Category Archives: Rhetorical Mastery

Snap Judgments

Problem Practices, Rhetorical Mastery, , , , , , , , ,

One would think that moderns educated on the complexities of the world would shun snap judgments and favor more considered conclusions. But such hopeful flattery is probably unearned.  

Tweets and other instant forms of response are doing their part to school us to accept norms that put judgment ahead of inquiry. Our taste for quick rejoinders means that judgment has already made the final turn before reasoned inquiry has left the gate.

Our public rhetoric is now consistently reactive.  We look for the simplest ways to express outrage and dismay, as any sampling of online comments remind us.  Most of us expect to read snappy attitudes uttered with conviction and and usually some vitriol. A person who responds to a question or thoughtful assertion with a “not sure” is likely to be seen as a little slow.

Snap judgments about the world are mostly unearned gifts that we give ourselves.  A sharp claim stakes out territory we can own. But anyone who takes time to notice will see that our popular and social media are filled with advocates who are in weeds over their heads.  Certainties on topics about which we know very little are as common as black flies in Maine.  And their lifespan is about as long.

 

Somehow our public rhetoric needs to pull back to give space to the considered conclusions where accuracy matters more than an immediate answer.

Thankfully, there is a language for processes of deliberation and truth-testing.  When the stakes are high, we want knowledgeable people in charge of making considered judgments.  For example, will the Boeing 737 MAX fly again soon? Presumably smart people employing solid engineering practices will be make that call.  We should expect that more will happen than the President’s suggestion that we simply give the plane a new name. Likewise, as a nation we should eventually determine if the same leader has engaged in the crime of obstruction of justice.  My quick judgment is a firm “yes.” But I’m willing to defer to legal experts who better understand criminal and legal benchmarks. Somehow our public rhetoric needs to pull back to give space to considered conclusions where accuracy matters.

A Lexicon of Truth Testing

We can construct a kind of hierarchy of decision-making mechanisms that ought to be in our minds when we seek answers to a nagging problems.  Near the top I would place the discovery process in legal proceedings. In advance of a trial, each side in criminal and civil cases has the opportunity and time to gather the facts and a full narrative.  Both sides can interview credible witnesses, subpoena documents and seek outside expertise.  A discovery process that is thorough, for example, is apt to use DNA evidence that can be help determine if a suspect could have committed an assault.

Serious investigative journalism has a similar process, often requiring two independent confirmations of an event before it can be reported.  The hearsay of one source is not enough.  Good examples of this process are found in the classic journalism sagas Spotlight (2015) and All the President’s Men (1976).  Spotlight seems especially accurate in telling the story of the Boston Globe’s research of coverups of child abuse committed by priests and church leaders in the Boston area.

Drug makers seeking to introduce a new medicine will typically need to show the efficacy of a treatment by doing some double-blind studies: tests of the proposed treatment administered to two comparable groups of patients, one getting a placebo, and the other receiving the treatment. In a double-blind study neither the patients nor clinicians administering the “meds” know whether they are handling the real stuff.  Will the experimental group get better? It’s usually a fair form of the experimental method to see if the new drug can outperform improvements triggered by the placebo effect in the ‘control’ group.

Among social scientists there is a great deal of fudging that turns correlational studies into unjustified conclusions that suggest causation.  Human research follows the general protocols of the hard sciences, even though human subjects are not easily isolated for study. For example, fast food restaurants in an area aren’t always the cause of high levels of obesity among the residents in a nearby neighborhood.  Some studies have asserted this claim with only an assumption of causation.

In many other realms we are usually open to a future leader who is doing a “listening tour” rather than a rally; or other figures who are prepared to make “reasonable inferences” or see significance in analogous situations. All are explicitly making room for logics that reserve space for more open-minded tests of a claim’s validity.

Near the bottom of the list we are left with a vast majority of public comments representing patterns of “motivated reasoning” or “confirmation bias.” These are common mental processes that allow acceptance of evidence or ideas only if they confirm what the perceiver already believes.

black bar

The False Promise of the Ill-formed Question

Rhetorical Mastery, , , , ,

We sometimes frame a questions awkwardly, increasing the likelihood even sincere answers will miss what we need to know.

We love questions.  They shift the burden of a conversation to another.  And their expression in a conversation suggests an open mind.  Setting aside queries about the nefarious intent of another, questions usually confer a degree of status on the one who has asked them. The person putting forth the query offers evidence that they are engaged and capable of more than spouting opinions.

Let’s set aside rhetorical questions: those faux interrogatories that are tossed out with a clear answer already in mind.  “You don’t really believe the President understands how international trade works, do you?” is a representative form.  The rhetorical question is a setup that reserves most of the power of explanation for oneself, which explains why they can be so annoying to the person that has to sit through the charade.  Let’s also set aside questions that are meant to yield setups that the questioner is interested in refuting.  “sandbagging” another person is a sport few people like.

We think of genuine questions as learning tools.  We love it when a child or a curious adult seeks an explanation that will add to their expanding range of understandings.  The best of such questions are asked without guile and directed to someone who has insights we respect.

Yet it’s also possible to imagine how useless and destructive the wrong kinds of questions can be.  Some ‘perform’ interest rather than genuinely reflect it. And too many others can turn us in the wrong direction. It’s surprisingly easy to frame an issue awkwardly, making it likely any answer will miss core issues.

Consider a few samples. “Should we continue to execute persons who commit violent crimes?”  Another might be: “Do you know how Johnny scored on intelligence tests?” In different ways each question primes us to consider a subject in a way that is not very advantageous to understanding what we should know. Regarding punishments for violent crimes, is the place to start really at forms of criminal punishment? We would be smarter to discuss common causes of serious crime, such as the nation’s tattered mental health screening for those on the margins.  Regarding intelligence test scores, the more interesting probes would focus on what we now mean by “intelligence,” and whether it is measured using narrow metrics.  Conventional measures, for example, don’t really touch the crucial variable of social intelligence: how well an individual copes with new situations and individuals.

The price of not asking the right question is perpetuated ignorance. 

In a memorable 1993 speech at the National Press Club author Michael Crichton observed that reporters often ask the wrong questions, missing the chance for a more panoramic understanding of a problem.

I often think, wait a minute. The real issue isn't term limits; it's campaign finance reform. The real issue isn't whether a gasoline tax is regressive; its national security--whether we'd prefer to go back to war in the Gulf instead of reducing oil consumption by taxing it more heavily, as every other nation does. The real issue isn't whether the United States should shave have an industrial policy, it is whether the one we have--no policy is a policy--serves us well.

In addition, Crichton could have added the cliches under-prepared that journalists can trot out for any candidate to answer: no research or knowledge required.  The list is familiar a familiar one: Do they think their campaign is going well?  Why do the want to hold this office?  Or how do they feel about their low poll numbers?  This kind of “process” journalism completely ignores explorations of what a candidate thinks about key issues of the day.  They don’t require reading position papers, previous interviews or speeches.  Broadcast journalism if full of interviewers who are not true reporters: too poorly informed to know what to ask.

A thoughtful question should hold out the promise of a useful insight. But it’s easy to miss the mark, making an errant query similar to searching for Venus in the wrong corner of the night sky.