Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
You too can write like Denyse, using this winning journalistic formula:
1) Stumble upon a subject of which you are abjectly ignorant (say, psychopathy).
2) Read brief excerpt concerning that subject from a non-expert quadertiary source (the text of an NPR interview.)
3) Take no note that the author interviewed (Jon Ronson) also has zero training or expertise in the subject at hand.
4) Do not read said author's book.
5) Carefully sustain ignorance of prior literature and research (spanning more than 60 years, in this case).
6) Prime anti-science presumption that any nitwit's opinion, regardless how uninformed, is as valid as that of any expert.
7) Express dismissive opinion:
| Quote | | The effect one comes away with is that psychiatry has not done a better job than traditional wisdom in explaining things like: Why do the wicked prosper? |
8) Bonus round: Remain ignorant of the diagnostic instrument in question (the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised), specifically of the fact that it draws upon a ratings of observable actions and characteristics, requiring, for example, access to records of criminal behavior. Then state,
| Quote | | Also, diagnosis about personalities is not better than judgment about actions in deciding how to think about such problems. |
That's all there is to it.
ETA:
9) Extra extra credit: Note that the reference to the question "why do the wicked prosper?" also manages to completely miss the point, both because most "wicked" persons (i.e. those who commit serious crimes) are not psychopaths and because the question does not concern the cause of wickedness, but rather puzzlement over the evident lack of justice in the world.
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
