy child as simply the feeling of being loved, listened to, encouraged, and made to feel safe and allowed to explore vulnerabilities (disclaimer: I'm a big Carl Rogers guy). Unconditional, selfless love is all that matters, and giving a child even a single memory of love might just be all that makes the difference between thriving and withering (Just read Brothers K so apologize for infusing some Dostoevsky in here but I just can't stop thinking about the book).
At numerous times, Ms. Faust admitted that Josh clearly loves his kids, and given her reliance on scripture etc., I have to believe that she thinks we are all capable of providing unconditional love. The circumstances of some families (poverty, abuse, etc.) might hinder the delivery of such love, so if we truly want to put "them" before "us", let's work to ensure that every child is capable of loving and feeling loved, period, and just stop there.
Josh, such a thoughtful conversation. I especially liked near the end when you made the point about children being raised by poor families vs children being raised by same sex couples. I listen to a lot of intelligent podcasters but I don’t think any of them can critically think outside their domain of expertise the way you can.
Man, you guys really rolled and coasted that winding rocky Redge between comfortable and uncomfortable…
I super appreciated the really palpable generosity and patience and, as Katy said, graciousness, on both your parts Both held a space that had me fixed and fascinated , leaning over the balcony railing as the stars came out and the bath overflowed!
I do like these interviews where there are clearly opposing views; but not a shouting match.
The bottom line is that I do not agree with the world view that your guest has, nevertheless, it is useful to hear first hand why others have different views to my own.
By the way, from a progressive stance, there may be some common ground on things like designer babies and just where unregulated reproductive tech is heading. Having a conversation with someone who advocates for the elimination of some profound disabilities from the human gene pool via reproductive technology would truly be an 'uncomfortable conversation'.
Great episode Josh! Appreciate these types of discussions way more than when you just discuss something controversial with someone who you generally agree with
Probably one of a handful of actually difficult, respectful and ‘uncomfortable conversations’ that I have heard since people have been claiming to have these type of discussions since 2015
No she isn’t. She has a firm belief in something that is very contrary to us here. But she defends it. This is what dangerous ideas is all about. I totally disagree with her mostly. But she also made me understand a few things from the other side of the border. Even if I still disagree. Great conversation.
Here’s my review of Faust’s favorite study, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor.” It does not show what she claims, because most of the results comparing adoption and donor conception don’t control for anything.
I think it is clear that she harbours ideas most of us don’t agree with. And perhaps doubtful stats. But she clearly believes in what she says, and does make some salient points. Not many, granted. But she’s out there, intelligent, making a case. More than what can be said of a lot of opinion makers.
Josh, I am super-impressed with the way in which Katy and you conducted what must have been a personally challenging conversation for you. You treated each other with dignity and respect. So rare these days. Bravo 👏
Agree
"Countless stories of a father searching for his son confirm the importance of biological parents," yeah but in just as many of those stories, the protagonist finds out the dad is a bum or otherwise not the answer to their prayers, and the message is that they have to get on and find their own way, so, what about that?
hahaa... wish I'd thought of this -JS
My thoughts exactly hahaha. Like… so many of these stories conclude that “you had it better without them” 😂
This isn't a fair debate, though highly enjoyable. Josh carefully articulates Faust's points better than she can, while simultaneously refuting them in a polite and thoughtful way. More please.
Bigots do tend to struggle when their bigotry is explained to them.
I think this interview is the reason why Uncomfortable Conversations is the only podcast subscription I pay for.
Clearly an uncomfortable position for Josh given the conversation at times centres around his own children and partner.
To be able to conduct this conversation in the manner in which you did (both did) was a credit to you.
This was a masterclass from you Josh, very well done! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Calm, well argued and civil all the way to the end. You repeatedly presented the most charitable interpretations of her views, and argued against them in a very thoughtful manner.
I am 100% on your side of this particular debate, but the conversation itself was the real highlight here. And I took some points from Katy as well, and feel more educated for it. So bravo to the both of you!
Bravo to Josh for having this conversation. I’m also a dad with young kids who loves them dearly. If i had someone who didn’t know me suggest that my kids would be better off in other circumstances..? I’d completely lose my shit. Full credit to JS for exercising constraint.
Also, credit has to go to Katy Faust for making herself available and putting her views forward in the way she did.
First, need to echo what everybody has said: this is Josh at his best. Calm, gracious, sharp, unflappable. Proud to be a part of a community of minds who appreciate these conversations.
Substantively, so much to say (and I'm hoping Josh and I can unpack a few of these issues in our next fireside chat) but one thing strikes me, immediately, as something confusing about Ms. Faust's appeal to our "primal" natures.
What does a world look like in which we organize our institutions to "fit" our primal natures? Luckily, a few smart folks have covered this (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Smith, just to name a few obvious ones), and they've all arrived at essentially the same conclusion: we need civil society and institutions to shape and guide our natures away from destructive ends (of others and ourselves). That shaping can be heavy handed (Hobbes's Leviathan) or more delicate (the invisible hand of market dynamics from Smith), but any appeal to nature as a justification for civil institutions (marriage) shouldn't get to pick and choose which parts of our nature are good and should be left alone (in Faust's case, the biological drive to procreate between a biological man and a woman) and which need to be refined or weeded out (nasty tribalism, pillaging neighbors, killing weak members of a family due to scarce resources, etc.). She evokes and decries the justifications for all kinds of nasty atrocities, but it seems to me that a lot of awful things could be justified if we relied on an appeal to "nature".
At the end of the day, I think her argument would be much stronger if she abandoned the appeal to nature and stuck with a utilitarian argument about the benefits to children from growing up in a family with a father and a mother, as Josh encouraged her to do. The problem is, as was pointed out time and again, the data(r) just don't add up. All signs point to the special sauce of raising a healthy child as simply the feeling of being loved, listened to, encouraged, and made to feel safe and allowed to explore vulnerabilities (disclaimer: I'm a big Carl Rogers guy). Unconditional, selfless love is all that matters, and giving a child even a single memory of love might just be all that makes the difference between thriving and withering (Just read Brothers K so apologize for infusing some Dostoevsky in here but I just can't stop thinking about the book).
At numerous times, Ms. Faust admitted that Josh clearly loves his kids, and given her reliance on scripture etc., I have to believe that she thinks we are all capable of providing unconditional love. The circumstances of some families (poverty, abuse, etc.) might hinder the delivery of such love, so if we truly want to put "them" before "us", let's work to ensure that every child is capable of loving and feeling loved, period, and just stop there.
This is why you're the professor! -JS
Josh, such a thoughtful conversation. I especially liked near the end when you made the point about children being raised by poor families vs children being raised by same sex couples. I listen to a lot of intelligent podcasters but I don’t think any of them can critically think outside their domain of expertise the way you can.
This is what I signed up for. I enjoyed listening to this civilised debate, challenging my own innate views. Bravo.
Man, you guys really rolled and coasted that winding rocky Redge between comfortable and uncomfortable…
I super appreciated the really palpable generosity and patience and, as Katy said, graciousness, on both your parts Both held a space that had me fixed and fascinated , leaning over the balcony railing as the stars came out and the bath overflowed!
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
I do like these interviews where there are clearly opposing views; but not a shouting match.
The bottom line is that I do not agree with the world view that your guest has, nevertheless, it is useful to hear first hand why others have different views to my own.
By the way, from a progressive stance, there may be some common ground on things like designer babies and just where unregulated reproductive tech is heading. Having a conversation with someone who advocates for the elimination of some profound disabilities from the human gene pool via reproductive technology would truly be an 'uncomfortable conversation'.
Great episode Josh! Appreciate these types of discussions way more than when you just discuss something controversial with someone who you generally agree with
Absolutely admirable to be able to have a calm very uncomfortable debate like this one! Well done Josh, you are an inspiration.
Designer babies and population collapse would be interesting topics to see in the future, as both has nuance and uncertainty to it.
Probably one of a handful of actually difficult, respectful and ‘uncomfortable conversations’ that I have heard since people have been claiming to have these type of discussions since 2015
What a reprehensible lady. She's mean and thoughtless.
No she isn’t. She has a firm belief in something that is very contrary to us here. But she defends it. This is what dangerous ideas is all about. I totally disagree with her mostly. But she also made me understand a few things from the other side of the border. Even if I still disagree. Great conversation.
Joseph Mengele had a firm believe in something that is very contrary to us too.
Mean and thoughtless? Did you actually listen to her or just hear one
thing and react emotionally?
Here’s my review of Faust’s favorite study, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor.” It does not show what she claims, because most of the results comparing adoption and donor conception don’t control for anything.
The other funny thing is that it shows many donor-conceived people had a positive experience, and most support sperm donation. https://reactionarylesbian.substack.com/p/selfish-love
It doesn’t mean there aren’t struggles, but the results don’t support the idea that being DC is worse than never being born.
I think it is clear that she harbours ideas most of us don’t agree with. And perhaps doubtful stats. But she clearly believes in what she says, and does make some salient points. Not many, granted. But she’s out there, intelligent, making a case. More than what can be said of a lot of opinion makers.
Great discussion.