Intellectual Red Flags
Easy to Spot Warning Signs in Public and Political Discourse
Red Flags are Not Just for Dating
When you read an op-ed piece in the New York Times or listen to a political debate on TV, how do you know if it is good or bad? How can you judge the quality of the argument or debate?
While there are lots of ways to judge the quality of ‘intellectual’ content, most of them are not easy to catch unless you know what to look for.
For example, in politics it is common — at least in the U.S. — to attack a person rather than a position and argument. This is called Ad Hominem (meaning ‘to the person’) and is considered bad form in debate. Yet it is prevalent all around the world. Why? Because it works and politicians get away with it.
So today, rather than burying you in Latin terms and other complicated jargon, I want to offer some intellectual ‘red flags’. These things are easy to remember and spot meaning you can quickly use them in your daily life.
The three I will talk about here are:
Using all or nothing language.
Using overly complicated language.
Going broad not deep.
FYI, just like any ‘red flag’ the following do not mean that there necessarily is an issue with the argument or position. However, they should set off intellectual alarm bells that something might not be right with what you are listening to.
1. It’s All or Nothing
When I say using all or nothing language, I mean exactly that. When someone uses the words ‘all’ or ‘nothing’ they are failing to make distinctions within their position. In other words, they are over simplifying the complex nature of the world. This absolutist language includes words like:
All
Nothing
None
Everyone
Everything
Anyone
Anything
An example of this is often racist or sexist language. Racists will often make statements that start with “all black people” or “all Chinese”; thus failing to make important distinctions between a diverse group of people.
The racist statement “all Japanese people are short” fails to acknowledge that some Japanese are not short while some are short. For example, Shohei Ohtani, the famous baseball player is 193 cm tall (6 foot 3 inches); that is tall even for an American or European.
This type of language can sneak into other claims as well. For example:
All you have to do is buy a house.
Everyone should get married.
No one should be trusted.
It is even possible to make absolutist statements without using words like ‘all’ or ‘none’. Claims like ‘Mexicans are fast’ or ‘Just get a job’ make generalized statements. These can be harder to notice, as they require a bit of thought to know if they are truly absolutist, but are equally worrisome.
These kinds of absolutist claims steamroll over the nuances of human life. If we are to truly have productive conversations and find solutions to our problems, we need to face the devil in the details rather than trying to pretend he does not exist.
2. Overly Complicated Language
When I teach philosophy, my classes usually include writing a philosophical paper. philosophical papers are supposed to argue for a position by providing reasons and evidence to support the main claim of the paper.
A common problem I see with people encountering this kind of writing for the first time is that they try to use ‘big’ words to be more persuasive and sound intelligent.
However, it often has the reverse effect. They use words that they do not fully understand, making their writing more confusing and, thus, makes them sound less intelligent.
To be fair, it is not their fault. Students do this because they are trying to copy the intellectual work that they often see around them. Newspapers, magazines, and even academic journals use lots of fancy jargon and ‘precise’ vocabulary.
I give my students the same advice that I got when I started my learning philosophy:
Good writing (i.e. good intellectual work) should make difficult things easy to understand, not easy things difficult to understand.
Here are a few questions to ask yourself to help spot overly complicated language.
Does the person use too many adjectives?
This often means they are trying to over emphasize something to make up for a lack of some other quality. For example, does the car salesman rave for 10 minutes on the car manufacturer? Then maybe the car is not that good.
Does the person use words that are not English?
Academics and experts especially like to do this. It shows off their education in an attempt to wow you. However, a good thinker does not need to use these words.
They are able to explain the same thing to a wide range of people, adapting their vocabulary to match the person they are talking to. Take for example videos like the one below.
When someone uses the wrong level of vocabulary, such as using latin legal terms when talking on a popular TV talk show, they fail to adapt to their audience.
While this might be harmless in that they are simply bad at communicating, it can often be to cover up for a person’s own lack of understanding or bad idea.
Does the person use very, very long sentences?
Just like using lots of adjectives and ‘big’ words, using too many words is often a sign of poor intellectual work. In fact the other two issues often lead to long and confusing sentences.
This is because using too many words often shows that the person does not know what they are talking about or are trying to make a sentence do too much work.
Here is an example from a U.S. State Department press release:
The two delegations reaffirmed their shared commitment to broaden and deepen bilateral economic and commercial cooperation and held a constructive dialogue on the importance of disciplined, rigorous economic reform and a strong, innovative private sector to realize dynamic economic growth.
In other words:
We agreed to keep working together.
While the above example is not necessarily misleading, it shows how long winded language can obscure rather simple points.
Quantity over Quality
The final red flag is focusing on quantity over quality. This usually means that someone gives you a lot of reasons instead of focusing on a few, or even just one, good reason.
Just think of some of the clickbait listicles you have seen on the internet. Here are few examples about reasons to study a language:
Good arguments or positions do not require lots of evidence. What they require is irrefutable (i.e. very good) evidence. Just one great piece of evidence or counterexample is enough to establish the truth or falsity of something.
A past philosophy professor of mine used to illustrate the point this way:
A long time ago people thought that all swans were white. They had lots and lots of evidence for this fact. They had seen hundreds of thousands of birds over a long period of time, centuries even. Yet all it took to prove this fact wrong was one black swan being found in Australia to throw their view of swans out the window.
Conclusion
So the next time you watch a political debate or read an opinion piece in a prestigious newspaper, be on the lookout for these intellectual red flags. While they are not always a sign of lack of intellectual rigor, bad intellectual content will always have at least one of the issues highlighted above.
If you are interested in going deeper into what makes a good argument or how to have a more rigorous intellectual life, here are some recommended readings to get you started.
Informal Fallacies
Texas State College of Liberal Arts Department of Philosophy Student Resources Informal Fallacieswww.txst.edu
The Good Thinker’s Toolkit
Creighton University Philosophy for ChildrenCreighton University in Omaha, Nebraska is a Jesuit college where students…www.creighton.edu
What Does It All Mean?
In this cogent and accessible introduction to philosophy, the distinguished author of Mortal Questions and The View…books.google.co.jp