Charlie Brooker on "The Enemies Of Reason"

[Mojo]

Charlie Brooker's screen burn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,2145124,00.html).

Welcome to a dangerous new era - the Unlightenment - in which centuries of rational thought are overturned by idiots. Superstitious idiots. They're everywhere - reading horoscopes, buying homeopathic remedies, consulting psychics, babbling about "chakras" and "healing energies", praying to imaginary gods, and rejecting science in favour of soft-headed bunkum. But instead of slapping these people round the face till they behave like adults, we encourage them. We've got to respect their beliefs, apparently.

Well I don't. "Spirituality" is what cretins have in place of imagination. If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again. Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?

Maybe you've put your faith in spiritual claptrap because our random, narrative-free universe terrifies you. But that's no solution. If you want comforting, suck your thumb. Buy a pillow. Don't make up a load of floaty blah about energy or destiny. This is the real world, stupid. We should be solving problems, not sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies.

If you didn't like Dawkins' tone...

[cyborg]

I love Brooker.

[sophia8]

I love Brooker.I want him to have my children...... :D

[JonWhite]

Huge thanks for the link. I'd read the article in The Guide and looked for a link earlier but didn't find it in The Guardian's CiF section. I can now post it on another forum in which I'm in the middle of one about Reiki and (non-existent) energies.

Cool! :D

[Mojo]

Brooker rocks!

[Diabolos]

There's a great Youtube rant by Brooker on mediums...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2xGZnRgfTCo

[sinnikal]

I've been a Charlie Brooker fanboy for longer than I care to admit, but this piece of writing is among his very best. If Dawkins is going about his mission in an apparently more 'friendly' manner he can do no better than to have CB as a lyrical 'bruiser'.
The cause of reason, logic and evidence is all the better with him outspokenly on board.

Even if he keeps banging on about how much he hates Macs and their users.;)

[Big Les]

More love for Charlesence here. I love this line:

If it wasn't for the Enlightenment, you wouldn't be reading this right now. You'd be standing in a smock throwing turnips at a witch.

More importantly though, if this is true:
In The Enemies of Reason he's still angry - how couldn't he be? - but this time round Dawkins controls his temper, focusing it like a laser beam, taking on spirituality and superstition in all its forms. The overall tone is less hectoring, more persuasive, and occasionally outright playful. It's more likely to win people over.

..it will negate a lot of the anti-Dawks stuff on the other threads about "The Enemies of Reason". People are seemingly prepared to castigate the man for a programme that hasn't even aired yet.

[sinnikal]

I proudly go along with this

Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?


for too long superstitious piety has enjoyed a 'protected status'.

[Beady]

"Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?"

for too long superstitious piety has enjoyed a 'protected status'.

"The overall tone is less hectoring, more persuasive, and occasionally outright playful. It's more likely to win people over."

Emphasis added.

I don't care about being politically correct. I want to be less antagonistic because people are more likely to be receptive if they aren't put on the defensive.

[sinnikal]

Emphasis added.

I don't care about being politically correct. I want to be less antagonistic because people are more likely to be receptive if they aren't put on the defensive.

I understand your point, but I feel I have wasted years being polite and deferential. Since I became more belligerent in my stance, my mother, in her late seventies, has stopped a lifetime of 'obedience to the Lord' , the scales have dropped from her eyes and she is beginning to appreciate, at last, the real beauty of life in the real world.
A good number more of my acquaintances who, previous to my hardline stance were mildly religious, have questioned their ignorance and are becoming more rational in their worldview.
An attack on all fronts. After all we know that there are enough of us :)

[volatile]

Charlie Brooker once said I had funny eyes. In print.

[Moochie]

Charlie Brooker's screen burn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,2145124,00.html).



If you didn't like Dawkins' tone...


:bigclap


M.

[Soapy Sam]

I sometimes feel one page of this sort of extremely funny, hard hitting writing does more good than any amount of reasoned argument.
Which is a shame, in a way. But there it is.

[Civilized Worm]

Almost enough to make me forgive him for "Nathan Barley" and "Spoons".

[RSLancastr]

I sometimes feel one page of this sort of extremely funny, hard hitting writing does more good than any amount of reasoned argument.
I seriously disagree, Sam. I doubt that a single person read that and became skeptical of anything as a result, other than Charlie Brooker's ability to reason with people.

Perhaps that's his shtick. I'm not famliar with the man's writings.

[Beady]

Thanks, Bob.

I'm amazed that so many people here seem to think that winnng an argument through browbeating and intimidation is better than winning by logic and reason.

Personally, I would rather persuade someone that I might have a point, than convince them to leave the room as soon as I open my mouth.

[Darat]

I seriously disagree, Sam. I doubt that a single person read that and became skeptical of anything as a result, other than Charlie Brooker's ability to reason with people.

Perhaps that's his shtick. I'm not famliar with the man's writings.

I disagree - he does use reason, what he doesn't do is adopt a calm, dispassionate tone when he is laying out his reasoning. I think a lot of people who wouldn't listen to (what would be to them) the "insipid and lukewarm" Dawkins/Sagan approach will listen and pay attention to what Brooker says because of the entertaining way he puts his arguments.


(Have to admit I have a soft spot for him from his early days of being a computer game reviewer - "The game that made the Daily Mail leak a swollen bladderful of warm coward's pee into its collective cotton underpants." - still makes me laugh.)

[Darat]

Thanks, Bob.

I'm amazed that so many people here seem to think that winnng an argument through browbeating and intimidation is better than winning by logic and reason.

...snip...

Or perhaps it's just that some peopel don't see Brooker's approach as being "browbeating and intimidation" they see it as being an entertaining and funny way to get a point across. As I say above don't forget some people are "turned off" the content when presented in the way that Dawkins does and Sagan did.


...snip...

Personally, I would rather persuade someone that I might have a point, than convince them to leave the room as soon as I open my mouth.

You seem to be implying there is only one "right" way to persuade someone of something and I disagree - some people can be better reached by humour, some better by a very dry approach, others by a combination and so on. To effectively communicate you have to communicate in a way that reaches your audience otherwise you will not be listened to - I suspect that you are not in Brooker's intended audience.

[sinnikal]

Only anecdote I know, but as I said in my previous post, since I adopted a less dispassionate attitude to my proselytizing, I have found more success.
My intuitive feeling about this is that the beliefs that my acquaintances have bought in to were sold on passion not reason. An equal amount of passion gets them back on track.
I understand Bob's point as well though, for the casual 'browser' of printed media a full on polemic is likely to fall on blind eyes.
One to one, however, I have found the opposite to be true.

[RSLancastr]

I disagree - he does use reason, what he doesn't do is adopt a calm, dispassionate tone when he is laying out his reasoning. I think a lot of people who wouldn't listen to (what would be to them) the "insipid and lukewarm" Dawkins/Sagan approach will listen and pay attention to what Brooker says because of the entertaining way he puts his arguments.He isn't reasoning with anyone. He is abusing people for cheap laughs.

And those who find it funny are likely already in the choir he's preaching to.

I would imagine that anyone else has left the building, after being referred to as an idiot, a cretin, being told they are babbling, that they should be slapped round the face, that they should punch themself in the throat, and more.

Darat, that is NOT reasoning. It's a carnival of ad hominems.

[sophia8]

I seriously disagree, Sam. I doubt that a single person read that and became skeptical of anything as a result, other than Charlie Brooker's ability to reason with people.

Perhaps that's his shtick. I'm not famliar with the man's writings.It is his schtick, but he manages to be funny with it. I agree that it's usually better to use calm logic and reason. But making people laugh gets them to lift their defences; Brooker's attack-dog style may well work on some people.
Like Darat says, you need to use a variety of different approaches.

[RSLancastr]

Only anecdote I know, but as I said in my previous post, since I adopted a less dispassionate attitude to my proselytizing, I have found more success.
I'm all for passion in discussions. But passion does not require ad homs. And once you go for the cheap ad homs, you've lost a lot of your audience.

[brodski]

I'm all for passion in discussions. But passion does not require ad homs. And once you go for the cheap ad homs, you've lost a lot of your audience.

I think you may be missing the point, Charlie is a TV critic, not an educator, science communicator or whatever- this piece was a review of Dawkins TV show, not a call to sceptical arms. Broker he comes from the tradition of extreme vitriol in entertainment criticism, which many people love- primarily as entertainment in and of itself.
Is it a calm reasoned argument, or even fair? No. But that’s not what anyone in the UK really expects from professional critics.

[RSLancastr]

I think you may be missing the point, Charlie is a TV critic, not an educator, science communicator or whatever- this piece was a review of Dawkins TV show, not a call to sceptical arms.I understand that.

Broker he comes from the tradition of extreme vitriol in entertainment criticism, which many people love- primarily as entertainment in and of itself.I get that. I'm a fan of the Harlan Ellison "Glass Teat" school of TV criticism.

Is it a calm reasoned argument, or even fair? No. But that’s not what anyone in the UK really expects from professional critics.Fair enough. But I was not taking issue with it as a TV critic's column. I was disagreeing with Soapy Sam's statement about sometimes feeling that this kind of vitriol does more good than "any amount of reasoned argument."

If by "more good" he meant "changes the minds of more people," then I still have to disagree.

[Darat]

He isn't reasoning with anyone. He is abusing people for cheap laughs.


Whilst he does play for laughs (whether they are cheap or not is a subjective matter) and this is review of TV show rather than meant to persuading someone of a particular viewpoint but I disagree when you say he does not use reason - his argument is clear, logical and uses verifiable facts and evidence.


And those who find it funny are likely already in the choir he's preaching to.


How is this a criticism (if it is true)? Plus I doubt this - he writes and broadcasts on a wide range of subjects and quite often I don't agree with the views and opinions he expresses but I still find it funny - you do not need to agree with something to find it funny. So his approach is, in some ways, a much better approach - by his use of humour he can get me to listen to viewpoints and arguments I would normally not bother to listen to.


I would imagine that anyone else has left the building, after being referred to as an idiot, a cretin, being told they are babbling, that they should be slapped round the face, that they should punch themself in the throat, and more.


Again you do not seem to consider that there may be people that find his style more palatable and are therefore more willing to listen to his content it than they would of a Dawkins or a Sagan.

Not all people can be reached with the same style of presentation which is all that you are seemingly arguing against.

Considering his moderate success in the UK (articles, reviews, low-audience TV shows) there would seem to be evidence that his approach does have an appeal and I see no reason to believe that other people who read and watch his stuff are not like me - i.e. at least listening to arguments and opinions they do not agree with. And if you can't get someone to at least listen to your arguments and viewpoints you have no chance of persuading them.



Darat, that is NOT reasoning. It's a carnival of ad hominems.

No it isn't - what you are ojecting to is his style of humour.

[baron]

He isn't reasoning with anyone. He is abusing people for cheap laughs.

And those who find it funny are likely already in the choir he's preaching to.

I would imagine that anyone else has left the building, after being referred to as an idiot, a cretin, being told they are babbling, that they should be slapped round the face, that they should punch themself in the throat, and more.

Darat, that is NOT reasoning. It's a carnival of ad hominems.

Well said.

[RSLancastr]

Whilst he does play for laughs (whether they are cheap or not is a subjective matter) and this is review of TV show rather than meant to persuading someone of a particular viewpoint but I disagree when you say he does not use reason - his argument is clear, logical and uses verifiable facts and evidence.He is not reasoning with people who believe the things Dawkins apparently critiques. He is insulting them for laughs. After smacking them around for a while, he tells them just why they are idiots.

This is not reasoning with someone. By the time he gets to any logic and reason, he has long lost the vast majority of "believers" who were reading the review to begin with.

Again you do not seem to consider that there may be people that find his style more palatable and are therefore more willing to listen to his content it than they would of a Dawkins or a Sagan. I would bet that the vast majority of the people who find it more palatable are people who already agree with him about skepticism.

Not all people can be reached with the same style of presentation which is all that you are seemingly arguing against. I would imagine that some are won over this way. I was arguing with Soapy's contention that this kind of diatribe sometimes does more good than calm reasoning. If by "more good" he meant "convinces more people," then I disagree.

No it isn't - what you are ojecting to is his style of humour.Nope.

[Jekyll]

There are more people out there than just woos and sceptics, and I think that a robust madox-y style rant about how some beliefs are so stupid, they aren't worthy of respect will strike a cord with many of the fence sitters.

Obviously this is not the right way to convince someone that they are wrong, but it can be an effective way to convince other people that someone else is very wrong.

[Big Les]

I'm all for passion in discussions. But passion does not require ad homs. And once you go for the cheap ad homs, you've lost a lot of your audience.

But what is his audience? People who enjoy his "cheap ad homs" and generally agree with what he has to say, that's who. It's his whole schtick. I realise you're challenging the assertion that he might sway any believers or fence-sitters, but he's not trying to. He's openly and honestly expressing his personal distaste for a range of people and subjects.

He also acknowledges (sometimes subtly) when he knows he's being unreasonable or even irrational himself, making use of self-deprecation as well.

I do think that certain personality types do respond to a more aggressive (Dawkins-esque) approach, and that this might even extend to outright vitriol such as Charlie's (similar no-nonsense talk has shamed me into re-thinking my preconceptions in the past). But Brooker himself does not make any claim to even attempt this. He calls it as he sees it.

Essentially, he's a comedian.

[RSLancastr]

Obviously this is not the right way to convince someone that they are wrong,That's my point.

but it can be an effective way to convince other people that someone else is very wrong.That may well be.

But what is his audience? People who enjoy his "cheap ad homs" and generally agree with what he has to say, that's who. It's his whole schtick. I realise you're challenging the assertion that he might sway any believers or fence-sitters, but he's not trying to. He's openly and honestly expressing his personal distaste for a range of people and subjects.Fair enough. But it still doesn't change my assertion.

[Soapy Sam]

He is not reasoning with people who believe the things Dawkins apparently critiques. He is insulting them for laughs. After smacking them around for a while, he tells them just why they are idiots.

I concur.Bob, but I still think he can have a positive effect.
Each commentator has his audience. The people Brooker writes for may not be the people he is insulting,or may not see themselves as such, yet they may not be "the converted" either: There are degrees of silliness- I know doctors who think homoeopathy might work for some things.
Also, some people who believe nonsense may be less open to conversion by rational debate than they are by ridicule. (That's what I meant about it being a shame that writing like this can work; It's not a line of argument with much appeal to the rationalist sceptic. It does work though, on some people. )
There are a lot of folk out there whose opinions are essentially those of the last person they spoke to- or read. Some people who would never dream of reading Dawkins may read this guy, or someone like Dave Barry, who is both funnier and subtler, but at least as rooted in reality.


I would imagine that some are won over this way. I was arguing with Soapy's contention that this kind of diatribe sometimes does more good than calm reasoning. If by "more good" he meant "convinces more people," then I disagree.

Nope.

Not more people. (If only we could be so quantitative). I just find humorous ridicule can have more of an effect on some people than logic or evidence.
I actually recall this from my own brief flirtations in childhood with Von Daniken and Velikovsky. Some people tried to debate it with me, some said I was an idiot to believe any of it and laughed me to scorn. It was the laughers who actually convinced me that I was being daft.

Different methods for different people. You stick with what you're doing , Bob. It seems to work well.

[sinnikal]

I actually recall this from my own brief flirtations in childhood with Von Daniken and Velikovsky. Some people tried to debate it with me, some said I was an idiot to believe any of it and laughed me to scorn. It was the laughers who actually convinced me that I was being daft.


That strikes an embarrassing chord with me too:o
Exactly my own story, even down to the authors.
Maybe with a bit of T Lobsang Rampa:eek: added in for more ridicule

[JamesM]

(Have to admit I have a soft spot for him from his early days of being a computer game reviewer - "The game that made the Daily Mail leak a swollen bladderful of warm coward's pee into its collective cotton underpants." - still makes me laugh.)
I too recall his PC Zone reviews (and his TCR Computer Game Exchange ads) with great fondness.

[Big Les]

That strikes an embarrassing chord with me too:o
Exactly my own story, even down to the authors.
Maybe with a bit of T Lobsang Rampa:eek: added in for more ridicule

Yep, same here, but with dowsing and Graham Hancock. I was way too trusting of my lecturers, who should have known better (though the guy in question was only 6th form level).

Sometimes you just need to be told to wipe the rabid foam from your chin and take a step back. Not everyone responds to a no-nonsense verbal smackdown by sticking their fingers in their ears.

Part of the whole woo problem in my view is that people are accustomed to being able to do and say whatever they like, whilst being afforded automatic respect for it and not being called on it. Benefit of the doubt should always apply, but if you're being an arse and not responding to reason, you should be told so.

[Jekyll]

Previously, on Charlie Brooker:
When it comes to psychics, my stance is hardcore: they must die alone in windowless cells (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1963337,00.html)

[Beady]

I just find humorous ridicule can have more of an effect on some people than logic or evidence.

It sure can. I remember my catechism teacher pulled it on me, when he said humans were the only one of God's creatures that walked upright, and I asked about the apes. He humorously ridiculed me into acquiescing and being afraid to question my religion for the next 15 years or so, when I was safely beyond the church's clutches.

The question remains: Is it better to make someone truly understand, or to make them merely shut up and appear to agree with you for the sake of peace and quiet?

[Beady]

Not everyone responds to a no-nonsense verbal smackdown by sticking their fingers in their ears.

Right. Sometimes they pull out a gun and start shooting.

[Beady]

It was the laughers who actually convinced me that I was being daft.

So you changed your opinion, not because of logic and reason, but because of social pressure.

[Big Les]

Right. Sometimes they pull out a gun and start shooting.

I'm not sure fear of random armed sociopaths is a sound reason to advocate a "sensitive approach", much as I agree with you that it's the way forward in general.

And the ridicule or peer pressure is just the incentive to look at the evidence. If you bow to the former you're just weak. If you decide to research why people are so sure you're wrong, and come to the same conclusion, well, that's what I did in the example I'm thinking of.

[ETA -] Look at it the other way around - say a quiet, sensitive, non-threatening conversation happens to strike a chord and prompts the person toward critical thought. Have you tricked them into doing so by deliberately moderating your tone? Of course not - it's just a mechanism by which they have cause to look at the evidence. And there are many other mechanisms/tones of voice to be used. Charlie Brooker's is the extreme, and quite deliberately borders on self-parody. It's honesty, his thoughts put down as words. If I find myself getting a bit too confrontational or irate, I may try to moderate it, but I won't hide my feelings about it.

As I've said, by and large, "your" approach is the best and is likely to reach more people. I just think there's room for both "tones", and everything in between.

[Flo]

So you changed your opinion, not because of logic and reason, but because of social pressure.


Had he changed it only because his friends had deluged him with good words and a friendly attitude, it would still be due to social pressure.

[sinnikal]

The question remains: Is it better to make someone truly understand, or to make them merely shut up and appear to agree with you for the sake of peace and quiet?

I am absolutely sure that the people I know who have changed their thinking due to my hardline views on the subject have not just agreed with me for the sake of peace and quiet, they have genuinely thought things through. If they hadn't, they wouldn't be able to bluff the conversations we now have.

Sure, some people won't respond to my strategy, I wouldn't use it with them, in fact I wouldn't bother at all. My forte is full frontal, no-nonsense 'persuasion', and it's worked with those I've used it on.
Not 'evidence', I admit, but I'm not about to change a method that works for me.
I'll do my bit in my way, others will use theirs.
Sometimes things are important enough that the end justify the means IMHO.