Isn’t it striking how many highly intelligent freethinkers are ineffective speakers and writers?
Not all of them, mind you. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are notable exceptions in my mind. They both get right to the point using ordinary words. They both look at their audience while speaking. Harris is one of the more affable speakers out there, while Dawkins excels at communicating with an earnest intensity. Their approaches to delivering their ideas explain their popularity. They stand out from the crowd with their ability to convey their ideas. Many other freethinkers (all of them intelligent, sincere and committed to following evidence where it leads) could greatly improve on the way they deliver their ideas. By failing to work on their delivery, they are losing opportunities to communicate their valuable ideas.
I base this conclusion on my viewing of the presentations at the La Jolla conference, “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival.” You can watch videos of the sessions here. [1] I briefly discussed the conference here [2].
While watching some of the presenters, however, I imagined being a fundamentalist; In short, I imagined feeling threatened by the ideas of the La Jolla freethinkers. If I were a fundmentalist, I might think I disagreed with the ideas of the scientists and philosophers while I was actually much more repulsed by the manner in which those ideas were presented.
For instance, some of the freethinking scientists and philosophers appear arrogant. They might not actually be arrogant, though they appeared arrogant. For instance, many of them speak with a know-it-all tone of voice (I won’t name names–just take a look at some of the video presentations).
Tone of voice is not the only way to look arrogant, though. Many freethinkers just can’t help throwing around dozens of “isms.” Still others are name-droppers, constantly dropping names of books and authors. Dropping names makes one look like one is showing off how much he or she knows rather than sincerely attempting to connect with the audience. Here’s another form of arrogance: hogging the floor and failing to get to the point. If it can be communicated succinctly, it should be. Anything else looks arrogant in that it tells the audience that the speaker’s time is more valuable than that of the audience.
Maybe arrogance (or what appears to be arrogance) is a cost to pay for being a professor at a university (I should note that there are many exceptions to this observation). The development of mannerisms that look like arrogance might be the gradual and unintentional result of talking to captive audiences of inferiors (students who are not as knowledable and who are dependent upon you for grades).
For many Believers, the words “scientists” and “arrogant” are redundant terms. Getting this idea off the table (the idea that freethinkers are arrogant) should thus be a high priority.
But arrogance is only part of the problem. Those who truly want to communicate should take the time to choose a vocabulary that doesn’t isolate potential audiences. Unfortunately, many scientists and philosophers still use big words where little words would do. Such destructive sesquipedalianism! When I sit at a lecture where the speaker needlessly uses complex words, I am annoyed even though I’m familiar with many of the multisyllabic words being used. The fact that I sometimes get annoyed (even though I’m familiar with many of the words) leads me to believe that needlessly using big words could recklessly drive away numerous people who might otherwise be interested in the topic.
Beyond arrogance and inaccessible vocabulary, several of the La Jolla freethinkers displayed distracting mannerisms such as pacing and verbal crutches.
Of course, many scientists and philosophers might not actually be trying to communicate with a general audience. Perhaps many of them were gearing their presentations only to other academics, wider audience be damned. If true, that would be a shame given the current desperate need to communicate ideas about science and religion to mass audiences.
None of this is to say that religious leaders lack communications issues. If you’re looking for arrogance, you can find it among religious leaders at least as often as you find it among scientists and philosophers. Further, there is a smug creepiness that I sense among religious leaders that I rarely sense among prominent freethinkers. Why would that be? Perhaps because first-rate freethinkers hunger for good criticism. If their arguments have weaknesses, most of them desperately want to have their flaws pointed out in order to address them. They know that dealing with criticism and counter-examples make them better thinkers; this is part and parcel of the scientific method.
It is the opposite with religious leaders, especially while they are presenting in public. The last thing they want is for someone to cast doubt upon their power and authority. Religious leaders need their followers to believe that the only way to salvation is through their particular churches. This assertion of power inevitably leads to smug presentations, the same sort of smug arrogance that one can see in some doctors. Ironically this type of smugness gets more pronounced whenever the religious leader (or the doctor) is less certain.
I’m sure that I’m not the first person to notice these problems among freethinkers (and religious leaders). Nonetheless, this is an important point that needs to be addressed repeatedly. Freethinkers who address the public should consider going to speech coaches to evaluate the way in which they present their ideas. Why not get rid of speech mannerisms that might dramatically repel potential listeners?
Why not teach to a wide general audience at the same time one is teaching to one’s peers? I am utterly convinced that one can teach to both audiences simultaneously. In fact, I am convinced (based upon my work as an attorney) that if one cannot communicate one’s ideas clearly and convincingly to a smart 12-year-old, one has failed as both a communicator and a thinker. If one cannot communicate clearly and convincingly to a 12-year-old, it is likely that one has nothing to say.
It’s time, then, for freethinkers, including many prominent freethinkers, to consider honing the way they present their messages. By doing so, they will reach a much wider audience much more effectively. Isn’t that the bottom line?
Print this post [3]
[4]