Tech addiction and how it might be ruining Gen Z

Support for the show comes from Saks Fifth Avenue.

Saks Fifth Avenue makes it easy to shop for your personal style.

Follow us here, and you can invest in some new arrivals that you'll want to wear again and again, like a relaxed product blazer and Gucci loafers, which can take you from work to the weekend.

Shopping from Saks feels totally customized, from the in-store stylist to a visit to Saks.com, where they can show you things that fit your style and taste.

They'll even let you know when arrivals from your favorite designers are in, or when that Brunello Caccinelli sweater you've been eyeing is back in stock.

So, if you're like me and you need shopping to be personalized and easy, head to Saks Fifth Avenue for the Best Fall Arrivals and Style inspiration.

If you're waiting for your AI to turn into ROI

and wondering how long you have to wait,

maybe you need to do more than wait.

Any business can use AI.

IBM helps you use AI to change how you do business.

Let's create Small to Business, IBM.

Hi, everyone.

This is Pivot from the Vox Media Podcast Network.

I'm Scott Galloway.

Here without adult supervision is Kara Swisher is in Kauai on vacation.

Kara, Kauai, and vacation are three words I would never, never imagine in the same sense.

But Kara, we hope you're enjoying yourself.

My co-host today, Professor John Heidt, a social psychologist, professor at NYU Stern School of Business, a colleague, and the author and multiple best-selling New York Times author of The Happiness Hypothesis, The Righteous Mind, and most recently, The Coddling of the American Mind, which we'll get to a little bit later.

John, welcome to Pivot.

Thank you, Scott.

It's a pleasure to share the mic with the most charismatic and provocative professor in my building.

Go on.

By the way, the building is just you and me, right?

It's just three of us.

Yeah, that's a pretty low bar.

That's definitely Tallis Midget Syndrome.

And by the way, congratulations on your most recent book, which is, no joke, kind of blowing up.

And you know, I can tell it's really successful is people, our colleagues, are really starting to resent you.

If you get a Netflix series, they'll start hating you.

But anyways, let's bust into some of the biggest stories of the week, and I'd love to get your thoughts.

Amazon passes Apple and Microsoft to become the most valuable company in the world.

So some boasting here.

I've been predicting this for several years and finally it's happening.

I would argue that it's the kind of the baton being handed off from the iPhone to voice.

Have you thought at all,

Professor, about voice and what it might

how it might actually impact some of the things you talk about, the pervasiveness of technology in our lives and in our homes and our kids kind of growing up with this Oazon technology?

I haven't thought much about it.

We only just got our first device.

Somebody gave us

the little Google thing.

The only thought I have on it is that I'm very concerned, as we'll talk about later, about the way that the touch technologies I think are a lot more addictive than, say, television screens that you and I grew up with.

They're interactive in a way, the way that slot machines are.

And so far, I think voice is probably not going to be like that.

I mean, conversation with the thing is kind of fun, kind of frustrating, but it doesn't doesn't make people turn into like the, you know, the person sitting at the slot machine for hours on end.

So you think it's less insidious than the touch stuff?

And our colleague Adam Alter has written a great book on this,

Irresistible.

Next big story,

I don't know if you saw this, but Bezos, or Mackenzie Bezos is about to become the fifth wealthiest person in the world.

They're splitting up.

And private matter,

I don't think it's that newsworthy, but the thing that I thought was kind of interesting was the press release.

And I just want to read a line from it.

We feel incredibly lucky to have found each other and deeply grateful every one of the years we've been married, blah, blah, blah.

We have such a great life together as a married couple.

We also see a wonderful future ahead as parents, friends, partners in ventures and projects, and as individuals pursuing ventures and adventures.

It sounds like they're going on a cruise together.

And by the way, as someone who's been divorced, I just want to tell both of them that that is exactly what divorce is.

It's a series of new and fun adventures together.

And by the way, and I'm pretty sure Bezos listens to this, that procedure he's about to have every three years called a colonoscopy

isn't an invasive piece of metal inside.

It's a hot stone massage of his inner.

Who writes this shit?

Seriously.

And then finally, okay, so moving on, Zuckerberg says his 19 resolution is to host a series of public discussions about the future of technology and society.

What do you think of Mark Zuckerberg?

going on tour to talk about this stuff.

Well, I think the fundamental problem that you and I are going to be talking about is that social media and technology have put us all into a social space where, whatever we say,

various strangers with assumed names are going to say incredibly nasty things about us, which makes us all reluctant to speak in public and which kind of decimates trust and speak up culture within companies and within the public square.

So I would say that Facebook and other social media companies are part of the very reason why the idea of a public conversation is rather unpleasant to most people.

I don't think we can really have public conversations anymore.

It feels as if there's an entire industry that's developed in shaming and being a victim.

Or that the moment you say, and actually I think I stole this line from you, the moment you're offended, you're automatically right.

That's right.

So it's not, yeah, I wouldn't say it's an industry.

It's rather more that you have to look at any conversation in terms of what people are trying to do.

And people are always concerned about getting prestige.

And to the extent that technology changes social dynamics so that when two people are talking, they're not necessarily talking to each other.

They're talking to the possibly very large audience.

That changes the nature of interaction generally in bad ways.

Yeah, it's and what would you say what platform embodies the worst of that?

Is it Twitter?

Is it Facebook?

Have you spent time looking at it?

Yeah, I'm on Twitter, and that is certainly terrible for this.

I mean, Twitter does a lot of good things.

We all get a lot of information, but the dynamics, you know, I see it in myself too.

We don't speak up openly and honestly and fully, at least.

Hardly any of us do.

Facebook I'm not really on.

I have an account, but I don't use it much.

I think longer form, more emphasis on interacting with friends is not as bad, but it's so pervasive that I think Facebook, Instagram, I think all of them change the dynamics and put us in this prestige economy, you could say, where we're really concerned about how others will rate us.

This is a segue into your book, but I think it's an important one.

You write a lot about this, some of the wealthier

universities or some of the areas, the wealthy areas that are populated with the universities, kind of the vibe has changed.

What's happened there, John?

So beginning in 2015, we saw some, well, 2014 really, we began to see some funny things on campus.

We began to see students protesting over speakers.

Now they've done that since the 60s on and off, but it was always protesting, this person's offensive, we don't want this person here because we hate their ideas.

But for the first time around 2014, we started getting students protesting because a speaker would be dangerous or a book would be dangerous, and so they would request a trigger warning.

So there was this new idea that students are fragile and that adults need to protect students from books, words, ideas, and speakers.

And this completely confounded most of us.

Like, what are they talking about?

Like, violence?

Like, wait, how is reading a book violence?

And so there was this new moral culture that we didn't understand in 2014, 2015.

And then it spread very widely in late 2015, beginning with there were protests at Yale, and then it spread to dozens and dozens of other schools.

So there's a kind of a moral incoherence on campus now where a lot of us are in the older culture in which we think what we're doing is pursuing truth and transmitting it.

But a lot of students, not most, but some students in certain departments think that the point of us being together on a campus is to fight for certain kinds of justice and to battle oppression.

And so we have incoherence in the classroom where people are pursuing different goals and there are mechanisms by which people can prosecute each other.

And you mentioned that there are six factors that have given rise to this generation of kind of fragility, if you will.

What were some of the other factors?

Yeah, so

the fragility part, so we'll get into mental health in a moment, but there's a huge rise of anxiety and depression in students born after 1995.

And that actually is one of the six contributing factors.

When you suddenly have a big influx of students who have anxiety disorders and depression, they are prone to see things as dangerous, threatening.

You know, basic experiments, you bring people in the lab.

If someone has an anxiety disorder and you show them random pictures, they're going to see more lions and tigers and bears in ambiguous situations.

And so, if a speaker comes to campus or if a book is assigned, and most people are like, okay, the great Gatsby, okay, we can read that.

But somebody says, oh my god, there's violence against women in it.

There's classism.

There's all kinds of bad stuff.

We can't read that.

So the idea of seeing books and words and ideas as threatening, dangerous, violence, that becomes, it's hard for most people to see that, but for people who are depressed or anxious, it's easier to believe that.

So that's one, the rise of depression and anxiety.

The other really big ones are

the huge over-protection that Americans began doing in the 1990s.

And so when I travel around the country talking about the book,

I always ask people,

how old were you when you were let out?

That is, when you could go outside, walk to a friend's house, you and your friend could go to a park or, you know, go to a store or something.

And I always say, okay, people born before 1982, so Gen X and older.

And the answer is always six, plus or minus one or two.

Like nobody says 10.

It was always first grade or maybe second or third at latest.

And then I say, now just...

students, just people born after 1995.

So that's Gen Z.

And the answer is never below 10.

It's anywhere from 10 to 14.

And so what we did in the 90s, so this is kind of crazy, but you know, when you and I were growing up, I'm

54, 55 or something like that.

And

when we were growing up, there was a huge crime wave.

I mean, like, it was actually kind of dangerous

to be outside.

Yeah.

Now, you know, the criminals rarely would hurt kids, but there was a lot of crime.

And then just as the crime rate is plummeting in the 1990s, Americans get this idea that if a kid is ever unsupervised, that kid will be snatched.

And so we start hearing, not so much in the 90s, but in the early 2000s, we start hearing the first reports of parents who are arrested because their kid was found playing in a park.

And that's child endangerment.

We have to, you know, are you a fit parent?

And so once that begins happening, Americans further their freak out and raise their kids in a paranoid, defensive way.

And what we've done is we've deprived kids of the main nutrient that they need to become adults, which is they have to have practice being autonomous.

And we said, nope, no practice until you're 14 or 15.

We're here with Jonathan Haidt, professor at NYU Stern School of Business and author of The Coddling of the American Mind.

We're going to take a break and come back and talk more about tech and addiction.

Hey, pivot listeners, I want to tell you about another tech podcast that we think you're going to love.

It's called The Vergecast.

That's right, Vergecast, and it's a twice-weekly podcast that covers everything happening in consumer tech and gadgets.

So you know us, we love talking about Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google.

Well, these guys are exactly the same.

That's a scary thought.

And they even get to talk about the people who are responsible for making some of the latest products and the services that we all use slash are addicted to slash are hopelessly in love with.

On Tuesdays, the Virgin's editor-in-chief, Nili Patel, sits down with some of the most prominent figures in tech and online culture, including Google's VP of Hardware Design, Ivy Ross, StubHub's president, Sukinder Singh Cassidy, and by the way, I know Sukinder, I serve on a board with her.

She's an incredibly impressive woman.

And GoPro CEO, Nick Woodman.

And on Fridays, Neilai is joined by Dieter Bone, Paul Miller, and a rotating cast of Verge staffers to unpack the most important talked-about stories of the week.

There's even a segment called This Week and Elon that tries to decipher: well, whatever the heck is going on with Elon Musk.

So, what are you waiting for?

Listen and subscribe to The Verge Cast on Apple Podcasts or wherever you're listening.

Support for this show comes from Robinhood.

Wouldn't it be great to manage your portfolio on one platform?

With Robinhood, not only can you trade individual stocks and ETFs, you can also seamlessly buy and sell crypto at low costs.

Trade all in one place.

Get started now on Robinhood.

Trading crypto involves significant risk.

Crypto trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Crypto LLC.

Robinhood Crypto Crypto is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Crypto held through Robinhood Crypto is not FDIC insured or SIPIC protected.

Investing involves risk, including loss of principal.

Securities trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Financial LLC, member SIPIC, a registered broker dealer.

Support for Pivot comes from LinkedIn.

From talking about sports, discussing the latest movies, everyone is looking for a real connection to the people around them.

But it's not just person to person, it's the same connection that's needed in business.

And it can be the hardest part about B2B marketing, finding the right people, making the right connections.

But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds, you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals.

According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys.

You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority skills, and company revenue, giving you all the professionals you need to reach in one place.

So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads.

LinkedIn will even give you $100 credit on your next campaign so you can try it for yourself.

Just go to linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

That's linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

Terms and conditions apply only on LinkedIn ads.

Hi, everyone.

We're back here with John.

High colleague at NYU Stern.

John, there's a lot of discussion around this kind of expectant millennial generation in the workforce that is, I would argue, expectant but also incredibly talented.

What do you expect from or what will the impact be on corporate America as this sort of fragile generation, if you will, starts to enter the workforce?

Yeah, so first we have to be very, very clear that the kids born in 1995 and after are not millennials.

So the kids, the last millennials graduated from college, I mean, those who are at least going for four years, they graduated from college around 2015, 2016.

Everyone who's graduating after that is Gen Z,

and they had a substantially different childhood.

If you were born in 1996, you had a substantially different childhood than if you were born, say, 1993, in that you got social media at a much younger age, you were more overprotected.

So let's be very clear.

Millennials are actually doing fine.

Millennials are creative.

They go out and start businesses.

You know, every generation loves to rag on the one behind it.

But when you look at the mental health stats, the millennials are doing fine.

The next generation, Gen Z, is not.

Gen Z, there's a really sharp spike around 2012, 2013.

If you look at all the data on teen mental health, you see that nothing is changing except for depression and anxiety, and those are going up very fast,

going up in boys somewhat and going up in girls much faster.

And so

the campus norms, so this is what hit us on campus around 2013, 2014, when Gen Z arrived on campus and brought their norms of safetyism and fragility and asked for more protection.

Once they began graduating and getting hired, now in the last year, only in the last year, I'm now, whenever I talk to someone in business,

I very often hear a story like, you know, we were in a sales meeting and somebody used a metaphor and

told a joke and next thing I know, there's a complaint to HR and

as one said to me, we're all just exhausted from dealing with this stuff.

It's like we have a job to do here and we're spending all our time policing speech and responding.

How do we respond?

And it's not,

if it was obviously racist stuff, that would be one thing.

But one story was

in a meeting, somebody said, yeah, but that would be like selling ice to Eskimos.

And a recent college grad objected and went to HR and complained.

Now, you might say, what's the, is this an anti-Eskimo joke?

But

this is what call-up culture is all about.

It's not about, did you intend, did you say something something bad about Eskimos, that they have a lot of ice up there?

No, it's if you can possibly interpret someone else's words in the worst possible way, you should do so because that's how you get prestige points.

And so, this campus call-out culture, which is completely antithetical to cooperation, I mean, people who do this,

it's very hard to cooperate with them.

You have to walk on eggshells around them.

So, it's going to have a transform.

This is my prediction.

I know you like predictions on this show.

My prediction is that all the problems that we have on campus, the endless conflicts over words and clothing and food, these endless conflicts are coming to you in corporate America.

It depends on the industry.

I hear they're already there in journalism and tech, actually.

But I think they're going to enter just about every industry.

I mean, maybe not mining or something, but

any industry that hires smart kids from the elite schools, especially in the Northeast and West Coast, is going to be importing this conflictual attitude.

And what, so I think we're already seeing it.

We're already seeing that the moment you complain to HR,

every complaint has to be taken very seriously, immediately.

There's a general kind of gestalt where, all right, we have to investigate it, and it can't be dismissed out of hand.

And my sense is occasionally it's probably appropriate to say, well, that's just stupid.

You know, that's get back to work

and show that there are some boundaries around what qualifies as a complaint.

And also to the extent that if someone is really brave coming forward, you create a a supportive environment where

they can reach out.

But also to acknowledge in certain instances that someone, you know, this isn't a valid complaint.

But what, you know, just so you advised our headmaster.

How would you advise managers in these companies as they start to see this rise in fragility?

That's right.

So yeah, so this is going to be huge.

And

yeah, I should work up an inspiring speech and approach that leaders can give.

So I think the key thing is with all these conflicts, you always have to start by looking at what are they right about?

What's the other side right about?

And so, I think a company where you just sort of say, come on, get thick skin,

get back to work,

you might be masking some problems.

And obviously, with me, too, and other things,

there are real problems.

There are culture problems that have to be addressed.

So, I think the first step is a company has to show that it is serious about

creating a welcoming, inclusive culture, that it's serious about cracking down on any displays of racism or sexism.

So,

you can't just give a speech.

You have to really show that your heart's in the right place and you're working on it.

Once you do that, then I think you can give a speech more along the lines that you were suggesting.

Something like: look,

we're all together here to do something together.

We think we have a great product, we think we serve our customers well, we're in a competitive environment, and

if we don't pull together

and hold together, we're going down.

So, we got to work as a team.

And if you invoke a noble purpose, if you invoke encompassing identities,

then I think within that, you can say, okay, now, how are we going to resolve our disputes?

There's going to be endless misunderstandings.

We're human beings, for God's sakes.

We're going to make mistakes, we're going to have slips of the tongue, we're going to misinterpret each other's words.

That's always going to happen.

So, let's decide, how are we going to do this?

Are we going to initiate a bureaucratic procedure every time?

If so, we're going down and we'll be out of business in a year or two.

Or are we going to try to give each other the benefit of the doubt and try to work this out?

So I think the more a company has rigid bureaucratic procedures to handle grievances, the more it's going to resemble a modern college campus just with endless, endless bureaucracy.

And as you know, in our bathrooms, have you noticed the signs in the bathrooms at Stern?

Yeah.

So, yeah, it's, you know, it says, it basically

says if you see something, say something.

We have a bias response team, and

students are told: here are three ways you can report anyone who you think has shown bias.

And the data, I mean,

what they're basically responding to, most of the cases are students reporting professors for something the professor said in class.

So, you know, we're all teaching on eggshells, and I think the corporate world, obviously,

you always have to be politic, you always have to be careful, but I think it's going to get a lot worse.

Yeah.

You'd like to think universities would be a safe place where we'd be a little bit more generous with each other.

And if someone, in an attempt to be provocative or push the boundaries of your comfort zone around learning, that we'd be generous with one another.

And I find that that generosity is disappearing.

Exactly.

It does.

Go ahead, John.

Oh, that's the heart of the problem.

So, as a professor, as an academic, we trace our lineage back to Socrates.

He is our patron saint.

And what did he do for a living?

He provoked.

That was the whole style.

And so

he couldn't really do it in downtown Athens.

What they did was they removed out to a grove of olive trees just outside of Athens where they had different norms and they created the kind of community in which people challenge each other.

And out of those challenges and conflicts, the truth emerges.

So that's our foundation myth.

That's our origin story.

And that's the way I experienced the academy until 2014.

And 2014, 2015, everything changed.

And now I am not provocative.

I don't tell jokes.

Because I have to teach to the most sensitive student in the room, not the average student.

And that must be impossible for you.

I don't know how you hold your tongue.

Your tongue seems to be on a very loose leash.

Oh, no.

I'm almost five minutes away from losing my keys and being unceremoniously kicked out of NYU because you can just see these kids.

They're actually, so far I've been pretty lucky and they're usually pretty generous to me and I think a lot of it is you walk in with a reputation for being thoughtful around these issues.

I walk in with a reputation for not being thoughtful around these issues.

So there's a bias that people who take my course are prepared to be a little bit offended.

But it is out of control and the signs, you know, the signs have graduated from, we're on the ninth floor at Stern, which is the top floor.

And the sign on the door to the roof is, if you are feeling depressed, please call this number.

And I think that's a worthwhile sign.

And now there's signs in the bathroom saying, if something has bothered you, report it.

I mean, pretty soon it's going to be signs saying, if you're having a bad day,

it's someone else's fault and call this number.

It's just, it feels really, really, kind of really over the top.

So let's get back to corporate America.

It feels as if

you teach a lot about ethics and leadership.

and focus on these issues and how the intersection between thought leadership and the corporate world.

And I've always thought, having spent the majority of my career in the private sector, that if you don't assign

what gets measured, what gets done, and someone has to be responsible for something, who in a company is responsible for what you would call moral or ethical leadership?

Is it the chairman of the board?

Is it the CEO?

Because it seems like unless these things bubble up, who's responsible for framing these issues and making decisions around them?

The CEO.

The CEO.

Yeah, the way leadership works psychologically.

Humans evolved in this interesting way where

we're a primate species, so we're hierarchical, but yet we lived for a long time in hunter-gatherer groups that are very egalitarian.

But then, as soon as we get agriculture and surplus, we go right back to being hierarchical.

So, we're willing, we're designed for hierarchy, and we look to the leader to provide leadership and especially to resolve conflicts.

That's something even chimpanzee leaders do, and they're generally bullies and not good leaders, but they are expected to resolve certain kinds of conflicts.

So, we don't look to the chairman of the board.

We naturally look to the person who is in charge, and that generally is the CEO.

And so,

if the tone at the top is not good, it's almost impossible

to improve things elsewhere.

It's very difficult.

Tone at the top is not sufficient.

People are as much or more affected by what those around them are doing.

But you have to try to get alignment between the messages and the actions given by those at the top, those in the middle, those all around you.

So, I co-founded a site called ethicalsystems.org.

And the idea was there's all this research out there on how you can improve your ethical culture, but it's scattered across all these different disciplines.

And I didn't know it when I came to Stern, even though I study morality.

So if listeners go to ethical systems.org, we have a lot of advice there for how to measure your ethical culture.

We're especially working on a speak-up culture project.

How do you measure who is afraid to speak up, about what, and why?

And there are huge generational differences.

You know, older people will kind of assume, well, if people have a problem, they're going to come tell me.

And younger people are saying, no way, I'm not doing that.

So

the executive, the leader, the CEO is responsible for putting out an inspiring message, for making clear that he or she cares about ethics, rewarding for it,

hiring and firing and promoting for it.

So there's a lot that you can do, but it's gotten a lot trickier in the last couple of years because of the spectacular collapse of trust due to the call-out culture enabled by social media.

So what do you do if it's, let's just take an example, Facebook, I'm curious to get your viewpoint on this.

It feels like there was negligence in terms of not putting in place the safeguards to ensure this platform wasn't weaponized.

A lot of evidence showing that the product they put out results in a teen depression.

Our elections may have been contaminated.

And the CEO sets a tone, but the CEO, a lot of people would argue, can't be removed from office.

Does the responsibility fall to someone else, shareholders or us as voters, to put in place people who can regulate these companies?

Because it seems as if in tech right now, there's a lot of what could loosely be deemed unethical behavior.

What's your viewpoint?

How do we address the problems at Facebook?

Is it you're saying it's the CEO?

Well, I'm saying that the CEO has the ultimate,

he's the point person who sets the tone.

That's what I said.

Now, if the CEO is being unethical, irresponsible, then I think it is the board's job.

Typically, as in the case of Zuckerberg, he didn't do anything illegal.

It's not so clear that there are grounds for removing him.

But Facebook, I think,

has changed so rapidly and has become so powerful, they really have to do a deep reckoning.

And I'm not sure how that's going to come about.

I've spoken there a few times.

I know a few Facebook employees.

I think it's a company full of good people, full of idealistic people.

And this is one of the basic things about business ethics.

Bad things happen, not so much because of bad people necessarily, but because systems are in place that allow things to happen that in retrospect are terrible.

So one example is I nearly deleted deleted my Facebook account.

You know, there's this steady drip of problems.

But when I read that New York Times thing a few months ago that the phone number that I had provided for two-step verification,

that those phone numbers are now, you know, are now part of the network of information, I felt so betrayed.

And I asked a friend who was a former employee, and he said, well, you know, nobody set out to do that.

That certainly wasn't, it wasn't, the goal wasn't to do that.

But, you know, we're trying to grow the network as fast as we can.

We have to make it, the bigger it gets, the more valuable it gets exponentially.

And so once the information was in there, it just somehow kind of got pulled in.

And so I think an important point about Facebook is that it now has so much power and is doing so many things that if its employees aren't all looking out for problems, then problems are going to just keep growing and multiplying.

And so you have to have a speak-up culture.

You have to have a culture where people feel that they have the good of the company at heart.

They want the company to be successful.

And if they see a potential problem, they're going to say something.

I just read something, I can't remember where it was, a few days ago about some signs that there is not such a culture at Facebook or that employees are afraid to speak up.

So I think Facebook has to do, like most big companies, they have to do a lot more to encourage employees to feel secure speaking up.

I think an ombudsperson, the research seems to show that having an ombudsperson is generally very helpful.

That person can

resolve problems more informally often.

So I don't know enough about Facebook to give very specific advice, but you have to have a culture in which everyone is looking out for problems and has a way to bring them up.

Yeah, John.

So the general reputation of Facebook is incredibly, this is Cara's word, docile, whereas Google has very much that speak-up culture.

Just real quickly, another, what I would argue is sort of an ethical lapse was this

kind of shit show con, not contest of HQ2, where it feels to me in retrospect that there's a lot of evidence that this was never really a contest, that the cake was baked, the game was over, and this was just an elegant transfer of wealth from municipalities to the shareholders of Amazon.

What is your take on that?

And

do you think this is what you would describe as an ethical lapse?

And how do we, as shareholders and as citizens,

push back on a firm like Amazon?

And is pushback required, or were they just doing their job?

Yeah.

Well, I'm very influenced by Richard Florida here.

I know that you have spoken with him, and he was very upset about this.

He could see it coming.

He could see what Amazon was doing and playing cities off each other to force them into a race to the bottom

to make more concessions of taxpayer money.

So yes, it was very manipulative.

I think clearly it was a strategy to gain various advantages.

It wasn't a sincere quest, I don't think.

And

was that ethically wrong?

Well, from society's perspective, yes.

Part of what happened to American capitalism in the 1970s was we had some clear ideas laid out about how the ethical responsibility, the fiduciary duty, the duties of executives and leaders are to the shareholders, maximize shareholder value.

And so

as that idea of shareholder primacy took hold in the 70s, the idea, and I see it in some of our MBA students, I'm sure you see it too,

the idea is that there's only one stakeholder that matters, and that is the shareholders.

And to the extent that you ever care about employees or even customers, it's only to the extent that doing so will increase shareholder value.

That's a terrible way to think about business.

It's become, it's not the way that it's thought about everywhere in the world.

It's not the way that America used to think about it necessarily.

It might lead to more dynamism.

I can't say that it's absolutely terrible overall, but I think that a stakeholder view, this is what we're trying to teach in many business schools,

taking a stakeholder view, just telling people, look, good business means managing a lot of different relationships.

You got to keep your eye on all of them.

And if you focus too much on the shareholders,

you're going to end up doing some bad things.

So,

was Amazon doing the right thing?

Well, for its shareholders, it probably was.

And so unless we get either more regulation or new norms that businesses have social responsibilities, we're going to keep getting this.

And of course, that's what Larry Fink's letter to investors last January was, was,

I don't know what came of it.

I don't know whether businesses are listening, but the idea that

we have to start judging businesses more by their social effects.

It's the longest running debate in business ethics.

And I think a new chapter just opened up this year.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: So let's talk a little bit about winners and losers, and I'll ask you if you think that Apple is a winner.

It seems to me that Apple's been very effective at starching their hat white in 2018 and trying to separate themselves from the rest of big tech and say that privacy is a basic human right.

What are your observations on kind of Tim Cook's indignant tour and basically trying to say we're the good guys?

So

as a father who has been working on this for a couple of years and trying to figure out, you know,

how do I put healthy limits on my kids without being too intrusive.

I got to say, those new Apple, the Apple controls work pretty well.

And so I think Apple has responded.

They were taking some heat last year.

I don't know how long these were in the works.

But

I think Facebook emerges as the one that has most of the more ethical problems coming up.

And Apple, as far as I know, has had fewer.

So I think they are at least taking seriously this issue of tech addiction and the mental health effects that it may have.

Aaron Powell, so loser Facebook, winner Apple, any other winners and losers from the world attack that you would think are doing an especially good or bad job trying to address these issues?

Oh, let's see.

I guess I don't know.

Yeah, I don't know the insides of the tech companies well enough, well enough to say I'll leave that to you.

What do you think?

I think you summarize it.

I think Apple, I don't know if it's, I mean, Tim Cook's sudden concern over privacy is similar to if Larry and Sergey all of a sudden became very worried about device addiction.

It's awfully convenient for him because he's basically sticking his finger on the soft tissue of companies that traffic in data, specifically Google and Facebook.

So it's, I think it's, I'm not saying it's not principled, but it is, but it is awfully, awfully convenient.

And Google has had this incredible heat shield in the form of Mark Zuckerberg and Sharle Sandberg, who are arguably kind of the most photoshopped images in the history of business.

And they've been, you know, they've just been the bad guys here.

And I think it's probably only going to get worse.

So

as a dad, as a professor,

what are the one or two things you're most optimistic about and most concerned about?

And I'll broaden it up from technology to the world of politics that we're living in now, what you see in terms of our youth.

And at a, you know, we're one of what I call one of the 15 top 10 business schools in America, arguably producing the leaders of tomorrow.

If you were to, let's talk about predictions.

If you were to try and predict one or two kind of real issues, concerning issues over the next 10 years across everything you look at,

what would those one or two things be, John?

Well, I think the number one thing is the mental health crisis of teenagers, the skyrocketing rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide, which are especially affecting girls.

The data wasn't so clear in 2015 when I was writing my article with Luke Yanoff, and now it's really clear.

So I think we're going to see in the next year or two a national reckoning, and this is happening in Britain too.

They have the same things, Canada too.

We're going to see a national reckoning with the fact that we are in danger of losing a generation, that we're going to have the generation after the millennials is going to be much more fearful, much less able to face risk.

It's going to impact the business world, it's going to impact innovation.

So I think the next year or two is going to see a major reckoning with this and a recognition that, you know what, sometimes good intentions produce bad outcomes and we've been overprotecting kids.

So I think we're going to make some big changes in how we raise and educate kids.

The other thing that I'm very encouraged about is we didn't really talk about identity politics here.

There are two forms of identity politics.

There's a kind of a nasty common enemy identity politics where you say, you know, it's all the fault of the oppressive groups and the victims are the good people.

And that's what we have mostly on campus is this common enemy.

You know, everybody's supposed to unite against the straight white men who are the evil oppressors.

And that can never lead to progress, inclusion, harmony, trust.

That's just, that's the road to endless conflict.

But what's encouraging to me is that just in the last year, and I think it's because as we've seen right-wing racial identity politics and we've seen white supremacy and Nazis and things like that, I think that's encouraged a lot of scholars who are not white men.

There are a lot of black and Muslim and LGBT professors who are suddenly saying, you know, like, wow, we've got to stop doing this.

This is not the way to promote harmony and inclusion.

And so, you know, Amy Chua writing about political tribes, Francis Fukuyama about identity, Anthony Appiah, there's a whole bunch of really good books out in the last year or two.

So I think I'm optimistic that we're going to break out of this sort of death spiral of mutual hatred and pitting groups against each other, and we're going to try to use some more psychologically sophisticated and morally uplifting ways, more in the form of Martin Luther King and many of the early civil rights leaders.

We call this common humanity identity politics.

So I'm optimistic that things are getting so bad on campus, at least.

So they're so bad that there's a rising recognition that we got to change course.

Wow, you're the optimist.

Sometimes I think it's darkest before it's pitch black.

Jonathan Haidt is a professor at NYU Stern School of Business and author of the best-selling book, The Coddling of the American Mind.

Professor Haidt, you are doing important work.

I'm so glad we had a chance to discuss this, and I will see you around

in the halls.

In the halls of Stern.

Thanks, Scott.

Thanks so much.

Thank you, John.

Rebecca Sinanis produces this show.

Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of audio.

Thanks also to Eric Johnson.

And of course, thanks again to our guest, Jonathan Haidt.

Thanks for listening to Pivot from Vox Media.

We'll be back next week for more of the breakdown on all things tech and business.

If you like what you heard, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you're listening.

This month on Explain It To Me, we're talking about all things wellness.

We spend nearly $2 trillion on things that are supposed to make us well.

Collagen smoothies and cold plunges, Pilates classes and fitness trackers.

But what does it actually mean to be well?

Why do we want that so badly?

And is all this money really making us healthier and happier?

That's this month on Explain It to Me, presented by Pureleaf.