Further reflection on The Know-It-All
Feb. 11th, 2006 03:27 amI should be in bed, but my mind is jumbling around a few different ideas and fitting them together.
For a while now, I've been intrigued by the portrayal of intelligent people in the media. Having recently read The Know-It-All, I find that a lasting impression from the book is how almost everyone to whom the author mentioned his quest to read the entire Encyclopaedia Brittanica thought it was a crazy thing to do. His wife was completely unsupportive and went so far as to begin fining him $1 for every irrelevant fact he mentioned.
I really enjoy facts. They're fun toys. I'm not sure I'd like A.J. Jacobs as a close personal friend, but as a dinner companion or cocktail party guest, he sounds great. The facts he found interesting enough to share and discuss in his book were interesting to me. I doubt I'll ever duplicate his feat, but I'm sure that if I did, I would find it fascinating. And that most of my friends would think it a pretty cool thing to do. Yes, yes--randomly reciting facts can be annoying, but no more so than constantly complaining about one's health. Why were most of the people he talked to (except, notably the super-high IQ guy and the Jeopardy champion) so down on the notion?
The other piece that keeps knocking around is a passage I found deeply disturbing and offensive from Ron Suskind's NYT Magazine article "Without a Doubt":
And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
I don't have any brilliant conclusion here, but I wonder things like "How could we change this?" and "What would it take to turn this around?" Smart people are important, and not just because I like them. Not liking smart people is, well, stupid.
For a while now, I've been intrigued by the portrayal of intelligent people in the media. Having recently read The Know-It-All, I find that a lasting impression from the book is how almost everyone to whom the author mentioned his quest to read the entire Encyclopaedia Brittanica thought it was a crazy thing to do. His wife was completely unsupportive and went so far as to begin fining him $1 for every irrelevant fact he mentioned.
I really enjoy facts. They're fun toys. I'm not sure I'd like A.J. Jacobs as a close personal friend, but as a dinner companion or cocktail party guest, he sounds great. The facts he found interesting enough to share and discuss in his book were interesting to me. I doubt I'll ever duplicate his feat, but I'm sure that if I did, I would find it fascinating. And that most of my friends would think it a pretty cool thing to do. Yes, yes--randomly reciting facts can be annoying, but no more so than constantly complaining about one's health. Why were most of the people he talked to (except, notably the super-high IQ guy and the Jeopardy champion) so down on the notion?
The other piece that keeps knocking around is a passage I found deeply disturbing and offensive from Ron Suskind's NYT Magazine article "Without a Doubt":
And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
I don't have any brilliant conclusion here, but I wonder things like "How could we change this?" and "What would it take to turn this around?" Smart people are important, and not just because I like them. Not liking smart people is, well, stupid.