The “if U.S. and Russian borders were only 100 miles apart” item reminded me of a very interesting article draft that I once saw, which began,
The patent clerk is not known for his genius.
I suspect this is generally quite true, and the counterexample that will come to many people’s minds — a patent clerk whose very name is now synonymous with “genius” — is just an entirely unrepresentative accident. (In a similar though not identical vein, the fact that part of the U.S. is indeed less than 100 miles away from part of Russia doesn’t much undermine the substantive claims made in the article in which the quote appeared.) Still, if the counterexample instantly comes to many readers’ minds, it will distract them and weaken the article’s force even if — after some thought — the readers will realize that the counterexample doesn’t really undermine the broader point.
EMB says:
Thomas Jefferson?
February 12, 2010, 2:45 pmKenneth Anderson says:
February 12, 2010, 2:48 pmzuch says:
Prof. Volokh:
Given the record on AGW threads, I’m not sanguine on the prospects.
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 2:53 pmDr. Weevil says:
There are at least two counterexamples, though the other is less well-known — less well-known as a counterexample, I mean. A. E. Housman was not only a very competent poet, but one of the greatest classical scholars of the last two centuries. After flunking out of Oxford, he spent ten years working as a clerk at the London Patent Office. In his free time, he wrote scholarly articles so brilliant that he was hired as Professor of Latin at University College, London, purely on the strength of them. Now if someone wrote “The patent clerk is not generally known for his genius”, it might pass, though some might object to the gender: shouldn’t it be “his or her genius”?
February 12, 2010, 3:03 pmLester Hunt says:
Doesn’t the very obviousness of the counterexample in the US/USSR case undermine the credibility of the author, at least if you don’t know anything else about him?
February 12, 2010, 3:05 pmDisco(urse) Dan says:
The distraction, however minor, does seem to have a real, and I agree adverse, effect on otherwise useful discourse.
See here for more along this line.
February 12, 2010, 3:12 pmDarel Finkbeiner says:
The Russian-US Border problem and your patent clerk one are of completely different types. They do not compare. In fact, you comparing them is actually an instance of one of those two types of problem.
February 12, 2010, 3:14 pmMalvolio says:
Can you name a well-known patent clerk who isn’t known specifically for his genius?
February 12, 2010, 3:51 pmcorneille1640 says:
Is being a patent clerk really that easy?
I suspect that I’d hate to have to be the guy assigned to work with Einstein. I know the type. While I’d be busy trying to get the day’s work done, he’d be scribbling his theories or calling in sick because he’s so taken with his (in this case, but not necessarily in others, well-earned) sense of greatness.
February 12, 2010, 3:54 pmSkyler says:
Seems to me that since a patent “clerk” or patent examiner is either a scientist or an engineer, they’re much more likely to be geniuses than most any other profession.
February 12, 2010, 3:57 pmDouglas2 says:
Clara Barton, founder of the Red Cross.
February 12, 2010, 4:02 pmKevinM says:
There used to be a tourism ad that said “Did you ever hear of anyone who didn’t have a good time in Denmark?” To anyone with even a passing knowledge of Shakespeare, an example came to mind…
February 12, 2010, 4:22 pmT.J. Chiang says:
It depends on how obvious the counter-example is. Being a Russian immigrant probably brings to Bering Strait to your mind immediately, but most people tend to forget about Siberia and Alaska being next to each other. Similarly, being a patent geek brings Einstein to my mind immediately, but most people probably don’t even know that Einstein worked as a patent clerk.
The trade-off is that the rhetorical flourish can be diminished considerably by a more accurate statement. Saying “patent clerks (except those who invent the theory of relativity) are not known for their genius” kind of takes away the point before it is even made. On the other hand, making the bold assertion and then ridiculing the person who quibbles can have greater rhetorical effect.
February 12, 2010, 5:01 pmEugene Volokh says:
T.J. Chiang: I appreciate your point, but my sense is that many educated readers do know that Einstein worked as a patent clerk, and do know that Siberia is right next to Alaska.
Also, the alternative to using some rhetorical flourishes, such as “patent clerks are not known to their genius,” might just not be to use the rhetorical flourish at all. It might well be that the cost of the flourish, even if slight, exceeds the slight benefit that it provides.
And while ridiculing or otherwise responding the quibbler might undo the difficulty created by the quibble, author often doesn’t have a chance to do that: If some readers quibble, and this detracts from their appreciation of the article, the author might have lost whatever he might have gained through the rhetorical flourish.
February 12, 2010, 5:12 pmShelbyC says:
Of course, it can also cause your message to get disseminated in ways you never imagined.
February 12, 2010, 5:22 pmT.J. Chiang says:
Eugene, I think we agree on the principle, but have different intuitions on what the facts look like. It is not only knowledge of the counter-example, but whether it will be salient to readers while they are reading. For example, I “know” that Siberia and Alaska are next to each other, but it completely slipped my mind while first reading the Kaplan piece, and it did not occur to me until you highlighted the passage. So it depends on whether a significant number of readers will find the counter-example salient while reading.
February 12, 2010, 5:49 pmegd says:
February 12, 2010, 5:56 pmMaryG says:
Being a Russian immigrant probably brings to Bering Strait to your mind immediately, but most people tend to forget about Siberia and Alaska being next to each other. Similarly, being a patent geek brings Einstein to my mind immediately, but most people probably don’t even know that Einstein worked as a patent clerk.
Perhaps you underestimate “most people” though. Like with the Stir Crazy thread, I’m 3 for 3 before checking the comments. And I wouldn’t say I am that much above average, just in midlife and a reader raised in America. You do tend to know about Alaska and Einstein.
February 12, 2010, 6:15 pmAssertions Weakened by an Obvious but Largely Irrelevant Counterexample | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] more here: Assertions Weakened by an Obvious but Largely Irrelevant Counterexample [...]
February 12, 2010, 7:02 pmSkyler says:
I think there is a difference between the passive act of reading someone else’s writing and making the writing yourself.
I suppose there are many who read the piece focusing on content and meaning and just flew past the Russian/US proximity without pausing to analyze it. This is understandable.
But the person actually drafting the comment must be making a much greater error.
Just like reading about patent clerks might make someone pass on the obvious error, but writing the phrase is different. For instance, they’re usually called patent examiners as far as I know. Clerk has an entirely different flavor to it than examiner does. Patent examiners are all engineers and scientists, often with law degrees. It would be hard to say that genius is unknown among them.
asdf;lkj
February 12, 2010, 9:01 pmButternut says:
Where is Einstein? Who is Siberia? Did they not make antibiotics for patent clerks? How long does it take to walk 100 miles and hasnt Alaska been Russian for a long time anyway?
Such musings swirl like bellybutton lint. All head to one place and make a tangled mess.
February 12, 2010, 9:30 pmbellisaurius says:
Douglas2 is my hero for that bit of trivia. Apparently Thomas Jefferson was a patent examiner as well. Looking at the qualifications, it doesn’t seem to be a lowbrow kind of job. Gruelingly detailed, but hey, this is a lawyer site with lots of other professionals, so it’s basically a lot like many of our jobs.
As to the idea itself, the crux remains, and is kind of expanded when he talks about the cuban crisis: If nukes were a lot closer to territory we really cared about, things would be a bit more hair triggered between the two superpowers. Alaska and siberia have lots of targets for nuclear weapons, but nothing that would get a person’s attention like say washington or the kremlin. In a debate, this clarification would come up as soon as one quibbled about it. It’d be a scored punch in a boxing match, but hardly a knockdown.
Of course, taken as an article without the debate, this could be one of those things that just sticks in the craw, like in a movie when something violates common sense (houses that tell you to “get out” should generally be obeyed. James Bond should be shot instantly, and verified dead personally. Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow), and the rest of the piece suffers. It doesn’t have to, if you give the other guy the benefit of the doubt, but it’s hard to do that if it’s bleatingly obvious.
February 13, 2010, 2:45 ampatrick says:
Ah, philosophy of language. “A patent clerk,” is not Einstein in the same sense as “the morning star” is not Venus. The statement, “a patent clerk is not known for his genius,” simply says that the kind of intelligence required for the job of patent clerk isn’t what we usually associate with genius. A person can be forgiven for not remembering the counterexamples. (I have to say, I thought Hawthorne and Melville but that was customs.)
On the other hand, saying, “if U.S. and Russian borders were only 100 miles apart,” really is wrong, and really does damage the ethos of person writing it.
February 13, 2010, 2:07 pmliamascorcaigh says:
I know this is a law blog and that to call someone “a very competent lawyer” is a positive statement of his ability but to describe a poet in such terms ranks as one of the most dire backhanded compliments of all time. Damned with faint praise indeed. The more tactfully emollient epithet normally used in this context is “distinguished” which is both positive and face-savingly vague enough to sidestep the central question of creative accomplishment. We creative types are pathologically sensitive to such nuance.
February 17, 2010, 9:40 am