Jonah Lehrer’s
New Yorker blog posts were entertaining, thought provoking, and informative.
They’re the type of posts I find myself enjoying most. Like TED Talks or NPR
articles, I feel smarter after I read them. Even after discovering Lehrer
abused his position as a reporter and technical writer, his articles are
enjoyable to read, though they ultimately fall flat.
How is Lehrer
able to draw his readers in so quickly and hold their attention? What makes his
writing so appealing? I found myself wondering these questions during our past
couple of classes. Lehrer is a very skilled writer. He understands how to
capture his reader’s attention with statistics and interesting stories.
He also uses
intertextuality as a manner of gaining the reader’s trust. Lehrer makes
presuppositions and explicit references to outside work. He incorporates the
views of other writers and information from studies. This is a key in earning
the reader’s trust. James Porter in “Intertextuality and the Discourse
Community” emphasizes how “we understand a text only insofar as we understand
its precursors” (34). The writer’s awareness of this is important in
communicating their work is worthwhile. It shows the writer is joining a larger
conversation of high caliber writers. It can also show their thoughts are
supported by factual evidence.
But perhaps the
most significant thing Lehrer does is use those things to connect with the
readers on a personal level. In “Why Smart People Are Stupid” he opens with
this question: “A bat and ball cost a dollar and ten cents. The bat costs a
dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” I was one of the
people to confidently conclude the ball was 10 cents. I could almost hear
Lehrer say “gotcha” once I kept reading. And he did. I was hooked after that.
Once he incorporated a few well-known names, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky,
I trusted him and his thoughts on “Why Smart People Are Stupid”.
This could be
saying a couple things and brings me to some other ponderings I’ve had. First,
maybe we’re too trustworthy when reading informative technical articles like
Lehrer’s; maybe we don’t read deep enough into statistics or research. In class
we’ve discussed how Lehrer’s writing often had enthymemes, or logical jumps. But
it can be easy for us as readers to accept the enthymemes and continue
following Lehrer’s progression to his conclusion. Is it entirely fair for the
readers to be blamed for overlooking the logical jumps when a writer’s
technique is so smooth and convincing?
Secondly:
journalists like Lehrer can easily use their abilities unethically, exploiting
readers through misuse of information or even false information if concealed
adequately. So maybe there should be a higher ethical standard for reporters.
Lehrer built a
reputation as a trustworthy reporter. It was founded on solid credentials. A
good portion of his writing must have also been grounded in factual material,
or he wouldn’t have gone as far as he did without being found out. A reader
shouldn’t have to do a full background and fact check of someone’s writing each
time they read an article. Thus, the writer has even more responsibility to act
ethically, recognizing they’re ability to sway a reader’s thoughts and biases. The
writer not only has responsibility in their use of intextuality to those from
whom they gather information and enter rhetorical conversation with, but also
to an audience that is drawn in by skilled writing and sometimes misconstrued
by it.
Lehrer, Jonah. “Why
Smart People Are Stupid.” The New Yorker.
12 June 2012
Porter, James. “Intertextuality
and the Discourse Community.” The
Rhetoric Review Autumn 1986: 34 - 37
No comments:
Post a Comment