In the past few months, I have received quite a few comments, some critical and some complimentary, especially about my article on Harry Potter in March and my most recent column on religion. I appreciate both the complimentary and the critical letters. Listening objectively to both helps one improve one's communication skills. However, with both types of letters I sometimes wonder if the reader critically evaluated what I had written. I thought it would be worthy to suggest some rules by which I evaluate what I read that the reader might find helpful as well.
First of all, I don't believe anything I read or hear just because it is on TV or in print and I don't expect you to do so either. Some writers do not do their homework very well, inadvertently printing incorrect information. Some may even do it on purpose in order to promote their personal agendas. I appreciate gracious remarks from readers, but at the same time I hope they know that my degrees, experience, or publications do not prove that I am right. The education and experiences of writers increases the probability that they know what they are talking about, but critical evaluation of any published work requires one to analyze the information based on more than the credentials of the writer.
Likewise, for those who have criticized my work, if those criticisms are based on research in the field, then you have done well. That is part of the on-going process of seeking truth. However, if a reader's criticisms are based on visceral response rather than substance, replace emotion with critical analysis so that we all can benefit from the analysis. If you take exception to something I have written, check the data for yourself so that you can make an informed decision on the issue at hand.
Second, consistency of belief doesn't prove anything. We have a tendency to agree with a given perspective if we already thought that way to begin with and we tend to disagree with a perspective to which we already were opposed. A wise reader will consider the possibility that an argument could be correct, even when the argument opposes his or her preexisting notions, evaluating the evidence on which the argument is based. The argument is then either accepted or rejected based on objectivity rather than subjectivity.
Third, most of what I write is an assimilation of research in the area pertinent to the column. I try to avoid proliferating my column with data because it makes for tedious reading. However, I am always happy to provide sources and references for any reader who requests it. My goal is not to convert readers into my way of thinking on every subject. Rather, I intend to provide information, and in some cases inspiration, to parents so that they might make informed decisions about their children.
Finally, remember that a newspaper column is not meant to be exhaustive. The writer has limited space and she or he must choose what material is most pertinent to the column. There will always be exceptions to almost anything I write. What I try to provide for the reader is a synopsis of the general findings in the field on a given topic. It would require volumes to list every possible exception to what I have written. Human beings are a complex tapestry of sociological, biological, psychological, and ideological issues. To suppose that any writer would completely exhaust all possibilities in 600 words is unrealistic.
Whether you are reading an article in Time magazine, a research article in the New England Journal of Medicine, or a newspaper column, these guidelines apply. Critical analysis helps us decide when to change our behavior and when to continue doing things as we always have.
I like hearing from readers. It lets me know people are reading my column and, as I said before, both criticism and encouragement helps me to improve what I do. I appreciate all of you who read my column and I hope always to provide the best information and encouragement so that we can all become better parents for our children.
