Mindy asks how to teach evolution to homeschooled children:
I’m off to purchase materials at a homeschooling conference in couple days. I was wondering what your thoughts were on teaching evolution to grade school level students. I want to introduce a more formal science curriculum but all of the conventional materials are saturated in evolutionary timescales and theory.
Personally, my thoughts on creationism are rather fluid. I don’t know that the six days of creation should be taken literally though I don’t believe man evolved from any other animal. I would like to give my kids a firm foundation in Bible based science before teaching the conventional theory but am not sure whether to use the literal fundamentalist version to start with. Normally, when teaching younger children, we do so from the position of having a definitive answer instead of a more or less open question and yet I don’t want to confuse my first grader with my waffling. At some point they will need to be introduced to the conventional theory of evolution.
When would you do this and how? Any science curricula that is especially good for grade school kids? I look forward to some new ideas on this. I do so enjoy your home schooling threads.
Many parents prefer to keep their children in the dark concerning intellectual concepts with which they disagree. This is true across the political spectrum. I consider this to be a huge mistake.
If you have read RGD, then you will know that my description of Keynesian economics, which I consider to be utter bollocks, is nevertheless so complete and correct that people have described it as one of the better summaries of it that they have ever encountered. My belief is that if something is false, the best way to understand its falsity is to know it better than its advocates. So read the sources and read the current champions, then critique it.
And if you’re not capable of doing that, how do you know it is wrong?
As for the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow, or TE(p)NSBMGDaGF, I would recommend a child be 15 or 16 before studying it. Any younger and they won’t be able to identify the obvious flaws and will be tend to be inclined to simply accept whatever they are told, whether it is TENS, monetarist economics, or magic garden fairies.
Start with an abridged version of The Origin of the Species. Then read one or two of Richard Dawkins’s books; The Selfish Gene is much better than The Greatest Show on Earth because it is an explanation whereas the latter is an apology. That will ensure that the child is better-educated and more up-to-date on evolution than any graduate of the public or private schools.
Then introduce two or three of the critics. I can’t recommend one, because I’ve never actually read any of the various books by TENS critics as I have no need to bolster my own reasons for being skeptical of the theorum. But there are plenty out there and I’m sure the readers here can recommend a few of them.
The point is that there is never any need for those dedicated to the truth to shy away from falsehood or fear it. Hit it head on. Study it. Master it. And then you will be able to explain its weak points to others. That being said, I can see the need for an Evolution curriculum; if we can find a suitably credentialed skeptic, we will likely publish one.
I thought this email from RC was interesting, as it demonstrates how Gresham’s Law applies to science fiction, with Pink SF tending to drive out Blue. Hey, even if Tor Books can’t be bothered to read your emails, at least I do:
I am writing to you today regarding the lack of professionalism of certain staff at Tor books. I know others have contacted you regarding the contempt in which some staffers hold certain authors and a large part of your customer base. What I wish to address is the editors’ contempt for the genre itself, and their incompetence at one of the essential tasks of producing SCIENCE fiction: getting the science right. I am certain these are related. The upshot is that Tor is printing a lot of stuff which ticks all the fashionable social and political check-boxes, but stinks on ice as SF.
An egregious example which I encountered recently is in the first of the Ender’s Game prequels, Earth Unaware. There are a host of glaring faults in the orbital mechanics among other things, but they are too involved to detail in a short letter. I will instead quote a concise example from page 261:
“The ship scoops up hydrogen atoms, which at near-lightspeed would be gamma radiation, then the rockets shoot this gamma plasma out the back for thrust.”
There is no such thing as a “gamma plasma”. Gamma rays are photons, not atoms or parts of atoms. Plasmas are a mixture of ionized matter and free electrons. A high-energy proton is not a gamma ray; many cosmic rays are high-energy protons, but that does not make this phrase remotely acceptable in a science fiction book. A well-read middle school science geek could have caught this error; I should know, I was one.
Shortly after this comes another one (p. 269): “If it’s sucking up hydrogen atoms at near-lightspeed and taking in all this radiation….”
This is part of a plotline that plays for weeks, between a mining ship plying the Kuiper belt and Earth. The Kuiper belt extends from about 30 astronomical units to 55 AU from the Sun (earth orbits at 1 AU). Light travels 1 AU in roughly 500 seconds, so an object travelling at “near-lightspeed” would cover 55 AU in not much more than 27,500 seconds; on the order of 8 hours. Even if the initial speed of the object is reduced to 25% of c and it decelerates linearly, the transit time is less than 3 days. The whole plotline is nonsense because the author (Johnston, I’m sure; Card does better work) couldn’t be bothered to read a basic science book. This is lousy even for fan-fiction. Why did this ever make it to print? More to the point, why do the editors have such contempt for the genre and its fans as to allow it, to the point of commissioning a lightweight like Johnston to play in Card’s universe in the first place?
I could not but help but notice that Earth Unaware got all the “we are the world”, social justice, anti-corporate messages lined up front and center. The priorities are literally that obvious. That’s why I’ve not bothered to read the other two prequels. I don’t waste my time on dreck. I spotted this trend quite some time ago, but it was only after the highly-publicized outbursts of certain senior Tor staff that I realized that it wasn’t due to the times, but was a matter of policy.
Well, we all make mistakes from time to time, authors and editors alike (cough, tunnel), but it is pretty egregious to combine SJW message fiction with a major plot foul-up of the sort one RC describes. I haven’t read the book, so I can’t testify to the accuracy of his critique, but it does sound like a rather impressive howler.
As for the total number of emails sent, based on the CC’s Peter and I received, around 2,300 emails were sent by 765 different people that we know of. And there were others being sent as well, although we can’t possibly know how many. Regardless, I expect that enough were sent to make it clear to Macmillan that the excuses given by the senior Tor employees for the emails that they previously received was a false one.
Those senior employees have publicly attacked Tor-published authors, Tor published-works, and Tor customers. They have needlessly antagonized tens of thousands of book-buyers in pursuit of their ideological agenda. They’ve now been caught lying to their superiors about the extent of the consequences of their unprofessional behavior and violations of the Macmillan code of conduct. And that is why, at this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if Macmillan cleans house even more thoroughly than people have been demanding. I certainly would if I were in their shoes.
Then again, for all we know the Macmillan executives are fanatic SJWs whose instinct will be to dig in and defend the actions of Irene Gallo, Moshe Feder, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden. If that’s the case, Peter Grant has made it clear that the boycott, which for no particular reason at all may be christened TORDROP, will begin at noon on Friday, June 19th. And since no one has received any sort of response at all from Macmillan or Tom Doherty as yet, this is a good time to take a picture of your books published by Tor Books and tally up the total of the books and ebooks you have purchased from them. The truth is that we’re not asking for much, only that the senior employees at Tor Books be held to the same professional standard expected of a retail sales clerk or a fry cook at McDonalds.
AL is curious about the characters in A GAME OF THRONES:
Who is your favorite character? Would you be interested at all in a discussion on that on your blog? Maybe you discussed it before but after searching through your posts I couldn’t find who you thought your favorite character is.
I think one has to distinguish between the characters as written in the books and the characters in the TV show. For example, I think Roose Bolton is creepy and disgusting in the books, but I rather like him on the show. The former is The Leech, the latter is not.
On the show, easily my favorite figure is Littlefinger, Lord Peter Baelish. He might occasionally overreach himself, but I like his ambition, his ruthlessness, his confidence, and his style. I don’t like the Littlefinger of the books as much, as that Littlefinger is more of a self-conscious social-climber who tends to lack the confidence and style of the TV Littlefinger.
In the books, I liked the two Starks, Ned and Robb, although I found their cluelessness about the nature and behavior of evil, untrustworthy men to be as frustrating as it is realistic. I see them in many a conservative who is determined to lose as nobly and graciously as possible. I liked Tywin Lannister of the books and absolutely loved Charles Dance in that role – how could you not – although I found his hatred for Tyrion to be somewhat inexplicable given that he has no other heirs. I also found it highly implausible that he didn’t free Jaime from his Kingsguard oath; these are not people who respect oaths, priests, or gods.
The female character I find most attractive is Myranda, the psycho little daughter of the kennelmaster. The female character I most disliked was Caitlyn Stark, in the books and on TV. She was nasty to Jon Snow and kept trying to interfere, ineptly, in things of which she knew nothing. The showrunners were wise to leave her undead version out of the TV show. And the Sansa of the TV show is much more interesting and complex than Martin’s Sansa, who appears to exist mostly to absorb Martin’s Gamma hate for female innocence and hope.
Now, I have no standing to tell Tor Books how it should run its business or interact with its customers. But I do find the difference between the two rival schools of thought on the matter to be pretty astonishing when you compare and contrast them. One of our customers recently sent us this note
An unsolicited endorsement….
Recently I took advantage of a “buy vol 1 and get vol 2 free” offer from Castalia House on a Friday. Saturday I opened my email to see two links to the books.
I clicked vol 1 and it downloaded, I clicked vol 2 and got the message “you have reached your download limit”..
I sent an email asking for the link to be reset, I expected to hear a reply on Monday.
But instead (on a Saturday), I received an email apologizing and asking me about the format I needed. I replied and within a few minutes received an email with vol 2 attached. (on a Saturday!)
That is the definition of good customer service.
I fear, however, that we completely failed to call him a neo-nazi or an unrepentant racist homophobe at any point in the process. Now, every company has different ideas about how to best interact with their customers, and I expect there is probably something to be said for hurling vituperative insults at people you would like to buy things from you. Precisely what that might be, I have no idea, but then, we’re relatively new to the publishing game. I know we have a lot to learn.
I guess I’m just a techno-caveman. I don’t understand these newfangled means of “marketing”, all this flashy “social media”, all these “tweets” and “follows” and “likes”.
Is it a sort of Soup Nazi spin? You know, “no books for you!” Does anyone know of any market research indicating precisely what insults tend to be most effective in improving brand loyalty?
And would “buy our bad-to-reprehensible books, racist neo-nazi homophobes!” be a good place to start?
Normally I try to improve my writing by reading lots of good quality writing, hoping that will come out in my own. But I’m wondering if any sort of list of bad, “don’t do this” examples (I mean in terms of writing quality, not ideological leanings) would come easily to mind for you that would be instructive for those of us who want to improve our own writing.
It would be very helpful, for me at least, to then see if any of those bad writing habits or tendencies reveal themselves in my own work, and train myself out of them.
I go back to the four elements of a book: CSSC. Characters, Story, Style, and Concepts. In decreasing order of importance, those are the most important elements.
Characters come first. The huge success of Rowling, Tolkien, Lewis, and Cooper stem from their heightened ability to create characters about whom we care. Therefore, the first example of what not to do should be those that suffer from poor characterization.
Go ahead, name three.
Story is the second most important element. You can have a pretty good book where the story makes no sense, so long as the characters are of sufficient interest. An even worse book would have poor characters and a generic or nonexistent story.
Name three more.
Style comes third. This is where we tend to most notably part company with the Pink SF crowd. They put style first, except when they put message above that. (Note: I did not say concept, but message. The latter is a subset of the former.) But if you’ve got poor characters, a generic or nonexistent story, and bad style, now it’s getting pretty grim.
And three more.
Concept includes everything from Very Important Message to worldbuilding. And if you’ve got poor characters, a generic or nonexistent story, bad style, and a Very Important Message in a generic world, you’re approaching the nadir, which in my opinion is best represented by Mercedes Lackey.
Read Arrows of the Queen if you want to know how best not to do it.
Talia, a young runaway, is made a herald at the royal court after she rescues one of the legendary Companions. When she uncovers a plot to seize the throne, Talia must use her empathic powers to save the queen.
A new reader has a boatload of questions. This is merely the first half. I’ll address the other half later this week:
First time e-mail correspondent here, as well as a reader of your blog for about a month-and-a-half now. My religious beliefs could best be described as “conflicted”, or “confused”, or “I’m not even 100% sure what I believe but I’m trying to find out”. My political ideologies and other personal beliefs are in a similar state of flux, and thus, all four of my questions are asked mostly out of curiosity, partly because I know you’ll give a good answer (Should you choose to respond), and partly because you (unlike quite a few people) cite your sources.
Oh, and I read The Irrational Atheist from front to back. Twice. Once when I was 14, the old man gave me TIA to read, because that was when I was really asking the hard questions about my childhood faith and wondering whether or not the godless teenagers that went to high school with me had a point or not, but it was a bit intellectually above me and I didn’t really absorb the arguments presented all that well. Now, at the tender age of 20, having read the book a second time, I can say with absolute confidence: They really, really didn’t. And having seen what passes for the intellectual atheist, I can also say with the same confidence: Whatever my religious beliefs turn out to be in the future, I certainly never want to turn out like THAT.
1. Given the rather thorny issue of homosexuality, this isn’t really one question but several related ones. I’ve read your beliefs that homosexuality is an evil, but not really much beyond that. (Others have claimed that you said it’s a birth defect, but I’m aware that’s not the case. I recognize a media smear campaign when I see one) So, I have a few questions to pin down exactly what you think about it:
a) Do you believe all evils are inherently equal? b) Do you feel that homosexuality equals coveting your neighbor’s possessions equals adultery equals murder? c)Is there a set hierarchy? d)Or does God judge such things on a case by case basis, acting in the role of The Universal Judge?
e)Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? The act itself clearly is, but the desire as well? Many gay people that I’ve personally spoken to claim they would have “opted out” if they had been given a choice in the matter, not necessarily out of any love for Jesus Christ (Although there are those that do), but a desire to be normal and get through the day unmolested. f) If the desire is not a choice, if it is something that is designated at birth, then how does this relate to the Christian view of homosexuality, which seems to view it as an active choice that the perpetrator can choose to stop doing at any time?
g) Do you know of any testimonial or historical evidence that indicates that a person who is gay can become straight by means of conversion, prayer, or worship of the Christian God? I am aware of testimony that such prayer and worship that has cured diseases, addictions, psychological issues, ended crippling pain, and even cured physical birth defects like limps or both legs being different lengths. Wouldn’t it then follow, that such a God would be capable of ending a homosexual desire to those who asked? Wouldn’t it then follow that such a God would WANT to do so, to remove evil desires from those who wish to have them removed?
h) Hypothetically speaking, if you had turned out to have a primarily (or even exclusive) male sexual preference, how do you believe this would have affected your belief and worship of Jesus Christ? i) Do you think you would attempt to be chaste? j) Would you still denounce the behavior as evil? k) Would you even renounce your worship of God altogether?
I have no idea what the young man’s reason for asking these questions might be and I don’t see any need for anyone to play any guessing games in that regard. After all, it could be anything from an inexplicable craving for Erasure to an overreliance on the philosophy of Macklemore. I will admit that I found it rather amusing to see how some reacted so badly to the “birth defect” comment, considering that it is the preferred alternative explanation to abnormal sexual orientation being a matter of choice. Any abnormality that renders a living being considerably less fit by virtue of presenting a reproductive handicap, be it physical or psychological, must be regarded as a material defect by anyone who subscribes to TENS, and if we are to believe that homosexuality is determined in the prenatal state, then “birth defect” is exactly what gay activists have been proclaiming homosexuality to be for decades. By literal definition from Wikipedia: “Congenital disorder, also known as congenital disease or birth defect, is a condition existing at or before birth regardless of cause.”
I’d think people would be more considerably concerned that one could also make an alarmingly strong case for high cognitive capacity being a congenital disorder in modern society on this basis, but then, we mustn’t deny the rainbow crowd their dramatics.
a) No. All evils are not equal, either in terms of their consequences or the way in which we are informed God regards them. b) No. In addition to the 10 Commandments being specified, Jesus explained that one Commandment was the most important one. c) There does not appear to be a strictly ordered A-Z hierarchy. d) Yes, as we are told God knows and judges what is in a man’s heart.
e) I believe all actions are choices, though not necessarily conscious and definitely not always rational. And I believe some inclinations are innate. But it’s not a binary situation, as our choices lead to consequential inclinations we would not possess had we made different choices. It’s quite clear, if you happen to know any homosexuals, that some come to their orientation very naturally, others choose it for a variety of reasons, and still others have it thrust upon them by others.
f) This is a misunderstanding of the Christian perspective. We all have evil inclinations. We all experience temptation. What tempts you does not tempt me, and vice-versa. But we are all responsible for resisting whatever temptations happen to call to us.
g) Yes, I have known people who no longer act on their homosexual inclinations and some who say they are no longer troubled by them. Not all of them are Christian, as it happens. I believe in a tantiscient God who can do whatever He decides to do. But we live on the Silent Planet, in a world that He does not rule, a world that is riddled with evil, and so it should be no surprise that evils and misfortunes continue to be inflicted upon us by its ruling power. That’s why we ask, why we pray, that His will be done, on Earth, as it is in Heaven, because for the most part it is not being done that way right now on Earth. (Note to Team Calvin: not now.) If it was, we wouldn’t need to ask for it.
h) Very little, considering that I was a hedonistic pagan agnostic with a Porsche and a record contract. Temptation is temptation. i) Yes. j) Yes. There are plenty of things that I would very much like to do that I have no problem describing as evil and rejecting on that basis. k) No chance.
There is a reason that Christianity is described as the hard and narrow path. It’s not easy. It’s not supposed to be easy. Don’t listen to the idiots who claim that Jesus Christ will solve all your problems and make you rich and cure your hangnails if you only say the magic words. They’re just scam artists trying to sell you something. Christianity isn’t Candyland, it is a very dark and terrible vision of a very scary place, of a universe that isn’t merely indifferent to you, but is actively seeking to destroy you, body and soul.
And if that doesn’t better reflect the reality we observe around us than every other philosophical and religious creed you’ve ever encountered, then I have to very seriously question whether you are paying attention to the world around you. To reject that reality because you really, really, really want to nail the hot little brunette in the miniskirt who is making eyes at you isn’t even wrong, it’s category error.
As for the issues of God’s inclination and ability to address orientational temptation, I think you would be much better off listening to this man on the subject than to me:
UPDATE: We’ve hit the 100 registrants max, so we won’t need anymore volunteers.
This is the test of Brainstorm Alpha After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
This is going to be a short test of the system I’m considering. If you want to help out by seeing if it works, register and we’ll give it a shot. Please keep in mind that I have absolutely no idea what I’m doing with the software.
In totally unrelated news, a member of the Ilk is looking for a church near Chicago. If you have any suggestions, comment below.
“Hoped I’d found a good church very close to my location (Lemont IL). Went yesterday, on Mother’s Day. The pastor began by focusing on women. Fine, a “topical theme”, there’s no shortage of good topics.
But, you can guess how things went. Had he pointed out any responsibility of a Christian lady, even one, I’d not be writing you. Instead, after a few Scriptural verses, he turned gleefully to some book titled “Christ Feminist”. And so on ad nauseum.”
Several people seem to very much want to explore the limits of sanity. Minion #38 painstakingly inscribed the following note on a bone that was left outside my chambers this morning.
In one of your replies to a commenter on today’s VP post entitled “Why kids hate nerds,” you mentioned that you dial down a lot of your thoughts before presenting them on your blogs, and that they would be more interesting if you could openly brainstorm. As a VFM and daily reader of both VP and AG, I couldn’t agree more. I rarely comment on your blogs, but I find your theories to be some of the most thought provoking ideas I’ve ever read. I’d love to hear more. Would you ever consider sharing more of your “crazy theories and random notions” somewhere other than on your blogs without as much of the dialing down required for a wider audience? Maybe via a members only message board, youtube channel, voice/chat server, or really any medium of your choosing?
I don’t object to the idea in principle, but I’m slightly reluctant to dabble in such things because I always want to provide unquestioned value for money. I have no problem with capitalism, obviously, but as should be obvious from the lack of advertising and tip jars and so forth, I’m not into the Patreon model either. You guys have been absolutely superb about supporting Castalia House for over a year now, and not only do I appreciate that, I’m perfectly aware that no well of goodwill is endless.
That being said, I also know that I would have leaped at the chance to take part in something like what is being suggested were the individual at the center someone like Umberto Eco. My interviews with him, John Julius Norwich, and Steve Keen have been some of the intellectual high points of my life.
My thought is that what might be interesting as well as useful would be a monthly members-only Skypecast, with a transcript that would be sent out to members afterward. Members could suggest topics and when possible, the topics would be listed ahead of time so that those interested could sign up and take part. I imagine it could be done for not much more than the price of a movie, although it might be desirable to not make it so inexpensive that too many people would take part. Memberships would be purchased through Castalia House, either one-time or annual with a discount.
Anyhow, if it’s of interest, feel free to throw out your own ideas here. I’m not saying that anything will be done at all because I am extremely busy. But given the amount of collective brainpower here, it wouldn’t be surprising if the concept proved to be worthwhile. The main questions, to my mind, are the number of members, the price of membership, and the frequency. The maximum number of Skype video is 10, and 25 for voice, while GoToMeeting Plus permits up to 100 video participants.
GJ calls for more of that of which there is not very much to give:
I’m a regular reader of your blog. As I’m not living in the West I’m not participating in Gamergate or conflicts with SJWs so I make the following observations from a distant perspective.
Just as you used not to understand Gammas well, it seems to me that you’re overestimating the initiative of the average person who is willing to fight on your side. You’ve made more than one posts encouraging readers that they too can be leaders in Gamergate. But your sociosexual theory indicates that because most people are followers (ie not Alphas, Betas, or Sigmas but Deltas) they are hardly going to do anything of their own initiative, rather follow an example set by someone they consider as a leader. As an illustration, a Sigma like yourself would hardly care about getting a Minion badge (except maybe for the purpose of demonstration of mass numbers), but many of your readers do, which implies that they still seek a hierarchy within which to operate.
This means that even in the decentralised 4GW nature of the fight firm leadership is still needed. The Hugo nominations were a great way to demonstrate numbers on your side and intimidate the opponent. But if you want the numbers of your supportive readers to be exerted on the Twitter arena, for example, it would appear that regular reminders, along with a more explicit and emphatic instructions (ie. more so than what you’ve already posted).
And here Rabid Puppies is about as much “leadership” as I can handle without feeling the need to enter a Tibetan monastery and spend the next seven years in mystic contemplation.
That was my favorite thing about the 4GW concept, the way in which it obviated the need for leadership. But GJ is probably right, there is a distinction between a lack of centralization and a lack of leadership. Fortunately, I have reason to know that more of you are taking the initiative in various ways; the Minion badges themselves are an example of this as they weren’t my idea or my creation.
Malwyn is still in a foul temper, but she did get another 100 of them out and the outflow is finally exceeding the incoming number of requests. So 130 down, another 180 or so to go.
All that being said, I am very proud of the Dread Ilk and Rabid Puppies. It may be a small-scale action on a tertiary front, but nevertheless, this has been one of the most effective actions against the SJWs in Western culture in decades.
Puff the Magic Dragon was talking very brave until it was suggested that he debate me himself.
Go ahead and debate Vox yourself, puff. If he’s the soft target you think he is, you should really be able to make him look foolish.
Debate what? What are his actual positions? That’s what this is all about. He puffs himself up into a controversial figure on the internet and when someone calls him out on it, you find out it was all smoke and mirrors. Is that supposed to be impressive? These issues aren’t as cut and dried as you people seem to think they are, and apparently neither does Vox. You guys have bought into the persona as much as those “rabbits” have.
Now, since Puff admitted that he is insufficiently knowledgeable to debate me on an economic subject, we will avoid economics despite it being one of my specialties. So, here are five actual positions that I offer Puff the Magic Dragon to debate me on. If he runs like Myers, Martin, Scalzi, and others, we will all know the value of his opinion.
That One Bright Start to Guide Them is a great book and The Wasp Factory is a dreadful one. Oh, wait, sorry, I agreed to debate that with Phil Sandifier on a left-wing SF podcast. Let’s start over.
That there are a series of continental-scale wars on the medium-term horizon that will be vicious, unconventional, and are likely to result in severe racial and national separatism.
That John Scalzi is a fraud.
That “The American Tolkien” is not a credible title for George R.R. Martin.
That “marital rape” is a logical, historical, and legal contradiction in terms.
That all modern human beings are not genetically equal.
That seems like a nice broad range of subjects from which to choose. I thought it was interesting to learn that for some people, the Pakman interview was informative in helping them understand my problem communicating with people:
For the record, Vox was correct about the common law. He did seem caught off guard about the fact that rape, even within marriage, is against the law in most states if not all. Pakman tried to use this as a “GOTCHA!” moment, and Vox looked confused, even though his point was not invalidated and his argument was still correct. The average person would come across thinking Vox was wrong, though.
This was actually the first time I really made sense of how Vox’s mind works. As an earlier commenter said, Vox is so far ahead that it seems to stump him that someone isn’t making the same logical jumps as quickly as he does — having to explain every step is very annoying.
It’s not always annoying (although it often is) but it is usually confusing. This is especially true when I am dealing with someone new because I have no idea at what point their ability to follow the train of logic is going to fail without warning. I was very confused when Pakman brought up US law in a bizarre attempt to rebut my reference to the historical Common Law. That’s rather like pointing out that the US lost in Vietnam to rebut a claim that the US invaded Normandy in World War II.
Where does one even go with that? Try to give him a basic primer on the historical basis for US law? Tell him that he’s an ignorant MPAI member and leave it at that? The best thing would have been to point out that his reference to US law was irrelevant and to observe that the post to which he referred was written in response to an Indian court upholding section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, except I didn’t recall that at the time because I had no idea I was going to be asked about a short three-paragraph blog post from over a year ago.
Rhetorically speaking, I suppose the best thing to do if I’m concerned about my self-image is to say “so what” and unmask the fact that he can’t follow the train of thought. But I try to be a polite guest. Perhaps I will need to rethink that policy if the host is an ambush artist; virtually none of the interviews I’d given in the past attempted to play gotcha without giving me fair warning about what the subjects would be beforehand.
I highlighted the irrelevance of his appeal to US law by reminding him that I don’t live in the USA. Which I have no doubt sounded like a non sequitur to many, only the non sequitur was Pakman’s. But I can’t help it if a lot of people didn’t understand that, because I can’t simultaneously fill in the gaps in their knowledge and defend myself against a dishonest, time-limited ambush at the same time.
