Hacker News Reader

Comment by chasing | Hacker News Reader

Non-fiction writing is entirely built upon trust. I have to trust that the author is attempting to tell the truth because I don't have the resources to fact-check every little thing.

Jonah Lehrer violated this trust. Big time. He has shown himself to be someone who lies and manipulates. And I think this is a cynical manipulation in an attempt to restore his career. (He should donate that $20k to some charity, btw.)

But he has forever lost my trust. There are too many other good writers and good books out there -- there will never be a reason for me to pick up a Jonah Lehrer book or pay attention to his words. Sorry.

Let's find some less well-known thinkers who deserve our attention and leave this guy out of the public conversation.

View on HN

On one hand, I'm more likely to believe Lehrer now, because he will be writing for a large audience of people who would love nothing more than to catch him out again. Very few authors will publish under the kind of scrutiny he will, for a few years.

On the other hand, I'm less likely because he's a shameful liar, and I don't want to contribute to his livelihood as a liar. I mean, if he was a barrista I'd give him a tip, but it's hard to lie about a latte.

So I suppose when you add these two things together I'm more likely to finish my goddamn software project.

There's an ambiguity in your comment. You set up "more likely to believe Lehrer now", and then in the second paragraph go on to say:

"On the other hand, I'm less likely [to believe Lehrer now] because he's a shameful liar, and I don't want to contribute to his livelihood as a liar. I mean, if he was a barrista I'd give him a tip, but it's hard to lie about a latte."

It strikes me that the part I have italicised is an entirely separate point, disconnected from the "two hands" you had established.

I point this out in such a pedantic way because I think this separate point about not wanting to contribute to the livelihood of a liar is a particularly interesting (moral) one which could be elaborated on. Also, I found your barista analogy entertaining!

Could it also be the case that if you looked closely enough at any prolific and successful (both conditions) non-fiction writer, you would discover pretty much the same thing?

I see this akin to Doping in upper echelon Bicycling - it's not the case that you found the guilty one, it's just the case that you paid close attention to one, and they are all (at the highest echelons) pretty much guilty of the same thing, so of course the one you paid attention to was guilty. Even the cleanest of the clean, Lance Armstrong, turns out to have been guilty.

The writers who never plagarize, never tweak their quotes, never make up a few memorable and interesting (and perhaps somewhat fictional) might be those you never read because it's by doing those things that a writer comes up with interesting material. (At least those who write a substantial volume - it might be easier to be a highly successful completely clean non-fiction writer who only generates a smallish volume)

Long ago I basically decided that everything written down is almost guaranteed to be completely false, so I look to it for entertainment, and I'm never disappointed when it turns out be fraudulent.

That's why I never understood the excitement over Daisey and his, Chinese Factory Monologues - of course they were fictional. All reporting is, to some degree, fiction.

/pedantic rant

The cleanest of the clean is Greg LeMond, not Lance Armstrong. Greg LeMond is now the only American cyclist to with the Tour de France. Greg LeMond has been a vocal proponent of clean riding and a vocal critic of Lance Armstrong.

During the height of Lance Armstrong's popularity, Lance used his control at Trek to shut down the LeMond line of bicycles to punish Greg for his continued public comments about doping.

No one intimately involved in bicycling was under any illusion that Lance wasn't cheating. It had been regularly coming out that his saved blood failed newer tests for doping and other irregularities.

Calling Lance the cleanest of the clean would be like calling baseball's Mark McGuire the cleanest of the clean. If you followed the sport (and saw his ridiculous head size), you knew he was not only cheating, but the best at it.

/end of pedantry

I see. And you've never needed a second chance yourself?

I am very grateful for the second chances I've received in life.

Being a wealthy, best-selling author is not a right. Of course he deserves a second chance as a human being. I'm sure he's not that bad of a guy.

But I feel he's forfeited this opportunity [to be a high-profile science journalist]. At least as far as I'm concerned. Plenty of other great stuff to read.

I've never read any of his writing, so I have no opinion about its quality.

But this was as thorough an apology as I can recall seeing from anyone about anything. I will be very surprised if he turns out not to have meant it.

It actually predisposes me to take a look at whatever he writes next. The process of confronting one's character flaws and addressing them deepens a person. I expect that whatever he has to say next will be edifying -- as indeed this piece was.

EDITED to add: it's certainly possible I'm being naive and accepting his apology too easily.

> But this was as thorough an apology as I can recall seeing from anyone about anything.

I thought that at first too, but then I wondered what was with that story about the Muslim lawyer who was erroneously picked up and jailed by the FBI and it turned out they had it wrong. Is he saying he's a victim?!?!? That's what it started to sound like to me. So I'm not sure I believe it's an apology.

If that story is supposed to be an analogy, Jonah Lehrer is the FBI. The Muslim lawyer wasn't the one who made mistakes that had consequences, and the Muslim lawyer wasn't the one that needed explicit procedures to decrease the odds of it happening again. That was the FBI (and Lehrer).

Yes, he is highly motivated to wish his problems away. He has a lot of work to do to repay his self inflicted debt to society.

There are mistakes, then there are breaches of ethics, and then there are breaches of ethics so severe that you don't get a second chance. (You embezzle money, you don't get a second chance at handling finances for a living.)

I wish Lehrer luck in whatever career he chooses to switch to in the future.

Oh, he deserves a second chance. Just go ahead and stand in line, after those who have been doing their work honestly and still waiting for their first chances to come.

I've never read anything by him, but I'd say I'm more likely to do so now, having read this speech. Of course I won't just believe whatever he says because he says it, but then again I could say that about anyone. My default position is skepticism. Popular non-fiction writing is about marketing and what will sell from an airport book kiosk far more than it is about trust. It may well be that Lehrer has nothing to offer us in book form but marketability, and he may not have that anymore. Unlike most speeches, however, this one said something of interest.

Not suggesting this isn't true, but consider this:

Most people on this site consider themselves skeptics;

Most people on this site will read something that comes from a source and, if they are not experts in the field being discussed, will tend to accept it;

This is more likely should the argument be well put together;

This will happen despite us considering ourselves skeptics;

Because it is easier to accept a well written article on an issue we know little about rather than research it ourselves;

Many of us will subsequently argue a position based upon the information contained in said article or discussion, especially against other non-experts

It doesn't matter how skeptical you consider yourself it's simply too mentally expensive to look for backup on everything you read, and we are really bad at guessing what things are outright lies when those lies are presented in an intelligent and intelligible form

All points well taken. It is difficult to be sufficiently skeptical about topics on which one doesn't have enough background, especially when one is surrounded by "experts". There's another dynamic at play here as well: many of us on HN grew up wanting to learn and know as much as we could about a wide range of topics. This motivation is an aspect of curiosity, and it is a good attitude for children, but it leads us astray when we're adults. We can seek all possible knowledge about our narrow areas of specific expertise, at least until we can develop a sense of what to retain and what to ignore. However, for the broad sweep of general human knowledge that we can't carefully study ourselves, we ought to cultivate an attitude of intentional, studied indifference. It's fine to pay a bit of attention to everything that catches the eye, and it's fine to slowly add to the set of topics about which we're truly knowledgeable, but most of what we "learn" we should consider a form of entertainment.

That goes double for what I learn on HN! Update your priors, but at a steady, slow rate.

Most people on this site will read something that comes from a source and, if they are not experts in the field being discussed, will tend to accept it, unless another expert from that field offers a contrarian comment explaining what is wrong with it

THAT'S what I love about HN.

I might suggest that you help (in some small way) improve the quality of these popular non-fiction books by not supporting people like Jonah Lehrer. Let him experience a literary death penalty. It'll help keep other writers from falling into that same trap.

That is good advice for anyone who cares about the quality of popular non-fiction.

I'm fascinated with this whole Lehrer affair, not sure why.

I think the problem with Lehrer and esp. his last book is that what he had to say was not very interesting, novel, or enlightening, EVEN with the help of fabricated quotes to backup his claims. That is, if the quotes/anecdotes had been true, it would not have been a better book.

There was a fantastic (very critical and negative) article about this book that came out before the scandal; the scandal obscured those issues. (Can't remember the author or website but will try to look it up later!)

This article pointed out that the whole thesis of Lehrer (and his many predecessors and followers in the self-help department) is circular: it simply tries to define success as, well, success.

What's more, I believe people who are outraged with Lehrer "lies" are a little delusional.

There isn't a world of difference between picking and choosing (true) anecdotes in support of a specific thesis, and outright making them up.

Actual honesty would be to report all facts (which may be impossible) and pay special attention to those who may contradict what you are trying to say (the scientific approach).

But in the land of Gladwell there are no liars.

> But in the land of Gladwell there are no liars.

Could you elaborate on that?

I'll rephrase: picking and choosing true anecdotes in support of a specific thesis, while leaving out other true anecdotes that don't support that thesis, isn't (in my book) that different from making up anecdotes.

I'm not accusing Gladwell of ever "lying"; I have issues with "anecdotal evidence" which deserves its bad rep, and on which Gladwell (and many, many others) built their whole careers.

I think Lehrer is early.

Some time ago, lies and distortions that are routinely used today in fiction (TV, film, even novels) would have been considered unbecoming and simply unthinkable. But nowadays, what would be unthinkable in fiction "based on a true story", would be to stick to the facts.

But journalism is also fiction; the very act of reporting isn't neutral, it creates a new reality.

Thanks for elaborating on that.

I do think it's possible to do actual journalism. If we keep the error and bias level below a certain threshold, it looks factual enough. I think this attitude that modern journalists have--that we're all equally biased, so just admit your bias up front and then we'll all figure it out on our own--is lazy and wasteful. It's lazy, because if they would simply make an effort at being unbiased they would find they can do it, and it's wasteful with my time, because now it's assumed that I'll go read a bunch of other biased sources and form my opinion. This means I need three times as much journalism, and I didn't want any to begin with. So I'd say, yes, it's a fact that reporting creates a new reality, but it doesn't have to do so with the kind of audacious intentionality that most modern news does. A small amount of unintentional change is a lot more manageable than flagrant, unnecessary meddling.

As for Gladwell, I really enjoy his essays. I have a lot of trouble expressing their content after reading them, though, which made me think of them more as a form of entertainment than reporting. As for his books, I agree with you completely, they're basically bullshit. But they're an interesting diversion.

The most significant bias in media isn't variation in individual opinion it is the systemic bias present in corporate media.

Anyone know what it means to "self-plagiarize"? I don't always give myself enough credit for my ideas. Do I need to make amends?

Yeah- he's still selling the book, btw www.<hisname>.com/books/imagine/

What $20k? I don't see that in his post.

The Knight foundation paid him $20k to give that speech.

Ahh, thanks. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com