I thought about a lot of the objections you raise while writing this post, which is why I tried to make my point rather narrowly:
"I understand why certain disciplines demand specialized terminologies. Conveying complex ideas in familiar shorthand to a knowledgeable audience makes a lot of sense if you’re presenting a paper on advanced microeconomics. And hell, I don’t really want to read that stuff anyway. But a paper on Weezer? Why not make it accessible to the rest of us?"
Now, maybe there is absolutely no room in academic culture for making research findings accessible to a non-specialist audience. This may be an accurate description of universities' priorities, though I think it's to the detriment of both the academy and the general public when interaction between the two is wholly dependent on Malcolm Gladwell and Jared Diamond. But I can't help wondering if certain disciplines - history and political science immediately come to mind - would be better served if their findings were more widely disseminated. The reason this particular paper is an interesting case study is because the author's entire argument could be reproduced and refined for a pretty good magazine article without detracting from its analytical precision, so perhaps other academic papers would benefit from the "Rolling Stone" treatment.
I think you're right in the sense that students need to develop basic writing skills before moving onward and upward, but we're talking about trained academics here. I see no reason why someone who is competent enough to produce a research paper can't make an effort to publicize interesting findings in a way that doesn't elicit a collective yawn from less specialized audiences.
Interesting stuff. I was actually in Berlin in 1989, and although I'd like to match your anecdata, I'm afraid I was a toddler at the time. Having said that, one proximate factor we haven't really discussed is Chernobyl - which, according to my parents, did immense damage to the regime's popular legitimacy.
That's an interesting point, Patrick, and probably worth its own post. The central question, I think, is this: What factors prevented the Soviet regime from forcefully reasserting control in the late 1980s? I tend to think it was an internal crisis of legitimacy, spurred by a loss of confidence among people like Gorbachev and the emerging groundswell of opposition in Eastern Europe. Afghanistan may have contributed to this, but I'm not sure it was the decisive factor.
One issue I had with this essay is how cliched the author's response is. Another gritty, neo-noir reimagining of genre fiction? How daring! I mean, it's not like this sort of thing hasn't been done before . . .
I'm not sure how a National Review's editorial from 50 years ago is relevant, Bob. They have some good writing and some bad writing, and this is a pretty egregious example of the latter category. I also think it reflects a lot of unspoken assumptions on the Right, which is very unfortunate.
A bit cliche, but "Goodbye to All That" by Robert Graves and "All Quiet on the Western Front" from Remarque are both excellent first-hand accounts of the war.
Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War" is a fascinating revisionist take.
In addition to his history of the First World War, Keegan's "The Face of Battle" has a compelling chapter on the Somme.
"Paris, 1919" is an excellent account of the Versailles Treaty.
Excellent post. One possible caveat: I think Kirn's criticism of the SAT can be applied to other academic metrics like AP or IB exams, which seem to have gained currency in recent years as reliable indicators of college success. Colleges' selection mechanisms may gradually shift away from emphasizing the SAT, but the aptocracy is rooted firmly in place.
Horgan routinely comments on scientific developments on bloggingheads. I can't say I've watched all of his dialogues, but I have yet to hear him raise a similar question with respect to scientific progress.
On “Academic obscurantism for the sake of . . . what?”
Sam M -
I thought about a lot of the objections you raise while writing this post, which is why I tried to make my point rather narrowly:
"I understand why certain disciplines demand specialized terminologies. Conveying complex ideas in familiar shorthand to a knowledgeable audience makes a lot of sense if you’re presenting a paper on advanced microeconomics. And hell, I don’t really want to read that stuff anyway. But a paper on Weezer? Why not make it accessible to the rest of us?"
Now, maybe there is absolutely no room in academic culture for making research findings accessible to a non-specialist audience. This may be an accurate description of universities' priorities, though I think it's to the detriment of both the academy and the general public when interaction between the two is wholly dependent on Malcolm Gladwell and Jared Diamond. But I can't help wondering if certain disciplines - history and political science immediately come to mind - would be better served if their findings were more widely disseminated. The reason this particular paper is an interesting case study is because the author's entire argument could be reproduced and refined for a pretty good magazine article without detracting from its analytical precision, so perhaps other academic papers would benefit from the "Rolling Stone" treatment.
"
Sam M -
I think you're right in the sense that students need to develop basic writing skills before moving onward and upward, but we're talking about trained academics here. I see no reason why someone who is competent enough to produce a research paper can't make an effort to publicize interesting findings in a way that doesn't elicit a collective yawn from less specialized audiences.
On “The Greatest Scene Ever Filmed?”
Ah. That is a striking parallel. But I stand by my comment about the lack of Nazis.
"
I can see a few similarities, but the lack of Nazis getting pwned detracts from the overall level of awesomeness.
"
Indeed.
On “Academic obscurantism for the sake of . . . what?”
No worries. I'll just have to restrain myself from posting anything from my back catalog of mediocre undergraduate papers.
"
To be fair, it is an undergraduate thesis.
"
Maybe you just don't get womyn, Ken.
On “Friday Night Jukebox: Random Rules Edition”
I blame the Canadians, Mike.
"
Wow. Quite a YouTube gem.
On “the funniest news story of the day”
Oh come on, Orijerk - we know you're never leaving Mint-and-Corn Country, Indiana.
On “New Adventures in Historical Revisionism”
Patrick -
Interesting stuff. I was actually in Berlin in 1989, and although I'd like to match your anecdata, I'm afraid I was a toddler at the time. Having said that, one proximate factor we haven't really discussed is Chernobyl - which, according to my parents, did immense damage to the regime's popular legitimacy.
"
That's an interesting point, Patrick, and probably worth its own post. The central question, I think, is this: What factors prevented the Soviet regime from forcefully reasserting control in the late 1980s? I tend to think it was an internal crisis of legitimacy, spurred by a loss of confidence among people like Gorbachev and the emerging groundswell of opposition in Eastern Europe. Afghanistan may have contributed to this, but I'm not sure it was the decisive factor.
"
This may be the smartest thing anyone has said all week.
On “Real Fantasy”
One issue I had with this essay is how cliched the author's response is. Another gritty, neo-noir reimagining of genre fiction? How daring! I mean, it's not like this sort of thing hasn't been done before . . .
On “New Adventures in Historical Revisionism”
Heh. Well said, Dave.
On “His Heart Isn’t Big Enough”
Right, but it's 50 years old. I mean, is it really relevant?
"
Probably true, Nob, but this entry made me so goddamn mad.
"
I'm not sure how a National Review's editorial from 50 years ago is relevant, Bob. They have some good writing and some bad writing, and this is a pretty egregious example of the latter category. I also think it reflects a lot of unspoken assumptions on the Right, which is very unfortunate.
On “Book Bleg: The First World War”
A bit cliche, but "Goodbye to All That" by Robert Graves and "All Quiet on the Western Front" from Remarque are both excellent first-hand accounts of the war.
Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War" is a fascinating revisionist take.
In addition to his history of the First World War, Keegan's "The Face of Battle" has a compelling chapter on the Somme.
"Paris, 1919" is an excellent account of the Versailles Treaty.
On “two thoughts on sarah palin”
Well said.
On “Kirn on aptocrats”
Excellent post. One possible caveat: I think Kirn's criticism of the SAT can be applied to other academic metrics like AP or IB exams, which seem to have gained currency in recent years as reliable indicators of college success. Colleges' selection mechanisms may gradually shift away from emphasizing the SAT, but the aptocracy is rooted firmly in place.
On “Department of Silly Inquiries”
A settled question? Really?
"
Horgan routinely comments on scientific developments on bloggingheads. I can't say I've watched all of his dialogues, but I have yet to hear him raise a similar question with respect to scientific progress.
On “The State of Political Economic Definitions”
A mixed economy?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.