As someone who is easily dazzled by other people's brilliance and inclined to believe everything they have to say, I have learnt that a good way for me to measure the truth of something is to try to act as the advocate or mouthpiece of such brilliance. Without the benefit of charisma, any holes in the argument will be mercilessly exposed. It's a good way but not the best way as it usually results in humiliation. The best way is to rehearse playing the advocate.
For example, I can't think of anyone more brilliant than Steven Pinker, of anyone who has more opened my mind to new ways of looking at the world and human nature, so when he said that we needn't worry too much about the long-term consequences of incessant texting among the young, I immediately pricked up my years. Pinker said that if there was really a danger of people ending up writing like morons we would already have seen the results 70 years ago when people communicated verbally by telegram: ARRIVE HEATHROW 9.30 AM. SUGGEST MEET VIP LOUNGE.
I was looking forward to impressing people with this insight (without of course revealing my source) when I began to spot one or two weaknesses in the argument. First of all, the sending of telegrams was limited to a tiny minority, as opposed to texting which is a worldwide phenomenon. Secondly, those who could afford to send telegrams were in all likelihood adult member of a cultured and wealthy elite, already at ease with the intricacies of written discourse.
In other words, Mr Smart E. Pants Pinker, you are way out of line.
For example, I can't think of anyone more brilliant than Steven Pinker, of anyone who has more opened my mind to new ways of looking at the world and human nature, so when he said that we needn't worry too much about the long-term consequences of incessant texting among the young, I immediately pricked up my years. Pinker said that if there was really a danger of people ending up writing like morons we would already have seen the results 70 years ago when people communicated verbally by telegram: ARRIVE HEATHROW 9.30 AM. SUGGEST MEET VIP LOUNGE.
I was looking forward to impressing people with this insight (without of course revealing my source) when I began to spot one or two weaknesses in the argument. First of all, the sending of telegrams was limited to a tiny minority, as opposed to texting which is a worldwide phenomenon. Secondly, those who could afford to send telegrams were in all likelihood adult member of a cultured and wealthy elite, already at ease with the intricacies of written discourse.
In other words, Mr Smart E. Pants Pinker, you are way out of line.
No comments:
Post a Comment