Chomsky vs. Polya on boring lectures.

[FreeChile]

Would you agree that you were the first to derail this thread, making it a political discussion instead of a technical discussion about public speacking? What does this say about you and your bias?

Never mind. I think you already admitted to that.

 

[Skeptic]

So you would not consider the questioning of your own presumptions about you and your government to be acts of bravery.

But Chomsky isn't questioning them, or trying to change them. He had already decided the US is irredeemably evil.

It's one thing to criticize things the USA government does, or vote for the opposition's candidate, or think the president is an idiot, and still live in the USA and enjoy its prosperity. It's quite another to declare the USA is the most evil power in the world, that it is an opressor without equal, that its entire economic and political system is the devil incarnate, that its prosperity is due to theft and violence--and continue to live in the country.

You can do it, of course, but it shows that either (a) you don't really think the USA is evil and are lying to gain notoriety, or (b) you really think the USA is evil incarnate and yet continue to enjoy what is, in your view, stolen goods because it's more comfortable.

 

[Number Six]

By speaking, you get the benefit of Q&A sessions.

You could accomplish that via teleconference at an arranged time. Most people would probably say that Q&A works better in person than by teleconference and I agree but that's part of the issue at hand, namely that it makes sense to communicate in a more effective manner if possible.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

But Chomsky isn't questioning them, or trying to change them. He had already decided the US is irredeemably evil.

It's one thing to criticize things the USA government does, or vote for the opposition's candidate, or think the president is an idiot, and still live in the USA and enjoy its prosperity. It's quite another to declare the USA is the most evil power in the world, that it is an opressor without equal, that its entire economic and political system is the devil incarnate, that its prosperity is due to theft and violence--and continue to live in the country.

You can do it, of course, but it shows that either (a) you don't really think the USA is evil and are lying to gain notoriety, or (b) you really think the USA is evil incarnate and yet continue to enjoy what is, in your view, stolen goods because it's more comfortable.



You wouldn’t question the nationalistic attitude that leads to accusations like “He's also an America hating Commie.” I’m just asking and not implying that Chomsky is brave in that sense.



Would you kindly back up your claims here.

Following your meaning of bravery as expressed in this post, can you show me other American intellectuals you would consider to be brave. Would you, for instance, consider Alan Dershowitz to be more or less brave than Chomsky? After all, you can only be brave in comparison with others.

[/QUOTE]


Yes, Strawman Chomsky is bad! Strawman Chomsky says things like "irredeemably evil!" The real Chomsky bears only a passing resemblence to the one you portray, however.

 

[Piggy]

His material is certainly engaging. Let's not forget that he's a linguist too. I imagine he probably choses his words and syntax very carefully. Perhaps too carefuly to be a peppy speaker.

Actually, I have to shift gears when I hear all the political talk. I've read very little of his sociology and political commentary, and much more of his linguistic theory (which also suffers from idealism, btw).

The thing is, most folks aren't great public speakers. Heck, even great writers aren't necessarily great readers. I can't count how many brilliant poets and novelists I've heard give absolutely atrocious readings.

The exceptions, like Coleman Barks, are rare.

The thing is, though, re the OP, that the argument that dull lectures somehow focus the audience on the material... that's totally bogus. I have to go back to Richard Feynman -- now there's a guy who can make physics exciting, and that's no small task (except for geeks like me, who are fascinated by it regardless).

Improving one's lecturing skills actually helps the audience focus on, and understand, the material.

 

[FreeChile]

But Chomsky isn't questioning them, or trying to change them. He had already decided the US is irredeemably evil.

.....

Understanding this to be a de-rail of this thread, I choose to no longer contribute to that. If you want, please start another thread on the topic of Chomsky's immorality and cowardice. Thank you.

 

[FreeChile]

You could accomplish that via teleconference at an arranged time. Most people would probably say that Q&A works better in person than by teleconference and I agree but that's part of the issue at hand, namely that it makes sense to communicate in a more effective manner if possible.

You could not communicate gestures efficiently via teleconference to a mass audience. That would make the possibility of good public speaking even more remote as non-verbal communication is also important.

 

[FreeChile]

Actually, I have to shift gears when I hear all the political talk. I've read very little of his sociology and political commentary, and much more of his linguistic theory (which also suffers from idealism, btw).

The thing is, most folks aren't great public speakers. Heck, even great writers aren't necessarily great readers. I can't count how many brilliant poets and novelists I've heard give absolutely atrocious readings.

The exceptions, like Coleman Barks, are rare.

The thing is, though, re the OP, that the argument that dull lectures somehow focus the audience on the material... that's totally bogus. I have to go back to Richard Feynman -- now there's a guy who can make physics exciting, and that's no small task (except for geeks like me, who are fascinated by it regardless).

Improving one's lecturing skills actually helps the audience focus on, and understand, the material.

I agree. But we must understand that it requires a great deal of work and that is why many, like Chomsky, are unable to do it, because their research efforts are a handful in itself.

Although, I think that once you establish the groundwork for speaking well, the work to repeat it is much less.

 

[Piggy]

But we must understand that it requires a great deal of work and that is why many, like Chomsky, are unable to do it, because their research efforts are a handful in itself.

Yeah, I agree. But if that's the case, let him say so. The quote in the OP is just BS, seems to me.

 

[FreeChile]

Yeah, I agree. But if that's the case, let him say so. The quote in the OP is just BS, seems to me.

Well, it is only a quote. I personally don't know the context of the discussion and what was actually said or if any of the issues raised here were actually raised. The whole OP seems to me like a trolling effort or an investigative effort to see how many would actually jump and make this a political issue.

If this was indeed all that was said as a reply and noone followed up, it does seem like BS and a simple instinct to self-defend when put on the spot. It all seems like a very casual issue from where I stand and nothing more and being a public individual and accustomed to political engagement, Chomsky, probably reacted in a defensive way.

This may have also been an effort to break the ice with the audience at the beginning of a talk. I think I heard a talk by him on www.chomsky.info where he was discussing the tone of his lectures. I think in that case, the speaker was out of questions to ask and simply ended the interview with that. In another, I think he was very highly introduced by someone else and he began by talking about what others say about his speaking skills. Sort of bringing it back to earth a bit even though he does tend to lavish on his agrandizement.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I agree. But we must understand that it requires a great deal of work and that is why many, like Chomsky, are unable to do it, because their research efforts are a handful in itself.

Although, I think that once you establish the groundwork for speaking well, the work to repeat it is much less.

I did it again. Since the insult was public, so shall be the apology. That freefool crap I pulled on you was out of line. I did it, and I apologize to you for being such an ass about it.

DR

 

[Number Six]

You could not communicate gestures efficiently via teleconference to a mass audience. That would make the possibility of good public speaking even more remote as non-verbal communication is also important.

I agree but that's part of my point too. Going to the trouble of communicating in person is better, but on top of that going to the trouble of communcating in person in a manner that engages the audience is better yet.

If someone...and I can't remember if someone said Chomsky did this or not, but regardless...if someone goes to the trouble of speaking to a group in person but then puts down the idea of making it interesting to the audience because that would be putting style over substance then they're just drawing an arbitrary line. After all, if speaking in person and making it interesting is pandering in comparison to speaking in person in whatever style you want, then isn't speaking in person in whatever style you want pandering in comparison to speaking via teleconference?

 

[FreeChile]

I did it again. Since the insult was public, so shall be the apology. That freefool crap I pulled on you was out of line. I did it, and I apologize to you for being such an ass about it.

DR

I didn't take it as an insult. I thought you were speaking casually in a comical way and not trying to insult me. So I simply ignored it. Even if I took it negatively, I tend to ignore things like that as they actually hurt the person engaged in it more than it does me. I just cut it out and focus on the issue if possible.

Since you have given, I will also give. I shouldn't have used the word "accusation." It would have been more appropriate for me to paraphrase your original statement.

Finally, I do think Chomsky gets boring after a while. But so do many other speakers after listening to them multiple times. It's like a movie rerun. However, I use Chomsky as a reference, just like I do any other literature, on- or off-line.

 

[FreeChile]

I agree but that's part of my point too. Going to the trouble of communicating in person is better, but on top of that going to the trouble of communcating in person in a manner that engages the audience is better yet.

If someone...and I can't remember if someone said Chomsky did this or not, but regardless...if someone goes to the trouble of speaking to a group in person but then puts down the idea of making it interesting to the audience because that would be putting style over substance then they're just drawing an arbitrary line. After all, if speaking in person and making it interesting is pandering in comparison to speaking in person in whatever style you want, then isn't speaking in person in whatever style you want pandering in comparison to speaking via teleconference?

I heard or saw an interview with Chomsky recently where he discusses the media and how he believes most media is more interested in making a good presentation rather than showing the truth. That may or may not have anything to do with his reasons for communicating the way he does. I believe he was talking about a newspaper or magazine photograph, perhaps the New York Times or Time Magazine. The issue the media was concerned with was whether Chomski should appear with or without his glasses. I think he was trying to connect that story with the issue of media advertisement--meaning that the media tends to commercialize things including the issues and candidates--not presenting the truth but a distortion of it, like advertisement.

My opinion is that Chomski simply researches the material, prepares for the speeches, and disregards the delivery at this point. He is also careful in choosing his words; but they are mostly pre-canned by him; you simply find him repeating the same phrases. Simply because he has done it so many times. This applies to many people who are mature in their fields including music, science, etc. Very rarely do you find a musician change his style late in his career.

 

[Piggy]

Very rarely do you find a musician change his style late in his career.

Maybe so, but the very best musicians change their style continually through their careers -- I'm thinking of, for instance, Ray Charles, Bob Dylan, Louis Armstrong, The Beatles, Aretha Franklin, Miles Davis, Johnny Cash, and JJ Cale.

 

[EGarrett]

The whole OP seems to me like a trolling effort or an investigative effort to see how many would actually jump and make this a political issue.

No. The OP is an investigative effort to discuss exactly what it says.

Since everyone is trying to re-rail this thread and get back to the issue of boring lectures, EGarrett, why did you choose to post this thread on the politics section and not the education section of the JREF forums? You were sure to get derailed by posting it here.

Because I'm a schmuck.