The authors of Freakonomics establish their credibility by patronizing their readers. As they say, "experts will use their expertise to serve their own interests," they indeed use their knowledge of incentives and the ways people respond to them to keep the reader reading. Having observed that most people crave what is perceived as illicit knowledge, especially about controversial subjects, the authors promise to deliver exactly that - "the hidden side of everything." They sympathize with their readers, that the readers may simpathize with them; in so doing, they become not merely intellectuals in the readers' eyes, but teachers - tour guides through the realm of the unknown. Their diction, too, helps this image: their style is conversational but smart. Asking numerous rhetorical questions of the reader and avoiding technical jargon while explaining relatively profound ideas, they mimick the language and style of a good teacher.
As for whether I'm inclined to accept the author's credibility based on their credentials, the answer is no. Even highly intelligent, educated, respected people are frequently wrong, and uneducated people of scant reputation often produce profound insight. I really think, therefore, that a good idea should stand on its own merits, not those of its proponents.
No comments:
Post a Comment