The article discusses how avoiding exposure to potential allergens like peanuts has paradoxically increased peanut allergies. It notes a landmark study found that exposing babies to peanuts reduced the likelihood of developing an allergy compared to avoiding peanuts. The author argues that avoiding discomforting ideas has similarly made people intellectually intolerant, and exposure therapy for allergies and trauma is more effective than avoidance.

1. In his runaway bestselling book, The Coddling of The American Mind,...
In his runaway bestselling book, The Coddling of The American Mind, psychologist Jonathan
Haidt describes his experience attending pre-school orientation for his oldest child. He and
his wife were informed of the school's strict policy on classroom snacks, especially nuts.
Because of potential peanut allergies, peanuts were completely forbidden in the classroom,
as were all other kinds of tree nuts. On top of that, just to be extra careful, anything that was
made in a facility with tree nuts could not be brought to the classroom either. Haidt had the
audacity to ask a simple question: "Does anyone's child in our classroom have a peanut
allergy? He was swiftly admonished for potentially putting other parents in an
"uncomfortable" situation with his question and was told it was beside the point. In fact,
Haidt was very much on point. The well-intentioned strategy of proactively removing
peanuts from classrooms has likely resulted in more kids becoming allergic to nuts,
according to data from a landmark study called LEAP, or Learning Early About Peanut
allergy. The LEAP study followed more than 600 children who were at high risk for
developing peanut allergies, for more than four years. Babies in the LEAP study were split
into two groups: one that avoided peanut foods, and another that was given age-
appropriate peanut foods several times a week. Only three percent of children in the
"consumption" group developed a peanut allergy by the time they reached 5 years old,
versus 17 percent of the children in the "avoidance" group. In other words, a child in the
"avoidance" group was five times more likely to develop an allergy! I've experienced this
firsthand, as my father is severely allergic to peanuts. However, we always had peanut
products in our house as kids; instead of removing them, we focused on being careful to not
expose him through cross-contamination. Today, none of his three children or nine
grandchildren are allergic to nuts, despite a potential hereditary predisposition. As I wrote
in a recent Friday Forward, there is a growing trend in society to conflate physical danger
and emotional discomfort, resulting in a movement to limit exposure to anything that may
cause either. The data on peanut exposure is a powerful metaphor for why this is well-
intentioned, but often counterproductive. Nowhere is this more evident than the ubiquity of
content warnings today. In many cases, these warnings are appropriate. For example, a
television show that depicts self-harm or sexual abuse might warn audiences in advance so
that someone who has personally experienced those types of deeply traumatic events can
choose to avoid exposure in an unmonitored environment. But there is a difference between
subject matters that some people should avoid entirely and topics that should still be
discussed or depicted, just with care and nuance. This relates closely to a growing debate

2. about the use of the word "trigger." In the past, it was more of a medical definition related to
a limited set of circumstances. Today, the word is far more ubiquitous and increasingly used
to define anything that makes a person uncomfortable, according to the person's own
definition. Just as the anti-nut policy Haidt described has probably created more nut
allergies, frequent content warnings or avoidance of anything that might Yahoo Mail - What
A Surprising Study of Peanut Allergies Reveals About Public Discourse 2022-05-11, 10:35
AM https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1?.intl=ca&.lang=en-CA Page 3 of 4 be considered
objectionable, or "triggering," from culture or classrooms is discouraging dialogue and
weakening a whole generation's emotional resilience. Interestingly, I have several friends
who have used exposure therapy for their children with severe allergies. While this doesn't
always cure the allergy, it reduces its severity, making it safer for the children to eat in
public. Along those same lines, one of the most common forms of treatment for trauma
survivors is cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT, which aims to modify the patient's
reaction to trauma triggers, rather than avoid exposure altogether. Discomfort is an
essential part of life and is especially important to our emotional and physical development.
Too many organizations and institutions today have decided that anything that makes you
uncomfortable should either be eliminated or avoided. This is perhaps most acute in higher
education, where there is a growing intolerance for exposure to ideas or perspectives that
threaten a preferred narrative. This resistance to emotional discomfort creates an
intellectual allergy to new ideas and different perspectives. It has also led to people to
become intolerant of, and disrespectful toward, people whose perspective they disagree
with, resulting in a demonstrable impact on public discourse. Avoidance of peanut exposure
has created a generation with more peanut allergies than ever before. If we don't begin to
increase our exposure to other perspectives and mild discomfort, another generation will
set records in both physical and emotional intolerance. Quote of the Week: "Our
commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called 'trigger
warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove
controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where
individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own." - University of
Chicago Letter to Incoming Freshman, 2016 The above article is a Friday Forward, my short
weekly leadership note read by 200,000+ leaders in over sixty countries each Friday
morning. You may also enjoy The Elevate Podcast, where I interview business leaders and
entrepreneurs, bestselling authors, and world-renowned thinkers. Robert Glazer is the
Founder and Chairman of the Board at Acceleration Partners, an award-winning partner
marketing agency with over twentyfive best place to work awards. He is also a #1 Wall
Street Journal bestselling author and keynote speaker. Full bio and speaking inquires at
www.robertglazer.com
1. Can you Introduce the source
2.Explain thesis statement that indicates your critique on the source article. In other words,
do you think the article you have read is effective or ineffective? Choose one position.
3. In Summary give topic sentence that summarizes the main idea of the source article and
mention the
main points of the source article in short.

3. 4.Response Segment 1 Please explain topic sentence choosing one framework that evaluates
the article. In other words,is the article written well or are there gaps and flaws. What is
your first reason for your
choice?
Use evidence (examples, quotations, and analysis) to support the topic sentence and
comment on the evidence
1.
2.
3.
5.Response Segment 2 Please explain topic sentence choosing another framework that
evaluates the article. In otherwords, is the article written well or are there gaps and flaws.
What is your second reasonor your choice?
Use evidence (examples, quotations, and analysis) to support the topic sentence
andcomment on the evidence
1.
2.
3.
6.Conclusion
Restate the thesis statement
Restate the main points
Add a memorable statement
please explain each and everything.