Sowell on Peer Review

Previously I linked to this pamphlet by economist Thomas Sowell on taxes and the economy. It is an excellent article on many fronts, including debunking from historical fact the idea that higher tax rates are the answer to low revenues, or that lower tax rates for “the rich” shift the tax burden to lower income earners.

He also includes this paragraph, commenting on textbooks that repeat these ideas.

There is no need to presume that the scholars who wrote these
history textbooks were deliberately lying, in order to protect a vision or an agenda. They may simply have relied on a peer consensus so widely held and so often repeated as to be seen as “well-known facts” requiring no serious re-examination. The results show how unreliable peer consensus can be, even when it is a peer consensus of highly intellectual people, if those people share a very similar vision of the world and treat its conclusions as axioms, rather than as hypotheses that need to be checked against facts. These history textbooks may also reflect the economic illiteracy of many leading scholars outside the field of economics, who nevertheless insist on proclaiming their conclusions on economic issues.

Peer review is a good thing, but it is not foolproof. When all the peers subscribe to the same basic worldview and assumptions, their review will be seriously tainted.

If you want real review, seriously consider pursuing the critique of someone who actually disagrees with you.

In the blog world, I think this is prevalent. Blog owners are often quick to edit or just outright remove comments that disagree with them, or present an alternative view.

Of course these comments never appear so few know it, unless you are one that has been affected by it. But on certain blogs espousing controversial positions, if there is no dissent in the comments, it is likely that the blog owner is practicing censorship.

In my view, this is often driven by fear—the fear of being proven wrong on your site. It is sometimes driven by pride—the pride that refuses to acknowledge that your arguments are not as airtight as you would like your readers to think they are.

Does it matter? Not really, at least not in the big picture.

But it participates in the worst kind of peer review, the allowance of views that only agree.

All in all, most points are well-served by counterpoints.

And Sowell reminds us why.

The Art of Spin or Things That Sound Impressive Unless You Know Better

Recently my life, and more importantly, my golf has been hampered by another back episode. For those who don’t know me, that’s the few weeks each year I claim bad back pain in order to lay around on the couch for a while and catch up on YouTube, sleep, and the like. I also count it as family time since the kids are usually within earshot.

But now and then I manage to make it off the couch for a quick round of golf, hopped up on pain meds and adrenalin. I think the movement actually helps a little bit, since the best thing for a bad back, generally speaking, is movement. Unfortunately, a recent round wasn’t all that quick. In fact, it was positively brutal.

Nonetheless, here’s the recap of the shot of the day for me: I was in the greenside bunker on the 407-yard par 4 16th from my tee shot.

Impressive, eh?

In fact, I didn’t see where the ball had finished, and my group was looking everywhere for it—everywhere except the bunker, that is, because no one ever makes it into the greenside bunker on 16 from the tee.

But finally, someone on the 16th green pointed out my ball in the greenside bunker.

We were all amazed. I have played the same course for several years and I don’t recall ever seeing anyone in the greenside bunker on 16 off the tee shot.

Still impressed? You should be …

Except for one thing … or as Paul Harvey would say, “The rest of the story.”

I was, in fact, in the greenside bunker on the 407-yard 16th hole from the tee.

But it was, in fact, from the 17th tee.

It was a bad shot which was the result of casting, (or that horrible “from the top” swing that I have perfected but never learned to play), combined with a severe hook (a vicious curve ball from right to left), combined with what must have been a few ricochets off some trees to resulted in about a hundred yards of total distance (fifty towards the green and fifty towards the left).

It truly was a once-in-a-lifetime shot. At least I hope it was.

And now you know the rest of the story which greatly changes the meaning of the narrative.

There was something untold that you needed to know to draw a proper conclusion about whether to be impressed or not.

And here’s the moral: When someone starts spouting off, we always need to ask, “What aren’t you telling me?”

I take this mindset into counseling. I listen for the unspoken. I often ask, “What else do I need to know?” Or “If the other person was here, what would they tell me?”

I take this mindset into reading, particularly in the often highly charged blogosphere. I want to know what has been left out of a story that would change the way it sounds.

It reminds me of an instance a while back when I saw a certain internet busybody lambasting a certain fundamentalist for preaching at a certain venue. What he failed to include was that the man had been invited there precisely to give a fundamentalist response. In other words, he had been invited to be a contrarian.

For those who had not yet learned that this source was not always trustworthy, this seemed an egregious situation. For those who knew a little bit, it was quite easy to see through.

I would encourage us all to read and listen with discernment.

Remember, being in the greenside bunker on 16 from the tee is really impressive, until you find out that it was the 17th tee.

It’s That Time of Year Again

Yes, all over the blog world, it’s that time of year when bloggers all over have been posting their “Best of 2011” posts. They are linking to their most read,  most commented, most favorite, and on-and-on.

It reminds me of my own ”best of” post from just about a year ago. I thought it was a pretty obvious parody of a widespread practice, a practice that I have no problem with. But I thought I would have a bit of fun with it last year.

However, shortly after that post appeared, word got back to me about a certain pastor who labeled my post “childlish [sic] and unpastoral behavior” towards a particular person. It was called an “ungentlemanly approach to discussion [that] is beyond the perview [sic] of Christian practice” and an “abandon[ment] Christian principles of argumentation.” On top of that it was called “vicious and childish.”

Pretty strong words for a parody piece.

Here’s the funny thing: My post wasn’t even directed towards a particular person, but to a common practice of a number of people.

Here’s the bad thing: Not one of these comments was directed to me. It could have been cleared up in sixty-second phone call, or a short one-paragraph email. I could have directed this pastor towards any one of a couple of dozen blogs with a “best of” post of some sort that would have shown what I was talking about.

But I never had that chance.

You see, rather than emailing me or picking up the phone and calling me to find out what it was about, or even just ignoring it, this pastor jumped to conclusions and then made these fairly harsh comments about me to others.

My suspicion (based on some others things that were said) is that he had first listened to gossip by someone else, and rather than shutting it down and telling the other person that he would have no part of it, he listened to it and believed it. In the words of Proverbs, “he answered the matter before he heard it.”

On the one hand, it didn’t bother me all that much because I knew the truth about it, and I think many others did as well. Plus he doesn’t answer to me, nor I to him. So I kind of laughed about it.

On the other hand, I don’t like this kind of misunderstanding and I certainly don’t like the kind of personal comments that were made.

So when I got word about what this pastor had said, I picked up the phone and called the guy to try to straighten it out person-to-person. It was an easy fix. Or at least it should have been.

Would it surprise you to know that this guy refused to talk to me and never returned my call?

I would like to say I was surprised, but I wasn’t. I am not much of an idealist anymore. I have been around long enough to know how these things turn out. I know how often people find it easy to throw around attacks without basis, and then refuse to deal with things straight up, person to person. They are unwilling to even consider that they, or the people they have believed, may have been wrong. It’s the MO of far too many people.

The blogosphere has made this attack culture both easier and harder at the same time. It’s easier because you can spread the word faster and wider. And it’s harder because people can see the truth for themselves, and there are always going to be people who know more than you do, particularly about their own words.

So why do I write about it now?

Because I am reminded of the bad way that people tend to handle things, people who should know better. I started to say “handle problems,” but it wasn’t even a problem. It was a silly parody post that led to personal attacks behind someone’s back for no reason other than ignorance. He just didn’t know the truth and didn’t bother to find it out. He immediately thought the worst.

As we close one calendar in favor of another, let us all resolve to pursue a better way.

Don’t jump to conclusions, particularly bad ones, especially when you don’t even know the person you are talking about.

Remember that there are some things you might have missed.

Remember that hearing one side of the story is always dangerous because it is frequently biased.

Remember that you might be wrong, or might be being mislead by someone else.

And having remembered this, temper your response.

To be honest, I haven’t lost any sleep over it because it wasn’t that big of a deal to me. I think of it now only because of the plethora of “best posts of 2011” that are peppering the blogosphere.

And the memory makes me chuckle a bit.

I know I have made my fair share of blunders and sins in the blogosphere. I write as one who has been grieved over some things I have said, or the way I have said them, and when I have, I have tried to own them and deal with them righteously.  

I have no personal axe to grind with this man. I don’t know this pastor personally, and I rejoice in the apparent fruit of his ministry.

But I wish he would have found out what it was about before trashing me to other people.

Let’s all learn to desire the truth before we speak. And to hold our tongues when we don’t know.

This and That

From around the blogosphere:

For fun, here’s some dogma for you courtesy of Ed Stetzer and friends. Even if you don’t like Ed, you should find this funny.

Now on a serious note, Kevin DeYoung writes about liberal theology. What’s interesting to me is how familiar it sounds, not to those who know history but to those know who know the present. If you didn’t know the names and didn’t know that the title of the book from which he is quoting includes the dates “1805-1900” there is little to make you think he is writing about anything other than today. Surely the Preacher was right: There is nothing new under the sun.

C. Michael Patton writes about Rob Bell and expectations:

Frankly, when I heard that Bell might come out on the side of universalism, I thought to myself, “Oh, I thought we already knew that.” I don’t expect much these days from popular writers who don’t screen their thought through historic Christianity and contemporary Evangelical scholarship.

Time may reveal that some jumped the gun on Bell’s universalism, but there little’s doubt that Bell long ago left orthodoxy in some pretty major ways. (See DeYoung above.)

Louis Markos writes about cellphones:

I refer more broadly to the coarsening of manners and the increase in narcissism that heavy cell phone usage has both created and facilitated. …

If the offenders in these scenarios were to be called to account for their behavior, they would all offer the same basic excuse: they had to take the call; it was “urgent.” And therein lies the essential (spiritual) danger of the cell phone. We live in an age that has lost not only its moral compass but its right ordering of values. With each year, we grow less and less able to distinguish between that which is important and that which is trivial, between the lasting and the ephemeral, the vital and the frivolous, the sacred and the secular. …

But the measure for that now is neither ethical nor philosophical nor theological. It is, instead, personal, subjective, and egocentric. I want it now, and so I will have it now—even if it corrupts rather than nurtures, degrades rather than edifies.

A Proverb for Bloggers

A fool finds no pleasure in understanding
but delights in airing his own opinions

(Proverbs 18:2, NIV).

Thinking About Netiquette

From time to time I write a blog post on the blogosphere itself. Today, a few thoughts are running through my mind on netiquette for blogs and internet interaction. So I dump them here.

First, if you have a comment section, then interact on the comments, or allow others to interact. Some people have such a large readership, they intentionally don’t interact much on their own blog. That’s not a problem for most. But it’s certainly  fine. I would suggest that you perhaps just make it clear on the home page that your practice is not to interact on the comments.

Some people heavily moderate their blog comments. I don’t. I rarely remove a post. I am not a big fan of heavy moderation, aside from being off topic, or being obscene.  

There are some bloggers who allow almost always delete comments that question or take objection to the post, but they allow the comments which pat them on the back.

In my view, if you allow comments, then allow comments. If you don’t, then don’t. But don’t moderate the comment section to look like no one disagrees with you. And don’t refer to comments that don’t exist (as in, “Joe, I deleted your comment because it demonstrated that you were a hypocritical idiot and I can’t let that stand”). And if you moderate your comments, don’t complain that other sites moderate their comments.

There are several people who have no problem with strong disagreement and interaction on their blog. I like that. I don’t like people who make strong posts and then edit or moderate the comments to remove all disagreement.

Second, if someone asks you a question, try to answer it. It is a far too common tactic to say, “I was clear; it’s your problem you don’t understand.” That may be the case. It may not  be. But in my experience, most people are not nearly as clear in their writing as they think they are. Writing is a difficult medium. You cannot have instant interaction like you can in person.

And remember, you write from a head full of data and thoughts that your readers do not have. Therefore, things that may be perfectly clear to you (because of your thoughts) may not be clear to the readers because they do not know what your thoughts are.

There’s an old saying: If the student hasn’t learned, then the teacher hasn’t taught. While it’s not entirely true, I think it is actually a pretty good principle.

If someone asks “What do you mean?” it’s usually a good sign that you probably weren’t as clear as you thought you were, at least to them. And if your goal is communication, take another run at it. But when you do, actually try to answer the question.

Third, if you are going to post a comment on a blog, then post on the blog topic. Don’t use blog comments to post unrelated things, particularly when they are personal in nature. That is called “spamming” in the internet world. And don’t use someone else’s blog comments merely for free advertising for your own blog. Feel free to link to your blog in your name section of your comment, but don’t blast the comment section with links to your own blog.

Fourth, remember that the blogosphere lacks important communication data like body language, facial expression, and eye contact. A question may be nothing more than a question. Just because you are oversensitive and insecure doesn’t mean that everyone else is. So relax. Don’t take it personal, and don’t get personal.

Fifth, remember your own depravity. Suspect yourself first. You will usually find a large problem right there.

And then get over yourself. You’re not as important or intelligent as you think you are. And you’re a lot more sinful than you think you are. So deal with it, and move on.

As always, feel free to comment to help clarify, correct, or instruct. Just be on topic and post with grace.

Things You Can Read Quickly and Still Benefit From

Jeremy Berg on application in preaching:

I am concerned about those who approach the text with their own issues and preoccupations already in mind and ask the Word to magically speak to those issues. I am irritated with an attitude (usually well-meaning and unintentional, by the way) that sounds like: "That's a nice story Jesus, but can you please address my problem with __________?"  Or, after reading Paul's monumental Letter to the Romans saying, "Wow, Paul, that was some deep stuff!  Can we talk about me now?"  And a thousand other variations.

The hidden dark side of this posture toward God's Word is that it reveals a deep-seated self-absorption that keeps us at the center of our universe and insists that God and His Word orbit our needs and serve our interests. Do you see a problem with this posture toward God and the text?

Rick Thomas on the love cup:

Another term, which is more biblical, for these perceived “needs” is called worship. Worship is the biblical term for our longings and it is what is happening at the causal core or heart level of all people. We are motivated by what we worship. Truly, we are born worshippers. The question we never ask in counseling is, “Are you worshipping?” We were made by our Creator to worship, that is a given. The question we should always ask is, “What are you worshipping?”

Thinking About Assumptions

I just walked over to Sunoco to get some gas for the church lawnmower. It is only about a block to the gas station, so rather than go home and get the car to drive, I just walked across the park, across the four lanes of Jefferson Ave, and a got $4.00 worth of gas.

As I walked, I wondered how many people driving by looked at me and thought, “Stupid dork ran out of gas and now has to walk to get some.”

I am sure that is what I would think.

And they would be thinking wrong. In fact, the gas can still had gas in it … just not enough to fill the lawnmower. And the car had plenty, but walking is good exercise, cheaper than driving, and quicker since the car wasn’t here.

But it makes me wonder how many times we see someone doing something and jump to unfounded conclusions.

We see a man quote another man on his blog, and assume he is giving a blanket endorsement or promoting some belief or practice.

We see a man speak at a certain place and assume that the host is endorsing everything that the speaker affirms, or that the speaker endorses everything that the host affirms.

So they shoot off an email or a blogpost. And they end up distorting and misleading people based on assumptions that aren’t true. In some cases, they are just plain dishonest, saying things that are demonstrably untrue.

Granted, jumping to conclusions is quick and easy, and it looks good on a blog to take such a good stand for separatism and truth.

On the other hand, taking time to actually listen carefully is harder, and won't always satisfy people.

But the truth is this: When you say something that is untrue, it is still untrue, even if you really believe it. You are bearing false witness, even if you think are right. And that is shameful.

Before you jump to conclusions about person, take time to figure out what they believe and teach. Read what they write; listen to what they say; look at the pattern of their life. And be honest about it. Some people in the blogosphere are, quite frankly, dishonest about what other people believe.

The last few days have confirmed that for me again. Some people have no integrity. They are not beyond gossip, false accusations made out of ignorance, personal attacks, and false statements. They are, in the biblical sense, brawlers who stir up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble, and they do so by making false accusations and misleading statements. They are divisive but not for the truth.

They are beyond listening to people who know what they are talking about because of pride and arrogance.

They think they are right and no amount of actual fact will dissuade them.

It’s sad but true.

It’s kind of like selling used cars. Some people will say anything to push a car out the door. And some people will believe the salesmen because they don’t know any better, and are too lazy to go find out the truth. And then they are stuck with a lemon.

In a day when talk is cheap, make sure you get your money’s worth. If you are going to listen to someone, make sure they know what they are talking about. Don’t assume it.