Most would agree that across all forms of media, it seems that everyone has taken a more emotive approach to get their point across. We are bombarded with images of celebrities and their deplorable state of marriage, or a sports pundit’s outrage at a player’s move to another team. Whatever the case, it forms a quick and often strong connection with the audience, and the result is a trend of increasingly pathetic public discourse.
With the exception of a few thinkers and politicians who are worth listening to (regardless of their differing points of view), the middle have relegated themselves to the fringes. This majority of once-reasonable voices have instead launched into a diatribe that has destroyed all hope of a reasonable center, and they have taken over most of what we see and hear today. The lunatics, leftists, rightists, conservatives, liberals, conspiracy theorists, capitalists, anti capitalists, sports pundits, radicals, armchair fascists, and environmentalists (just to name a few) begin with a cloudy objective and repeatedly stab anyone who comes along with a contrarian view, stamping out any hope of reasonable public discussion. The victims themselves turn to the same tactics that is so widespread with the mantra “If you can’t beat em, join em!” Unfortunately, this only serves to aggravate the problem. In the end, the discussion is not about the conservation of our planet, or issues of national security, but rather, it is about denigrating your opponent with obscure “evidence” to incriminate him and support your cause. The result is two parties further convincing themselves that they are right and entrenching themselves in their beliefs.
It is not hard to see why society values people like Noam Chomsky, who relies on facts and logic to put his point across, not a saliva-spitting emotional outburst on television with a shocking/tragic image inserted for “good” effect. I must admit that the pathetic appeal is a very powerful tool; emotion often supersedes logic and is more likely to compel the audience to action. It is seemingly easier to wield than logic, for the latter requires careful research and irrefutable evidence. Divorced from civility, present day discourse is guided by restrictions forbidding things such as dependence on research, empirical figures, mutual respect, equitable studies, or objective introspection of one's own beliefs. Instead, public discourse celebrates wild accusations, condescending dismissals, name-calling, statements made with absolute certainty, and any opinion based on partisan bias.
Moreover, the medium of speech seem to catalyze the pathetic public discourse right now; blogs, text-to-television posts, forums and twitter feeds create an anonymous, less inhibited and less technical environment for discussion. It has now become a free-for-all melee of sorts, where anyone, regardless of the amount of thought you have put into your argument, can join in the “discussion. The alacrity in which material is spread through the medium also forces participants to come back with quick responses that are valued for their impact. What better and easier way to do so than with a pathetic appeal?
My gripe with the state of things is that public discourse norms seem to dictate that the only effective form of persuasion for all matters, big and small, is an emotional appeal. Unfortunately for us, nature has hardwired our emotions as an Achilles heel; the desire to help another at the sight of distress is an evolutionary adaptation that is constantly exploited by the media. In short, we just cannot help it.
When it comes to scientific research and articles, one can find a plethora of material offering verifiable results that are used to support completely different and even contradictory conclusions on what the research means. While science is all about facts, the accuracy of "scientific fact" is often not open to principled, research-based disagreements. There are numerous opinions and interpretations that proffer no scientific value; crackpot theories, unstated agendas, political pressures, personal rivalries, and studies conducted (or commonly quoted and cited by amateurs) to confirm already-arrived-at results are among many of the factors that taint supposed "facts." Take for example the topic of global warming. Though most would agree that mother earth is on the verge of irreparable damage, there exists a camp that claims otherwise. They rattle on, most with little or wildly misinterpreted research about the “deception”, “lies” and how our energy conservation steps are part of “one big hoax”. While the veracity of this argument is outside the scope of this discussion, the plain and simple fact is that unsubstantiated claims lose all credibility especially in an empirical field like science.
The political arena is another aspect where emotional appeal is repeatedly exploited. In Singapore, reports about Obama’s performance from pundits were an everyday affair in the papers. While there is a natural inclination for attention to be directed toward the new American president, many of the concerns raised were so ridiculous they were almost irrelevant. Coming to America, I literally stepped into a firestorm of questions about his religion, loyalties, racial views and even his birth certificate. Emotions were so frequently part of the public discourse that it soon degenerated into controversy of formerly mundane presidential activities. Who could forget the teleprompter incident at Graham Road Elementary School and the inquiry over his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize?
It is immediately apparent that rather than doing the serious work required to put forth a logical argument, it is so much easier to deal with differing opinions by attacking those who hold them. Rather than according ideas with facts and reasonably interpreted data that take time to research, it is so much easier and more convenient to brand others with pejorative labels, calling them frauds, liars, politically motivated hypocrites, first world elites and the like, all in a bid to make a quick comeback. However, such insults are not fair, accurate or principled, and are more juvenile than thoughtful. They do nothing to advance an argument and their sole purpose seems to be making the ones spewing them feel better about themselves – which must be the point, since that really is the only thing accomplished.
With the exception of a few thinkers and politicians who are worth listening to (regardless of their differing points of view), the middle have relegated themselves to the fringes. This majority of once-reasonable voices have instead launched into a diatribe that has destroyed all hope of a reasonable center, and they have taken over most of what we see and hear today. The lunatics, leftists, rightists, conservatives, liberals, conspiracy theorists, capitalists, anti capitalists, sports pundits, radicals, armchair fascists, and environmentalists (just to name a few) begin with a cloudy objective and repeatedly stab anyone who comes along with a contrarian view, stamping out any hope of reasonable public discussion. The victims themselves turn to the same tactics that is so widespread with the mantra “If you can’t beat em, join em!” Unfortunately, this only serves to aggravate the problem. In the end, the discussion is not about the conservation of our planet, or issues of national security, but rather, it is about denigrating your opponent with obscure “evidence” to incriminate him and support your cause. The result is two parties further convincing themselves that they are right and entrenching themselves in their beliefs.
It is not hard to see why society values people like Noam Chomsky, who relies on facts and logic to put his point across, not a saliva-spitting emotional outburst on television with a shocking/tragic image inserted for “good” effect. I must admit that the pathetic appeal is a very powerful tool; emotion often supersedes logic and is more likely to compel the audience to action. It is seemingly easier to wield than logic, for the latter requires careful research and irrefutable evidence. Divorced from civility, present day discourse is guided by restrictions forbidding things such as dependence on research, empirical figures, mutual respect, equitable studies, or objective introspection of one's own beliefs. Instead, public discourse celebrates wild accusations, condescending dismissals, name-calling, statements made with absolute certainty, and any opinion based on partisan bias.
Moreover, the medium of speech seem to catalyze the pathetic public discourse right now; blogs, text-to-television posts, forums and twitter feeds create an anonymous, less inhibited and less technical environment for discussion. It has now become a free-for-all melee of sorts, where anyone, regardless of the amount of thought you have put into your argument, can join in the “discussion. The alacrity in which material is spread through the medium also forces participants to come back with quick responses that are valued for their impact. What better and easier way to do so than with a pathetic appeal?
My gripe with the state of things is that public discourse norms seem to dictate that the only effective form of persuasion for all matters, big and small, is an emotional appeal. Unfortunately for us, nature has hardwired our emotions as an Achilles heel; the desire to help another at the sight of distress is an evolutionary adaptation that is constantly exploited by the media. In short, we just cannot help it.
When it comes to scientific research and articles, one can find a plethora of material offering verifiable results that are used to support completely different and even contradictory conclusions on what the research means. While science is all about facts, the accuracy of "scientific fact" is often not open to principled, research-based disagreements. There are numerous opinions and interpretations that proffer no scientific value; crackpot theories, unstated agendas, political pressures, personal rivalries, and studies conducted (or commonly quoted and cited by amateurs) to confirm already-arrived-at results are among many of the factors that taint supposed "facts." Take for example the topic of global warming. Though most would agree that mother earth is on the verge of irreparable damage, there exists a camp that claims otherwise. They rattle on, most with little or wildly misinterpreted research about the “deception”, “lies” and how our energy conservation steps are part of “one big hoax”. While the veracity of this argument is outside the scope of this discussion, the plain and simple fact is that unsubstantiated claims lose all credibility especially in an empirical field like science.
The political arena is another aspect where emotional appeal is repeatedly exploited. In Singapore, reports about Obama’s performance from pundits were an everyday affair in the papers. While there is a natural inclination for attention to be directed toward the new American president, many of the concerns raised were so ridiculous they were almost irrelevant. Coming to America, I literally stepped into a firestorm of questions about his religion, loyalties, racial views and even his birth certificate. Emotions were so frequently part of the public discourse that it soon degenerated into controversy of formerly mundane presidential activities. Who could forget the teleprompter incident at Graham Road Elementary School and the inquiry over his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize?
It is immediately apparent that rather than doing the serious work required to put forth a logical argument, it is so much easier to deal with differing opinions by attacking those who hold them. Rather than according ideas with facts and reasonably interpreted data that take time to research, it is so much easier and more convenient to brand others with pejorative labels, calling them frauds, liars, politically motivated hypocrites, first world elites and the like, all in a bid to make a quick comeback. However, such insults are not fair, accurate or principled, and are more juvenile than thoughtful. They do nothing to advance an argument and their sole purpose seems to be making the ones spewing them feel better about themselves – which must be the point, since that really is the only thing accomplished.
No comments:
Post a Comment