Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Quality of discourse [was: Silence from leaders in auditory science] From: "T. T. Perry" <trevortperry@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 07:10:48 -0700--00000000000056ba11063230ce10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree, Alain. I started the conversation on the list pointing out that no one more senior or tenured or more privileged than me was speaking up on the destruction of science funding and attacks on science from an anti-science and anti-medicine US government. I ended my email asking for people to share what they have heard, to break the silence. The conversation immediately became hostile. I received nasty, hateful emails off of the list but from auditory researchers, insulting me because of my sex and gender modality and because I dared question The Wise Elders of the community. There are clearly bad faith contributors to the conversation. I would put staying silent or censoring others in the "bad faith" camp as well. That's no path to academic freedom. As scientists we should be better at cooperative meaning-making. I intentionally framed my opening email on this topic as a question inviting people to share what they have heard from within the community. It is a shame that many contributions ignored that request. I would ask members of the list who are here primarily to receive or send job postings or grad student positions: why do you believe it should be verboten to discuss the funding mechanisms behind those positions and postings? When replying, please remember to elevate the quality of discourse (now that there is discourse instead of silence). Sincerely, Perry On Mon, Apr 7, 2025, 2:31=E2=80=AFAM Alain de Cheveigne < alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 tha= t > 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 socialist= s > 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 "n= ot > 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 denizen= s > of this list, speak with authority, experience and confidence because we'= re > senior and established. We've learned tricks that give more weight to wha= t > we say. We have thick skins. I imagine (looking back to my own past) tha= t > many may feel much more vulnerable, and might dispair of getting a word i= n > 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, a= s > 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 thinkin= g. > 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 someon= e > who has not spent hours ruminating about it? Can it be said more > concisely? Does it contain stuff (typically jokes) that you find cool bu= t > 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 o= r > 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. O= r > 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 > > > > > --00000000000056ba11063230ce10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto">I agree, Alain.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"au= to">I started the conversation on the list pointing out that no one more se= nior or tenured or more privileged than me was speaking up on the destructi= on of science funding and attacks on science from an anti-science and anti-= medicine US government. I ended my email asking for people to share what th= ey have heard, to break the silence.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div = dir=3D"auto">The conversation immediately became hostile. I received nasty,= hateful emails off of the list but from auditory researchers, insulting me= because of my sex and gender modality and because I dared question The Wis= e Elders of the community. There are clearly bad faith contributors to the = conversation. I would put staying silent or censoring others in the "b= ad faith" camp as well. That's no path to academic freedom. As sci= entists we should be better at cooperative meaning-making.</div><div dir=3D= "auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I intentionally framed my opening email = on this topic as a question inviting people to share what they have heard f= rom within the community. It is a shame that many contributions ignored tha= t request.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I would ask m= embers of the list who are here primarily to receive or send job postings o= r grad student positions: why do you believe it should be verboten to discu= ss the funding mechanisms behind those positions and postings?=C2=A0</div><= div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">When replying, please remember= to elevate the quality of discourse (now that there is discourse instead o= f silence).</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Sincerely,= =C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">Perry=C2=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmai= l_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon= , Apr 7, 2025, 2:31=E2=80=AFAM Alain de Cheveigne <<a href=3D"mailto:ala= in.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx">alain.de.cheveigne@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:<br= ></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;= border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I'd like to ec= ho the wise words of Robert, Jan, Daniel, and others, and disagree.=C2=A0 <= br> <br> The problem is not the topic but the quality of discourse.=C2=A0 If someday= I leave the list, it won't be because it was occasionally pulled towar= ds politics, or because of the occasional literary reference or joke.=C2=A0= <br> <br> 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.<br> <br> This list is populated, or should be, mainly with scientists and students o= f auditory science.=C2=A0 Science has to do with thinking straight and comm= unicating clearly.=C2=A0 That's what we're payed for, or hope to be= some day, or for some, sadly, were.=C2=A0 <br> <br> Take the snippet "media organisations take in the same sources of fund= ing that many researchers have come to rely on for very nefarious purposes&= quot;. Either you dismiss it as "not even wrong" and ignore it, o= r you judge that it's harmful and call it out. Or you say politely &quo= t;let's avoid talking politics." Or you leave the list. None of th= ese is satisfactory. There might have been some meaning in that snippet, bu= t before we can ascertain, the discussion has veered off to Umberto Eco,=C2= =A0 Mark Twain or what he did not say (but that was actually the point), Ch= urchill, champagne socialists and so on. Taking those words seriously, aski= ng for clarification, or rebutting, only make the problem worse.<br> <br> I see no easy fix, but we should understand the phenomenon.<br> <br> One might object: "Who are you to judge?=C2=A0 Surely one opinion is j= ust as worthy as another?".=C2=A0 To this I'd answer: no. If one s= ide is wrong (or "not even wrong"), it makes no sense to "ta= ke the middle ground". In this I disagree with Scott Merritt's ear= lier post.=C2=A0 As scientists, we aim to do better.=C2=A0 <br> <br> Now, what I just said contains a flaw.=C2=A0 I, and some other eminent deni= zens of this list, speak with authority, experience and confidence because = we're senior and established. We've learned tricks that give more w= eight to what we say. We have thick skins.=C2=A0 I imagine (looking back to= my own past) that many may feel much more vulnerable, and might dispair of= getting a word in sideways.=C2=A0 Authority can be wrong and stifle progre= ss. There are are oft-cited examples of this in the history of science.<br> <br> I see no easy fix to this (other than for seniors like myself to croak, as = once proposed by Max Plank). In any=C2=A0 case, I think that scholars of al= l degrees of seniory should resist the pull of loose talk and fuzzy thinkin= g. Whatever your purpose, these will defeat it. It may be tempting to cry &= quot;censorship" when what the guy is really saying, politely, is &quo= t;what you said was not clear", or "it doesn't make sense&quo= t;, or "you're boring us." <br> <br> 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. <br> <br> First, think straight, hard and long to make sure what you want to say make= s sense. From my own experience, sadly, it often doesn't.<br> <br> 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?=C2=A0 Can it be said more conc= isely?=C2=A0 Does it contain stuff (typically jokes) that you find cool but= others will find boring? Will it offend unnecessarily?=C2=A0 <br> <br> Next, count the cost. A post puts demands on the reader, eating up their co= gnitive bandwidth. Each word you add may weaken the words you wrote earlier= , or are about to write.=C2=A0 Your new post may weaken your previous or fu= ture ones. Too many posts may contribute to making the list a boring place,= so that people leave and your audience becomes smaller.<br> <br> Next, sleep on it.=C2=A0 You might discover a better way of formulating it.= =C2=A0 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 m= ight be to not post?<br> <br> This does not mean that everything has to be formal and optimized.=C2=A0 Th= ere's room for mess, possibly even a dash of politics or a literary ref= erence or two.=C2=A0 There is a tricky balance to find between rigor and in= ventiveness, authority and enthusiasm, youth and seniority, nimbleness and = stability.<br> <br> The list is fragile.=C2=A0 It is at the mercy of all the ills that were onc= e identified for USENET news, including trolling. <br> <br> Alain<br> <br> <br> > <br> </blockquote></div> --00000000000056ba11063230ce10--