[AUDITORY] Quality of discourse [was: Silence from leaders in auditory science]

[Alain de Cheveigne <alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd like to echo the wise words of Robert, Jan, Daniel, and others, and disagree.  

The problem is not the topic but the quality of discourse.  If someday I leave the list, it won't be because it was occasionally pulled towards politics, or because of the occasional literary reference or joke.  

Blaming the 'topic' is a euphemism, as when a sweet person says to their spouse "you're straying, dear" when (s)he really means something else. Usually one gets the hint, occasionally not.

This list is populated, or should be, mainly with scientists and students of auditory science.  Science has to do with thinking straight and communicating clearly.  That's what we're payed for, or hope to be some day, or for some, sadly, were.  

Take the snippet "media organisations take in the same sources of funding that many researchers have come to rely on for very nefarious purposes". Either you dismiss it as "not even wrong" and ignore it, or you judge that it's harmful and call it out. Or you say politely "let's avoid talking politics." Or you leave the list. None of these is satisfactory. There might have been some meaning in that snippet, but before we can ascertain, the discussion has veered off to Umberto Eco,  Mark Twain or what he did not say (but that was actually the point), Churchill, champagne socialists and so on. Taking those words seriously, asking for clarification, or rebutting, only make the problem worse.

I see no easy fix, but we should understand the phenomenon.

One might object: "Who are you to judge?  Surely one opinion is just as worthy as another?".  To this I'd answer: no. If one side is wrong (or "not even wrong"), it makes no sense to "take the middle ground". In this I disagree with Scott Merritt's earlier post.  As scientists, we aim to do better.  

Now, what I just said contains a flaw.  I, and some other eminent denizens of this list, speak with authority, experience and confidence because we're senior and established. We've learned tricks that give more weight to what we say. We have thick skins.  I imagine (looking back to my own past) that many may feel much more vulnerable, and might dispair of getting a word in sideways.  Authority can be wrong and stifle progress. There are are oft-cited examples of this in the history of science.

I see no easy fix to this (other than for seniors like myself to croak, as once proposed by Max Plank). In any  case, I think that scholars of all degrees of seniory should resist the pull of loose talk and fuzzy thinking. Whatever your purpose, these will defeat it. It may be tempting to cry "censorship" when what the guy is really saying, politely, is "what you said was not clear", or "it doesn't make sense", or "you're boring us." 

To end on a more positive note, I'll list some of the "tricks" I referred to to give more weight to what you say. 

First, think straight, hard and long to make sure what you want to say makes sense. From my own experience, sadly, it often doesn't.

Next, figure out a good way to say it. Is it likely to be clear to someone who has not spent hours ruminating about it?  Can it be said more concisely?  Does it contain stuff (typically jokes) that you find cool but others will find boring? Will it offend unnecessarily?  

Next, count the cost. A post puts demands on the reader, eating up their cognitive bandwidth. Each word you add may weaken the words you wrote earlier, or are about to write.  Your new post may weaken your previous or future ones. Too many posts may contribute to making the list a boring place, so that people leave and your audience becomes smaller.

Next, sleep on it.  You might discover a better way of formulating it.  Or realize that perhaps you don't need that joke. Or perhaps the post itself is not really worth the bother. Maybe your best contribution might be to not post?

This does not mean that everything has to be formal and optimized.  There's room for mess, possibly even a dash of politics or a literary reference or two.  There is a tricky balance to find between rigor and inventiveness, authority and enthusiasm, youth and seniority, nimbleness and stability.

The list is fragile.  It is at the mercy of all the ills that were once identified for USENET news, including trolling. 

Alain


>