Subject: [AUDITORY] Quality of discourse [was: Silence from leaders in auditory science] From: Alain de Cheveigne <alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 09:44:05 +0100I'd like to echo the wise words of Robert, Jan, Daniel, and others, and = disagree. =20 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. =20 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. =20 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. =20 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."=20 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.=20 First, think straight, hard and long to make sure what you want to say = makes sense. =46rom 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? =20 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.=20 Alain >=20