Writing tip: Be sure whatever you write or speak has unity, coherence, and EMPHASIS. That’s not bad advice, but it’s not easy to follow. Of the three essay properties, the last is, in my view, currently THE MOST IMPORTANT. At least, it seems so nowadays. We do a lot of SHOUTING in our society. Hard to carry on a conversation that gets opponents to any kind of compromise.
Epithetic monologues replace dialogues. Therein, a communication problem lies. Such monologues are ostensibly coherent arguments in the minds of their writers and speakers, but they seem to be very little more than agenda-driven insults to their opponents, the very people they desire to sway. One side, dismissive of the other, resorts to ad hominem or ad populum attacks. As we all know, hard feelings arise when the only argument for a cause is a loud one based on the supposed shortcomings (Dare I say, “idiocy”?) or bias of an opponent.
Not that unity isn’t also a problem. Have you noted that in any political discussion, few pundits stick to a single topic? Someone will ask a question. The respondent answers another. From the medieval Generydes we have a term for the process: “Beating around the bush.” The analogy lies in the practice of some hunters to make noises around a bush while others wait to catch fleeing frightened birds. The trouble is that pundits are not bird-hunting in their political discussions; they always seem to be simultaneously advocating, attacking, and defending. Everything, including the proverbial kitchen sink, goes into the argumentative mix.
The lack of unity of purpose and related topics and the emphasis on emphasis affects coherence—at least in the minds of the opposition. Most political discussions appear to break down into a series of non sequiturs. What seems to be an orderly, related set of facts (or fictions) for one side seems neither ordered or related to the other. There’s a disjointedness that permeates most TV political discussions. Although unstated, the question “Why is my opponent telling me this information at this point in the discussion?” probably rattles round the brain.
Maybe the problem of ineffective argumentation lies in the nature of TV programming. Driven by commercial needs, networks limit time for discussion to provide time for advertising. It’s the latter, of course, that pays the bills. Knowing that time is limited drives the brain to “get it all in” before the commercial break or the next segment. Or, maybe the problem pundits encounter lies in the inner brain that will do anything rational or irrational to save itself and the body that houses it. As an Emory University study suggests, “The study [of people on both sides of the political spectrum] points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making. ‘None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged,’ [Drew] Westen said. ‘Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.’ Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.”*
Whatever the cause of our milieu of coherent nonsense—or incoherent sense—it’s probably just a continuation of whatever people have always done in political debates, but now, thanks to TV, it is a bit LOUDER.
*http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11009379/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/political-bias-affects-brain-activity-study-finds/#.WuxM2tPwa3I
Epithetic monologues replace dialogues. Therein, a communication problem lies. Such monologues are ostensibly coherent arguments in the minds of their writers and speakers, but they seem to be very little more than agenda-driven insults to their opponents, the very people they desire to sway. One side, dismissive of the other, resorts to ad hominem or ad populum attacks. As we all know, hard feelings arise when the only argument for a cause is a loud one based on the supposed shortcomings (Dare I say, “idiocy”?) or bias of an opponent.
Not that unity isn’t also a problem. Have you noted that in any political discussion, few pundits stick to a single topic? Someone will ask a question. The respondent answers another. From the medieval Generydes we have a term for the process: “Beating around the bush.” The analogy lies in the practice of some hunters to make noises around a bush while others wait to catch fleeing frightened birds. The trouble is that pundits are not bird-hunting in their political discussions; they always seem to be simultaneously advocating, attacking, and defending. Everything, including the proverbial kitchen sink, goes into the argumentative mix.
The lack of unity of purpose and related topics and the emphasis on emphasis affects coherence—at least in the minds of the opposition. Most political discussions appear to break down into a series of non sequiturs. What seems to be an orderly, related set of facts (or fictions) for one side seems neither ordered or related to the other. There’s a disjointedness that permeates most TV political discussions. Although unstated, the question “Why is my opponent telling me this information at this point in the discussion?” probably rattles round the brain.
Maybe the problem of ineffective argumentation lies in the nature of TV programming. Driven by commercial needs, networks limit time for discussion to provide time for advertising. It’s the latter, of course, that pays the bills. Knowing that time is limited drives the brain to “get it all in” before the commercial break or the next segment. Or, maybe the problem pundits encounter lies in the inner brain that will do anything rational or irrational to save itself and the body that houses it. As an Emory University study suggests, “The study [of people on both sides of the political spectrum] points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making. ‘None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged,’ [Drew] Westen said. ‘Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.’ Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.”*
Whatever the cause of our milieu of coherent nonsense—or incoherent sense—it’s probably just a continuation of whatever people have always done in political debates, but now, thanks to TV, it is a bit LOUDER.
*http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11009379/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/political-bias-affects-brain-activity-study-finds/#.WuxM2tPwa3I
RSS Feed