I Defend a Liberal - See I Can Be Fair and Balanced!

Deborah Tannen

(c) 2011 by Tom King

I just read “Aspects of Conversational Style-Linguistic Versus Behavioral Analysis” by Genae A. Hall, Regional Center of the East Bay, Oakland, CA. Hall likes B.F. Skinner’s behavioral analysis for describing problems with conversational style over the linguistic analysis approach used by Deborah Tannen in her books That's Not What I Meant (1986) and You Just Don't Understand (1990). You might have heard of Tannen. She’s written several other New York Times bestsellers and has appeared on Oprah. She blogs on the Huffington Post and writes for Politico, so politically, I have no stake in defending her at all. Genae Hall, you’ve probably never heard of unless you’re a behavioral psychologist in California somewhere. She may lead a Tea Party group for all I know, but I have a problem with her article. This is not about anyone's politics. It’s about scientific elitism.


Hall’s paper tells you right off where she stands with regard to Tannen, using, if I may employ linguistic analysis here, prejudicial words and sentence constructions like “…the linguist Deborah Tannen purports to explain how people exhibit different ‘conversation styles’” and “Judging from the popularity of Tannen's books, conversational style is an important topic to many people and the linguistic terms and concepts used in the analysis have been at least somewhat effective in describing this subject matter.” The underlining is mine. Ironically, for a paper purporting to explain how behavioral analysis is a better method for analyzing conversational style than is linguistic analysis, the whole thing gives off a metamessage (Tannen's very useful term) reeking of disdain for Tannen’s success in helping her readers improve their conversation styles.

To many academics like Hall, popularity is the kiss of death for any serious scientist’s work. Hall apparently has produced no popular works, though her name appears on many scientific papers on behavioral analysis and in related fields. That she dislikes Tannen’s use of linguistic terms like “metamessages” and “frames” which have at least some connection to ordinary reader experience is telling. Hall prefers instead to use more esoteric behavioral psychology terms like autoclit, pure and impure tacts, mands and interverbals to describe how we communicate and miscommunicate.

Ultimately the paper serves as little more than another example of a scientist arguing in support of describing things using complex terms in a way that ordinary people will have no clue what you are talking about. While she begrudgingly admits that Tannen’s book may have actually helped some ordinary folk solve their communication problems and may even have saved some marriages, she dismisses such help as largely accidental, stating, “Although Tannen's linguistic analyses have facilitated effective practical action to a certain extent, they may have done so in spite of the terminology used, rather than because of it."

Yeah, I'm sure it would have been much better if Tannen had buried her readers in incomprehensible psychological jargon. (Note: The metamessage in that last sentence was "No it wouldn't be." using sarcasm as the linguistic frame. You recognize sarcasm for what it is and therefore know what I really mean.  And you can understand what I just said even without a graduate degree in applied behavioral science).

Hall makes a telling statement just before calling Tannen's success second-rate, stating in the article that, “When the controlling variables for behavior are clearly specified, there is a greater likelihood that those variables can be manipulated to change behavior.”  By "clearly specified", she means couched in obscure scientific terms that only really smart, educated people can understand.

Once again, the behaviorist's belief that we are but the product of our cumulative experiences and that free will is an illusion shines through. The article is a virtual pooh-poohing of the idea that the non-scientist might be able to work out his or her own communication problems by reading a book from Barnes & Noble rather than by submitting themselves to the external brain power of the Ph.D. class, who would then “manipulate” them into changing their behavior.

One has to wonder whether Hall’s argument against Tannen’s approach to fixing problems in human communication has less to do with the approach being based on linguistics than it does with the fact that Tannen sold a lot of books to people and went on Oprah. And now many of those folks who read Tannen's book may decide not to go submit themselves to a behavioral psychologist to have their behavior manipulated? (A frightening idea to someone who charges outpatients $100 an hour and has a clinic to fill up.)

Magicians always hate it when someone explains their tricks so that ordinary folk can perform them too.

Tom

Why Christians Should Stop Arguing with Atheist Progressives

I let myself be lured into arguing with an atheist friend of mine today.  First he said I must believe that Satan was behind the tectonic plate movements in Haiti, since, of course, Pat Robertson said so (which he didn't) and therefore I "must" believe it.  Then he claimed that I was "..trying to use reasoning and evidence, yet when asked for any evidence and reasoning behind the very existence of the devil you are using the defense “it’s a matter of belief.”


Except I never said "It's a matter of belief." He said that on my behalf without any help from me. Then he made some garbled comment about believing in "...talking snakes and drinking blood of dead God on Sundays."  Then, he went right on to "I would like an evidence which would not be riddled by gross logical fallacies" and offered to recommend some books for me to read that would fix me right up with my whole distorted belief system.

Oh, and then he suggested that if I were "intellectually curious" (oh, like George Bush wasn't you mean) then I might actually read some of the great books on how stupid Christians are.

I love it when progressives who are also atheists start tossing around book titles and asking you to prove God mathematically. Oh, and he made sure he pointed out that he has more education than 95% of ordinary mortals so "elitist" was an okay label with him.


The thing is, when you attack someone's belief system, they tend to get defensive. My friend's reaction was to defend his faith. I can't fault him for that. Atheism is no less passionate a belief system than any other religion.  My friend made it clear that I must prove that Satan exists if I am to believe in him.

The problem with that is he is under no similar compunction to prove that Satan does not exist. The fact is, you cannot prove a thing does not exist, only that you have never seen it yourself. I, for instance, have never seen a black hole and neither has anyone else. They can only infer the existence of a black hole by it's effect on objects around it.

I infer the existence of Satan in much the same way.  Progressivism actually began with a fine intent and had some very positive effects on society.  Crusty old capitalists were convinced to voluntarily treat their workers better. Christians began to perform organized acts of charity to improve the lot of those less fortunate than themselves.  But something happened to the movement early on and turned it a nightmare ideology based on beliefs that are totally at odds with Christian principles.  Eugenics, mass murder, persecution and tyranny sprang up from progressive roots with a speed and ferocity that was breath-taking.

The regularity with which this happens in history, points with certainty to the existence of a cool and evil intellect behind this transformation. At least it points with sufficient clarity to convince me that this evil entity exists.  Can I prove he exists? No, for I have never met him, although a person whose veracity I trust tells me she has met one of his agents in the flesh.  I have no reason to doubt her.


I am curious as to why folks like my friend even bother to argue with me.  It makes no sense. Atheists assume there is no God. Researchers like B.F. Skinner, proceed from that assumption and are led, logically, to the conclusion that men's ideas and attitudes and behaviors are entirely the product of operant conditioning. By that logic we basically have no free will.  Free will is, then, an illusion produced by our evolutionary proclivities.  The book he recommended that I read claims that people see meaning in randomness because of our evolutionary makeup and not because there is any inherent truth or meaning in life at all. 


If this is so, my friend's argument is the product of a lifetime of experiences and events that have conditioned him to believe as he believes and act as he acts - nothing more.  If that is so, then he believes what he believes quite by accident.  I, on the other hand, believe what I believe entirely by choice. Logically, he cannot help but pick an argument with me. He is conditioned to do so.  Since I am also conditioned to believe what I believe, according to his belief system, then neither of us are arguing because we want to, but because we are conditioned to.

Logically, only a person with free will could choose to stop the argument.  The responsibility, then, for ending the argument is entirely mine.  Since my belief system says that I am able to choose, I, therefore, choose not to argue.

Don't worry about my friend. He'll ramble on a while, score what he thinks are a couple of devastating points and then move on, congratulating himself on how he showed me up!

I love making atheists happy.  They have so little to be truly happy about.

I'm just sayin'

Tom King - Flint, TX