I listen to audiobooks or podcasts while I work out. Lately, I have been listening to Friedman’s Hot, Flat and Crowded. I can only “listen” while involved in another task that allows me to think so getting through 20+ hours of content will take many trips to the gym.
I really like the way Friedman writes. The content flows easily and his approach combines interesting stories often based in personal experiences and well reasoned arguments supported with specific and annotated facts and statistics. It is the type of approach I can process and find convincing.
I have been thinking about the difference between this approach to persuasion and the present experience of trying to understand the rhetoric of the election – vague comments, spin, sarcasm, and irrelevant concerns. Consider the attention in the past few days to lipstick and pork (but not the undeserved windfall directed toward supporters).
Today, in Intro Psych, I was trying to make the point that trying to understand the work of researchrs can be valuable to those who have no interest in becoming psychologists or taking more psychology courses. What researchers have to do is “operationalize” the concepts they study in ways that allow measurement or manipulation. They cannot hide behind vague terms like motivation or intelligence most of us use in daily conversation, but must determine how they will measure these variables. Everyone could benefit from such a challenge. It is a great exercise in taking the vagueness out of topics. Tax and spend, liberal, etc. would be too imprecise to be useful. What do phrases such as these really mean. Should we really expect that it would be allowable to spend on something like a war and not take responsibility for raising the money to support such an effort. The reality of the present deficit would seem to argue some in power accept spend, but don’t tax. Perhaps sometimes to be responsible you have to tax. Critical thinking requires getting to a clearly defined position that can then be evaluated against well defined standards. Keeping the country in the black represents a possible standard.
I know that Friedman has his critics who contest his logics or his facts. However, in being precise at least you are willing to give your potential critics something specific to address and what is expected is the same level of specificity in counter claims.
Ignorant as we want to be (paraphrase of a Friedman comment). Friedman describes our tendency to find a way to accept a short term, self-serving solution while ignoring long-term and significant problems. Don’t look too closely at the facts or think an immediate solution through to the point of eventual consequences. Perhaps we prefer our politics the same way.
BTW – material related to Hot, flat and crowded is available online. This is serious stuff. Being ignorant, even if you would rather be, is not acceptable.
