In our society we have to process a tremendous amount of information, and we simply don’t have the time to research most of it to determine it’s validity. In lieu of research, we tend to develop a set of simple heuristics by which we determine the trustworthiness of a given statement or set of statements. In most cases it’s a subconscious process, and only on introspection do we realize exactly what these rules are. I call my rules my “crap detector”, and as it has served me reasonably well over the years, I thought I’d share a few of them. Most of them aren’t so much specific indications that a given datum is false, so much as general indicators that the source is untrustworthy.
- Grammar and Spelling
- Occasionally you will run across someone with a genuinely rigorous mind who just can’t write worth a damn, but in most cases bad writing style is an indicator of a disorganized mind
- Pessimism
- Anyone who can look at the world around and declare that it’s going to hell in a handbasket has too tenous a grasp on reality to be trusted. This goes equally for Christian fundamentalists that think we’re in a downward spiral of depravity, hippies who think corporations and technology are destroying the world, and anyone else who thinks the human race is on it’s way to physical or spiritual extinction. Anyone who can’t look around and acknowledge the fact that, on the whole, the human race has made tremendous leaps towards freedom, health and quality of life in the past couple hundred years is dangerously blind. The mere fact that it has become possible for record numbers of people to have the leisure to sit around dreaming of the way things “used to be” is indication of our progress.
- Conspiracy Theories
- This really falls under the general rule “don’t attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence”. It’s my experience that people – even people in big companies or governments – are simply not competent to maintain the kind of cast conspiracies that are often attributed to them. There’s also Occam’s Razor to contend with – ninety-nine times out of a hundred the simplest explanation really is the right one.
- Quoting a Single Source. A Lot
- Could also be called the “But Chomsky says…” rule. People who constantly parrot a single guru are generally unreleliable
- Us-vs-Them
- Whether it’s Democrat-vs-Republican, Pagans-vs-Christians, the positing of an “Other Side” which must be defeated at all costs always rings big alarm bells for me
- Conventional Wisdom
- My mind switches off as soon as you say “everybody knows…”
- The Superior Intellect
- If you claim “All enlightened individuals” know something to be true, it’s probably bunk
- The Real Story
- “If you only knew what I knew…” Anyone who claims to know what’s “really going on” almost certainly doesn’t.
- Media Assumptions
- Both implicit belief in, and implicit disbelief in what the media says are warning signs. The media doesn’t get everything right, but they don’t get everything wrong either. They also aren’t a “tool of the man”, at least in the US – see “Conspiracy Theories”.
- Historical Exceptionalism
- The idea that some event or condition is “unprecedented”. There are very few truly unprecedented events in a civilization this old. Usually the precedent can be found, with a little research, within the speaker’s lifetime.
- Hyperbole
- AKA the Invoking Hitler rule. If you want to lose my trust fast, show that you have no sense of perspective.
- Lack of Continuity
- About the point where your nuanced discussion of Reagan’s economic policies sidetracks into a rant on the ill-advisability of of eating processed cheese, I look for something else to read.
- Invoking Science
- In the 1950’s, invoking the guys in the white coats settled anything. Nowadays you can find a PHd to lend credence to any half-cocked flight of fancy. Give me statistics, not “Scientists now know…”
- Confusing Law with Morality
- This includes both those who think that the Law defines morality, and those who think that anything that people should do, there should be a law about. Both types set my crap detector a-ringin’.
Conventional Wisdom
My mind switches off as soon as you say “everybody knows…”
Amen, brother. 😉
/me *hatehatehates* so-called “conventional wisdom.”
One argument starter that really annoys me which I will call the Superior Thinker since it is somewhat realted to the Superior Intellect is “If you really think about it..”.
Why do people have to use such stupid methods of convincing someone else? If you need to use these statements then what you have to say is probably not worth saying! And if it is then statements like these are not needed at all, especially if you think that the person you are talking to has a brain in their head and can use it to make up their own mind…. sorry Avdi, just venting 😉
Heh. Yeah, I know that one. Sad to say I’m guilty of using it too. Although usually only with someone that I’m pretty sure will agree with me, for whom it’s just an extension of something we’ve already been talking about.
It really is a way of saying “If you were clever like me…” though, isn’t it?
Grammar and Spelling
Bad speling and pur gramar is a sine of a kreative mind, yea.
Pessimism
When I was a young boy and had to walk 18 miles to school in 10 feet of snow ,uphill coming AND going, things were better than they are now.
Umm…cuz I said so.
Conspiracy Theories
Just cuz I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me.
Quoting a Single Source. A Lot
But…but…the Bible is the inspired word!
Us-vs-Them
Yea, well, that’s what they’d like you to believe.
Conventional Wisdom
Everybody knows that when someone asks you to pull their finger, you shouldn’t do it. Is that so unreasonable?
The Superior Intellect
You’re right, except for people who have been abducted by aliens and have been shown the truth. If you had been shown the truth, you would know, too.
The Real Story
Well, if you knew what I knew, that would make you as smart as me, and we can’t have that!
Media Assumptions
I don’t believe anything I see or anything I say.
Historical Exceptionalism
Oh yea? Well I KNOW there’s never been a case of hemorrhoids like my great aunt Petunia used to get, except maybe this one relative I heard tell about who lived during the civil war. But that’s it!
Hyperbole
Would it kill you to consider what would have happened if Hitler had worn a tu-tu?
Lack of Continuity
It’s precisely because Reagan ate processed cheese that there was so much flatulence during his administration.
Invoking Science
I thought invoking the guys in the white coats meant a trip to the Magic Kingdom in the Twinkie mobile while wrapped in a strait-jacket.
Confusing Law with Morality
The law doesn’t define morality. I do!
LOL! Thank you for inserting some much-needed levity into my Monday 🙂
/me falls to the floor, laughing her head off…
Don’t do that.
You’re head is much too pretty to leave laying on the floor.
Pessimism
That’s something that I’ve been noticing a lot lately. People always exagerate how bad things are going to be in the future if *this* doesn’t change. When really things probably won’t change really that much at all compared with the degree of change that they are speaking of. Of course that’s not an excuse to not care about what’s chaning in the world.
Conspiracy Theories
I think that there are plenty of conspiracies, but few of them really have any impact on anything. Because they’re not all evil, they’re aren’t effective, they interfer with each other and plenty just don’t apply to anyone outside of the few persons they affect.
People always exagerate how bad things are going to be in the future if *this* doesn’t change.
Michael Crichton had some excellent articles on this and related subjects on his website which have unfortunately been temporarily taken down. One thing he pointed out was that ten, twenty years ago the “scientific community” was predicting a population explosion that would cause mass starvation and quickly strip the planet of vital resources within something like fifty years. Of course since then the estimates of population growth have dropped steadily. At this point the UN’s best estimate is that the population will level off in the next couple decades, and then may start to decline. Turns out one of the many benefits of westernization is a major drop in the number of children being born.
It’s always enlightening to take a look back at the dire predictions that people have made to justify this, that, or the other. If people scored pundits and politicians on the accuracy of their predictions, the way they do CEOs and financial analysts, a whole lot of pompous blowhards would be out of work.
Actually the population bomb idead has been going around for thousands of years. One the great philoshophers (I don’t remember which, around Aristotle) wrote about how the earth was going to be overpopulated.
Crap Detection 101
Quoting a Single Source. A Lot
Could also be called the “But Chomsky says…” rule.
excellent premise for a rule. tremendously poor choice of example. one of the most impressive things about chomsky is the fact that he makes an extreme effort to offer outside verification of almost everything he says, and actively encourages readers to verify the info and form their own opinions as to whether he has interpreted them correctly.
Re: Crap Detection 101
Possibly true about linguistics. Extremely untrue when it comes to politics. I’ll try to look up some examples if I have a chance. When it comes to politics, Chomsky is one of the finest practitioners of the “…as anybody who knows anything knows…” school of rhetorical misdirection.
Re: Crap Detection 101
These probably aren’t the best examples, but I happen to have read them recently and was able to find them quickly. A couple of posts from a blog who’s title makes it’s bias pretty clear:
http://antichomsky.blogspot.com/2004/06/ok-i-couldnt-resist.html
http://antichomsky.blogspot.com/2004/06/chomsky-flashback.html
The quote in the latter post “What really struck me was the dressing of reluctant academic objectivity (“it is reasonably clear, etc. . . .”) with which he coated this piece of rhetoric, and the apparent ease by which it went down with the rest of the audience” stood out to me, because it’s consistent with everything I’ve read by and about Chomsky’s political writing and speaking. He uses academic language to lend weight to the most absurd statements, and he cultivates a following which laps it up without question. Whether or not he encourages people to critique his work, he seems to inspire a remarkably fanatical and unquestioning following, members of which I’ve come across in various public forums. I’ve also seen a lot of anecdotal evidence that at least in public speaking engagements he is extremely hostile to dissent.
Re: Crap Detection 101
I will definitely read the links later, and thank you for providing them.
Regardless
While we may disagree on Chomsky’s academic rigour, I would think you’d agree that someone who quotes Chomsky and only Chomsky in order to support their point has credibility issues. Which was the only point of that rule.
Re: Regardless
absolutely the rule holds, i agree. I admittely reacted poorly because what youve described is the very opposite of my experience with it. I find his principles and his interpretation of motives extremely accurate, and I find his admonishment to doublecheck and assess his information sincere and compelling. His provided references are extensive and verifiable, and I admire him for making it so easy to assess the validity of his facts regardless of whether or not you agree with his interpretations of those facts.
many christians use a blind devotion to things jesus never said or wanted to drive themselves. i believe the same is true of chomsky, and for that matter skinner. i dont blame them for what other people made of their ideas, i blame the people who picked out bits, twisted them and based a wuthering tower of their own bullshit on that alleged basis.