The Anti-Soapbox: Collected Essays Read online

five: omission, defined as “something left out, not done, or neglected.”

  One more question (last one, I swear): How often have you witnessed a fact or news item being dismissed only because it originated outside the sphere of popular media? Additionally, have you ever tried convincing someone that such rogue information is true and valid? How long were you hoarse afterward?

  Believe it or not, much happens on Earth that is not reported and documented. Similarly, much is reported that is not available on television or other popular media forefronts. In other words, we don’t know everything. For many folks, this concept is largely alien, since, after all, anything newsworthy must find its way into popular media, as a sort of natural law. However, this assumption is not so, and it conspires with the widespread notion that if something is on television, it must be true. Thus, operating on this logic, if something is not on television, it must be false. A most dangerous conclusion, indeed, and one which governs the psychology and behavior of far more people than is comfortable. We see here the tightrope of omission, and all the illusion and fallacy it brings with it.

  To defend against the almighty omission, train the mind to think according to firmly established fact and the possibility of unknowns, not what is merely available or presented to you.

  In conclusion, I wish to quote an age-old Sunday-school song, “Oh Be Careful Little Ears”:

  “Oh, be careful little ears, what you hear …

  Oh, be careful little eyes, what you see …

  Oh, be careful little mouth, what you say …

  Oh, be careful little hands, what you do …

  Oh, be careful little feet, where you go …

  Oh, be careful little mind, what you think …

  Oh, be careful little heart, what you love.”

  There’s a war for your mind, friend, and everyone is fighting it, whether they know it or not. Ponder this essay’s abridged dictionary, and take heed, for the spoils of this war extend to your very soul.

  II. GIVE OPINION A SECOND CHANCE

  We hold such a low opinion of opinion, these days. But is that fair?

  For as long as I’ve been alive, the opinion has been equated with a certain bodily orifice, in that “everyone has one and they all stink.” I won’t contend that most of the time, this comparison holds true, for we are indeed a people fond of opinion, and more than a few of those opinions “stink,” in that they are hasty, ill-thought, and none too constructive. Yet, does that reflect on the opinion itself, or just how poorly we’re constructing them?

  The answer, I believe, is the latter.

  As it were, there is hope for the opinion yet. Just because it’s gained a “stinky” reputation, doesn’t mean that reputation has to be fulfilled. If only we could be a little more thoughtful and accountable in our opinion craft, we might see the opinion becoming a valid vehicle of communication and self-expression. But, so long as we keep recklessly churning out “stinky” ones, the opinion will never move up the linguistic ladder.

  The problem isn’t so much with our opinions, but the thoughts behind them. Narrow, shortsighted thinking is wont to forge a likeminded opinion, which is usually of the “stinky” variety, these conveying little relevant information other than its author’s small-mindedness. Plus, there is the matter of bias. All too often, opinions are either zealously adhered to or bitterly dismissed, yet both responses are equally shallow and invalid, since neither considers the actual merit of the opinion or the opined-upon (instead favoring appearances, vested interest, and knee-jerk emotional response). These sort of empty opinions are, in radio terms, all noise and no signal—a condition which, as it stands, describes much of our entire “marketplace of ideas,” where substance and reality have little importance over surface appeal.

  Conversely, a well-thought, broad-thinking opinion strictly avoids bias and other distortions, instead striving for objectivity. Furthermore, it will not only convey relevant, impartial information, but communicate it accurately, for how an opinion is communicated is just as important as what it communicates. And, of course, the better opinion will actually observe what is being opined on, taking into account facts and substance instead of just appearances and feelings.

  It’s the difference between “That’s good,” and “That’s good for me, now, at this present place and in these present circumstances and in this present mood.”

  Notice the rich set of parameters in the second, broad-thinking opinion. Not only do these convey more information, but they do so in a way which forbids assumptions, bias, and restriction. The importance of such precision is twofold, for it not only provides more raw information, but does so in a way which respects the big picture, as to create a solid linguistic and semantic framework, which is ultimately more functional than its stripped-down counterpart. For this reason, a broad, well-crafted opinion will exert a fundamentally different psychological effect on its listener, as to wholly avoid the dysfunction presented by its narrow opposite.

  To be sure, good opinions are heard differently than bad ones.

  Here, we enter the massive territory of linguistics and their effect on the mind and communication as a whole—that fancy-sounding field known formally as “neurolinguistics.” These neurolinguistic effects go beyond typical psychological response (such as, say, formulating a reply to a question), instead extending deep into the psychology of the communicants. Operating in that murky land of the subconscious, linguistic factors can bring about marked psychological effects, powerful enough to alter how we think, feel, and see ourselves and the outside world. That is, linguistics translate directly to our perception, and that, my friend, is no small matter.

  Consider, for instance, a statement that contains logical assumptions, as touched on earlier. The narrow, nondescript opinion of “That’s good” is clogged with potential assumptions—that that thing is good for everyone, without exception; that there’s no way that thing could be bad; that there is, perhaps, something wrong with you if you don’t think it’s good; that it will be forever good, everywhere, in every way. Etcetera. Once expressed, these assumptions are then imposed on the listener, consciously or subconsciously; and though the listener’s actual response hinges on their perception and other factors (including their own assumptions), the essential distortions are there, thus crippling communication. How might one feel after hearing a simple “That’s good” in regard to something that they have, in their experience, determined to be not so good? What might that person read into the opinion and its assumptions, and how might they respond? Continue this line of reasoning in light of the complex and delicate psychological interplay which underlies any human contact, and it illustrates the significance of seemingly small things such as word choice, broadness, phrasing, and other linguistic fineries. Without taking these factors into account, our opinions can actually inflict real psychological damage, in refute to the old wisdom of “sticks and stones.”

  We see here the origins of a truly “stinky” opinion, and its equally foul-smelling effects.

  Yet, I retain my vision of a better, functional opinion. Again, the opinion’s negatives are a result of bad authorship rather than a bad medium, and so can be avoided. By simply taking logical and linguistic factors into account, we may shape our opinions accordingly, as to be sound, objective, and respectable—far better-smelling, as it were. As a rule of thumb, try your own opinions out on yourself and observe your response (or, even better, try out your opinion’s opposite). With some conscientiousness and a little work, we can, I believe, reform our collective opinion-craft into something a bit less linguistically destructive, as to upgrade it from its present-day “stinky” status.

  So, really, maybe the opinion has gotten a bad wrap. Maybe we should give the old scoundrel a second chance, to rehabilitate it, restore its utility in life. With some refinement, broadening, and sophistication, the opinion can be reinvented as something useful instead of repugnant. History is rife with such turnarounds, and I personally am willing to give the opini
on a second chance.

  III. BLURRING THE LINE: FANTASY OR REALITY?

  Today, we face a psychological epidemic: of confusion between fantasy and reality. This is not a new concept; however, we presently face a new, specific variant of it, one that is uniquely dangerous.

  Entertainment plays a central role in this confusion.

  Namely, entertainment affects our minds, in ways we might not suspect. Of the many ways entertainment does so, most important is its depiction of reality, which brings with it distortions that might then be adopted by the entertainment’s consumer. Most entertainment includes some form of story and plot, and, usually, these stories are not realistic. As it stands, it is this element of unreality which has saturated modern-day minds and laid the groundwork for our state of confusion.

  Today’s entertainment is somewhat unique, since we have never before had such ready access to such a broad array of content. Also, there is a qualitive distinction to today’s entertainment, which, directly or indirectly, distorts its depiction of reality even further. This is due to, among other factors, our worldwide shortage of time. Besides the compromises present in any sort of fictional narrative, which lessen realism in certain key ways, modern entertainment bears the additional burden