From: mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Jumping to conclusions in r.a.b (was Re: Revisited Classics (was Re: Little Men)
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:01:13 GMT
Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway


There is a curious type of exchange that often pops up in r.a.b.
A typical example of this exchange just took place:

1.      Marcy Thompson writes:
                You do have to ignore some of the comments about the poor
                and the mentally retarded, as they are based on the
                latest theories of the 1910s. But it's a charming book anyway.

2.      Francis Muir writes:
                I am curious. How many others share Ms Thompson's view
                that we are now so much more understanding of the problems
                of poverty and mental retardation that we can afford to
                ignore earlier views?

3.      Marcy Thompson explains her point of view and writes:
                Perhaps you should find out what you are talking about
                before you accuse me of being arrogant and self-righteous???

4.      Francis Muir responds:
                This is as absurd an accusation as I have seen
                in some time. Where do I accuse Ms Thompson of
                arrogance or self-righteousness? I ask a simple
                question. How many others share Ms T's views?


So, what happened here?

In statement 1, Marcy made a simple statement, without providing the
examples to back up her point.  Since her statement was a side point
to her discussion, most of would agree that supporting documentation
is not needed.  Those who are interested in why she made the statement
could ask why she came to this conclusion.

In statement 2, it becomes clear that Francis has jumped to a conclusion.
Marcy gave no indication that she believes that we can afford to ignore
earlier views.  Certainly, this is one possible reason for her view,
but hardly the only one.  I dinot even the most likely reason.
Given her eventual examples, I found myself agreeing with her.
Francis could have asked why she felt this way, or for examples that
led to this conclusion.  Instead, he chose to pose the question in
a way that is likely to be taken as patronizing.

In statement 3, Marcy shows that she can jump to her own conclusion.
She assumes that the patronizing tone of Francis' question implies
that he thinks her arrogant and self-righteous.  She might be right,
but there are other possible reasons why Francis might have assumed
that tone, and why he might have assumed that she felt that we can
afford to ignore earlier views.

Finally, we have the predictable step 4.  Rather than admitting that
he was wrong when he jumped to conclusions, Francis feigns innocence,
and points out that Marcy is the one jumping to conclusions.  This
approach was employed recently by Joe Green in his response to Barbara
Hlavin's musings on Henry James.  As much as I like Joe, I thought his
protestations of innocence were staged.  He is too good a writer not
to know how his article would be taken.  Barbara is too good a reader
not to have understood what was going on, and handled herself well in
the skirmish.

While I also like Francis, he, too, is too good a writer not to know
that his tone would be taken as patronizing, and too good a scientist
not to know that Marcy's original statement did not imply his conclusion.

Where does this leave us?  In the case of Joe Green, I thought that he
was just trying to shake things up.  I thought that he chose Barbara to
pick on because he knew that she would be up to the challenge, and give
him a good discussion.  It worked.  As for Francis -- maybe he just
wanted to make a point about respecting the past.  Then again, maybe it
was just bad manners.

I trust that I have written this article in such a manner that I
get my point across, but that if anyone is offended I, too, can
step back and say "What! where did I say THAT!  You must be jumping
to conclusions."


Mark