How To Write Responsibly And Read Critically

Photo by Thomas Bjornstad on Unsplash

I increasingly have the feeling that there are often too many facts but too little guidance on how to interpret the facts. It is not enough to just know the facts, you also need to know how to interpret the facts. Without interpretation, the facts are often useless. Let me give you two examples of a real-life argument.

Gun Rights

Here are the facts:

1. The right to bear arm is a constitutional right that many people value.
2. Many people are afraid of guns because they do not feel safe.

These are just two facts that everyone would agree. But the fact itself is barren because it doesn’t tell us a story and what should we do. Given that these two facts invoke contradictory sentiments, which one should we emphasize more? Here are some possible responses based on the same set of facts but guided by different emption/values.

1. Even if people’s concern for personal safety should be respected, more is at stake in the problem of gun rights. Guns are an essential part of American democracy because guns are also a check on the government.
2. People’s right to live safely is greater than the right to bear arms. Besides, American democracy does not have to be protected by guns.
3. There is nothing to fear about guns. If someone is afraid of guns, then that person should just but his/her own guns.Guns are just tools and people should not be afraid of tools.

Weed Legalization

Here are also some facts:

1. In general, Weed is less addictive than alcohol
2. Some people are still addicted to weed

I believe these are two facts that nobody can refuse. The first point is taken from many psychology textbooks and backed by scientific studies. The second point can be proved anecdotally.

But even though we may agree on the facts, with different values, we can still draw different conclusions. Here are some possible arguments:

1. Alcohol is more addictive than weed, and if we think alcohol shouldn’t be banned, why should weed be banned?
2. Alcohol is more addictive than weed, and if we ban weed, why shouldn’t we also ban alcohol?
3. It’s true that alcohol is more addictive, but according to Western culture, it is acceptable culturally. Weed, on the other hand, is less acceptable. Therefore we can ban weed but not alcohol.

How To Write Responsibly

From the two examples above, it should be evident that one’s value and emotion are equally (if not more) important in an argument as the basic facts. Therefore, just like an author should declare the source of a cited statistic, a responsible author would not treat her value as granted. On the other hand, an irresponsible author would sneakily introduce a statement of value and attempt to treat it as a statement of fact, hoping no one will notice.

A responsible author knows if her reader does not agree with her facts, it just shows their ignorance. But if her reader does not agree with her value and emotion, then she just couldn’t continue her argument anymore. She acknowledges that other people might have different values, and she would try to change people’s value explicitly. A responsible author only invokes emotion in a controlled manner.

An irresponsible author, on the other hand, tries to manipulate and influence other people into believing what she wants them to believe. She will present a value statement as if they are facts. She will not try to justify her value rationally but will use verbal and mental tricks to make readers think they agree with her value. I will write more about some of the tricks towards the end of this article. These are also the tricks that a critical reader should keep in mind.

Observant readers may notice my choice of words (“responsible” vs “irresponsible”) itself conveys my own value. Indeed, I will not try to hide my appreciation towards the first kind of authors, and caution towards the second kind.

In general, a responsible author tries to appeal to people’s intellect and hope to help people make rational decisions independently. Irresponsible authors often write to fulfill a given purpose. It could be a government propaganda, an advertisement to sell a product or a speech to divert a public relation crisis. No matter what the purpose is, it invokes the less rational part of one’s brain and discourages independent thinking.

While the irresponsible authors are sometimes malicious and aware of what they are doing, they don’t always have to be. An article that appeals to people’s emotion is generally more effective than an article that appeals to people’s rationality. If all she cares is to change people’s opinion, or boost engagement, or divert the people’s attention, then she would be better off abusing her value statement.

But ultimately, I believe a responsible article can change people more profoundly. An irresponsible article is easier to write, but it often perishes once people recognize its underlying value (like the moment you realize an article is actually an ad). Only a responsible author can make the world a better place by helping people challenge what they originally believe. That is both harder and more important than simply trying to manipulate people’s emotions.

How To Read Critically

I hope all authors can write responsibly, but in reality, it is just a wish. The articles we read every day is filled with values and assumptions of other people that we don’t share, but they often trick us into believing them. As a reader, it is important to be critical and look for signs where the author may be trying so subtly introduce her own value.

Here I will list two common signs, but readers should keep in mind that this is definitely not a comprehensive list. From the list, I hope you can get the general idea of the verbal “traps”. Whenever you encounter one of the signs, I encourage you to take a step back and reflect where the author is taking you, and if you really agree what the author is trying to say.

The Power Of But

Be careful when you notice the word “but”. The word has a psychological power to make you more likely to dismiss what appears before it. For example, take a look at the following two sentences:

1. Some people are still addicted to weed, but weed is generally less addictive than alcohol.
2. Weed is generally less addictive than alcohol, but some people are still addicted to it.

With a single use of the word “but”, people can express two totally different values with the same set of facts. The above two sentences all makes sense because each of them is true in its own way.

The first sentence assumes that we should evaluate a substance according to its effect on a large population, rather than focusing on a few single edge cases. The second sentence assumes that we should approach a substance based on the worst impact it can have on individual people. There two values are arguably equally valid, but you might believe in one more than the other.

When the author uses the word “but” in this way, she is actually using the single word to express an entire set of values. If the reader is not mindful enough, she can fall into the trap and unknowingly agree with a value that she would not agree otherwise.

The Power Of Labels

We often see arguments like “only a fool will think X”, “only a racist would believe Y”, “a true patriot will agree with Z”. These are all blatant examples of expressing values in a seemingly objective way.

We don’t want to be fools, but does it really mean X?

We don’t want to be racists, but does it really mean we can’t believe Y?

We love our countries, but does it require us to agree with Z?

While the usage of “but” is often subtle and unintentional, the use of labels in this way is often intentional and malicious. The labels are almost always used to silence discussions, not to encourage them. The author wants to take an impeccable moral position and enjoys accusing other people of crimes they don’t often deserve.

This technique usually doesn’t work when both sides are rational and have equal power. But if the power distribution is not equal, then the stronger side can use this technique to keep the other side from voicing a valid concern. Sadly this technique often works.

I encourage readers to recognize the power difference when an author uses labeling to dismiss her opponents. I also encourage readers to think independently if the label really means what the author claims it means.

Conclusion

I hope my distinction between a responsible author and an irresponsible author makes sense to you. I also hope you can all agree that it’s often more effective to write irresponsibly to fulfill a given purpose, but ultimately it is better to write responsibly. As a reader, I hope you can think critically and recognize the traps authors may use to subtly manipulate your opinions.

I’m on the side of rationality. I hope rationality can always win.