I think there are features
of credibility. That is to say, you will see the same kind of temperament and argument coming from sources that tend to know what
they are talking about. Unfortunately, this temperament and argument
are often mimicked. This means, if you don't have the patience or
habit of trying to recognize a credible source, it's easy to fall
right in with a "brilliant argument" made by some new
writer, philosopher, or product developer. This problem is exacerbated if you are interested and overly excited with the topic
being engaged. In my endless, but not hopeless, pursuit of what's
true, I wish to explore what it means to look credible vs. being
credible and how it can be easy to immediately see right though
someone.
Just so I don't lose
myself, I want to talk about the show "Shark Tank," Paul
Krugman, fictitious universes, and this article on sex I just read.
We all have our interests
or poorly characterized "passions." It's easy to feel a
sense of authority or pride in giving one too many factoids that no
one else has previously Googled. It's also easy to feel gratified in
taking that information and infusing it with personal experience to
round out the richness and authenticity of our position. "Did
you know that such a seemingly innocuous fact of our biology played
out in my interaction with that cute girl from our art class today?"
"My background in history, and my uncle who lives in Israel,
gives me the authority to refer to the Palestinian terrorists as
such."
We build models of
behavior that are supposed to signal to each other that we are, in
fact, credible. Me even breaking this blog into paragraphs is
supposed to show that I know how to structure an argument in
digestible chunks regardless of how convoluted or vague each line may
be. I even reflexively have a hard time taking giant blocks of text
seriously even when I agree with the content! It speaks to the
"embedded sensibilities" of what looks and feels "correct."
So if you've seen the show
Shark Tank, you see small businesses line up to make their case for a
panel of investors. They have some new product which often enough is
useful, interesting, and has potential for growth. Before these people
have actually gotten to the show, they've created a world where their
product is significantly more amazing than reality may have room for.
They've put in the blood, sweat, and tears, they know, or are willing
to lie, about the numbers, and they have a strong sense for "what
people often wonder about and look for" or "what people are
excited about." Frequently, once the questioning starts, they
get rattled, scare away a few of the investors, and then get
proverbially spanked.
All of these people
"believe" in their products, and others will buy into that
level of work and dedication. The panel of investors, having heard
the same story every day, focus on the bottom line. How much money is
potentially in it for them? The staggeringly ridiculous and quite
infuriating thing I take away from this show is how arbitrary and
petty the whole process is. That is their "business." None
of these people sit and think about what they'd do with a ten million
dollars as opposed to one million. When a comment about "the
trouble Apple got into" when talking about brilliant design and
marketing against the "problems with overseas manufactures"
as if we're not talking about modern slavery and suicide nets...
If I'm a billionaire
chastising a small detergent company on its packaging, and part of my
argument is to callously lump in how Apple's anti-human rights
attitude hurt it for a few quarters despite their resources and
ability, to me, you've dramatically lowered my ability to grant you
the level of authenticity I seek. Instead you might be described as
"a business junkie." You know and project that world so
well that you lose sight of the real one. It is important to note
that I do not think this is deliberate or malicious. It's the human
habit of culture that takes over. Everything you do becomes an
expression of the embedded sensibilities, and you talk about things
you didn't mean or even want to talk about. Personally, I don't want
my effort or thoughts to get that steeped in "the business
world." It's too easy. I want my impact to be felt actually
instead of arbitrarily in giving x amount of dollars for y percentage
in your company where I only care about the bottom line.
Paul Krugman has the kind
of authenticity I think is easily lost on the panel of money makers. For
those unaware, he's a Nobel Prize winning economist which has nothing
to do with why I think he's authentic. When Krugman uses numbers to
state facts, what a concept, other economists, despite their
differences or disagreements are forced to agree. You can't argue
with results. Krugman in interviews lays out a case, and when you try
to argue with him, he doesn't lose his shit and start frothing at the
mouth, the other person gets pressed to get detailed about something
they previously trapped themselves in "sound bite world"
about. Krugman is effortless in his demeanor and achievements because
he relies on the numbers.
Someone or something that
becomes "naturally compelling" is anything but. It's not
enough to have a background in, be praised by, or have done in the
past. There is a commitment to the truth that goes beyond what
you're personally invested. When fans are pissed that a band "sold
out," are they just jealous and don't want their favorite song
writers/players to achieve commercial success? Or is there a deep
seeded fear that the place where compelling lyrics and innovative
musical structure will be slowly phased out in the name of the bottom
line or brand interests? Some bands understand their message or stick
to their roots, and some people commit to the numbers and say how
things are instead of what they, or some business entity or political
interest, wish them to be.
It's hard if not
impossible to draw distinct lines of authenticity when you take them
out of the real world. While there are relatively limited numbers of
genres or character types, there are an infinite number of stories
you can tell with them. Aside from the right publisher or promoter
getting their hands on them, what makes something like "The
Marvel Universe" become a universe? How does the story of heroes
and war get made into 6 movies involving Hobbits or Jedi? Fiction is
as an analogy or it wouldn't be compelling. Go ahead and call this my
concern with the psychological makeup of people in love with
Twilight. Whether it's the truth of how the characters interact, or
the truth of your longing to behave like or find someone like what's
depicted on screen, you're forever taken with the ones that resonate
deep in your gut.
Is
the author or director just "brilliant?" I think it's more
likely something deeper, fundamentally authentic, that's being spoken
to or connected with. Twilight equals a lot of people feeling
desperate. Marvel equals a lot of people longing to be "more"
or expressive and entertaining of a complex. Pick your favorite Lord
of the Rings character and play their decisions against what you
might have done, and your willingness to follow overrides a lot of
the details in how the story was put together. It's not how the work
compares to what came previously; it's when relatively few characters
or stories connect to something that feels effortless or timeless
despite the amount of work it may actually take to get that
portrayal.
For as many people out
there trying to express through fiction, there seem to be ten altogether who
think themselves rooted in fact. It's kind of frustrating to read a
review of a book, especially on sex, that says (not a direct quote)
"for those of us who like facts and figures this certainly has a
couple of those, and for those of us who like sweeping personal
soliloquies we're in for a treat too." Protip, anyone who starts
an answer to an interview question with "I'm not trying to be
obtuse" is trying to be obtuse. There's this "professional
demeanor and language" of someone trying to be an authority on a
subject which has been hijacked to all levels of obscurity by my estimation. If
you want to claim sex is complicated from a personal standpoint,
don't get published and dress it up like you're a scientist. You should
put it in a blog called "I Want to Sex You Up Baby" and let
your readers battle out the details in the comments.
I know, and like the fact,
that my writing things in this format only goes so far. When I want
to start making decisions that play out over someone else's life, I'm
starved for data. If I'm ever compelling, I wish for it to be in the
realm of "I never thought of it that way" or "I didn't
have the words." When I think, do, and say, I want it to speak
to the authenticity that can't be overridden by insecurity or blind
belligerent investment in the next compulsion. I really do think that
"like recognizes like" and when you're aroused, or motivated,
or pulled into a moment or character, that's where lessons are
learned and platforms for self-expression are created. This is where
I look when I'm after your "soul" and what I hope you see
when I'm writing from mine.
