The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Rewrite This Paper as if You Were Not Angry"
Good advice from Emily Chamlee-Wright, now the President of the Institute of Humane Studies and former professor, Associate Dean, and Provost.
Particular useful for academic articles, but also for whenever one seeks to persuade a skeptical audience that is looking for reasoned argument.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Finish what you’re writing.
Put it away for two days.
Then look at it.
But you only waited 2 minutes!
… Unless you are writing fiction. And if you write a paper angry your audience will treat it as such.
If they’re that averse to justified anger they’re bound to be pretty much useless anyway.
It’s not aversion to justified anger in the abstract. Rather, it’s that an author’s anger tends to make it harder for the author to do a really thoughtful and fair-minded analysis (not a certainty, but a tendency); as a result, readers who are interested in thoughtful and fair-minded analysis have learned to be skeptical of arguments that are visibly angry.
Just a thought from a tired man but…
“…readers who are interested in thoughtful and fair-minded analysis have learned to be skeptical of arguments that are visibly angry.”
Are there many readers left looking for fair-minded, thoughtful analysis of anything? Too many authors of all types appear to write items that are purposefully visibly angry to draw in folks sympathetic to their argument. It might be my lack of sleep effecting my perception/thoughts but it just seems like there’s a lack of people trying to calmly convince anyone of anything anymore.
I fully agree that you shouldn’t write something angry unless you are writing a rant for something like Lewis Black’s “The Rant is Due” lest emotion get away from you.
In the midst of great joy, do not promise anyone anything. In the midst of great anger, do not answer anyone’s letter.
I need a nap.
I would think that the resulting difficulty in doing “a really thoughtful and fair-minded analysis” would be sufficient in and of itself to impair the persuasiveness of your writing, without any indirect causation dependent on your readers figuring out that you were mad when you wrote it.
Some of David Bernstein’s posts could benefit from this advice.
As could many of the comments to his posts.
Commenters should get some slack because the topic is sprung on them and they have to post relatively quickly. I’m very glad for the edit feature because at least one gets a 5 minute cool off period.
they have to post relatively quickly
No, actually, they don’t.
If they want their comments read, they do.
Nobody looks at the comments from a four-day-old thread.
This might come as a shock to you, but there’s a LOT of gray area between blurting something out with no time taken for thought vs taking 4 days to comment.
Ha! When I saw the headline, I immediately thought of Bernstein, the bulk of whose posts could start, “You wanna know what grinds my gears?”
Wait. Not Josh Blackman???
Nah, Josh’s posts say “Behold my cringeworthy inflated self-esteem, as I elaborate at length on every one of my passing banal thoughts.” “I hate you” is more of a Bernstein thing.
^^^^ Circle jerk in progress.
A fine motto for the Volokh Conspiracy!
(Anything would be better than “Often libertarian”)
And if you are looking to win a presidential debate, rewrite this response as if you were angry.
When was the last time we had a real debate?
2016 Trump/Rodman was pretty good “You’re Putin’s Puppet” “No Puppet, No Puppet, you’re the Puppet!”
I think that shit eating grin on Hilary Rodman’s face won it for “45”
Frank
Not sure that was a “real” presidential debate, but it was probably the best moment of one of the funniest series we have ever had.
Is that advice similarly useful in the context of those contemplating viewpoint-driven censorship of blog comments?
No
I sense your hero agrees with you.
Vida Blue???????? But he’s dead.
But how often are we dealing with “a skeptical audience that is looking for reasoned argument?”
Well, not here, obviously.
Other audiences might be more amenable to such.
For journalists:
Rewrite this news story as if you weren’t advocating for one side.
Because it will make you a more effective advocate for that side. And, remember: Sincerity is important, so learn how to fake it.
Some of the commenterati here whose comments show up in gray boxes when I’m logged on could use this advice.
However since in each each case their ‘Mute User’ status was hard earned by repeated posts lacking any insight or logical argument and instead rely on name calling, stereotyping, and racism to support their ridiculous positions, perhaps the better advice for them would be “Rewrite This Comment as if You Were Not A Low IQ Toddler”.
Yes, Costco House Brand Reverend, I’m looking at you (but all I see is a gray box!
I’ll remember your comment as I am pissing on the graves of Volokh Conspiracy fans’ (and Conspirators’) doomed right-wing political preferences.
OK, Jerry, I have pissed on graves of peoples I umm, “resented” (Like FDR’s Scottie “Fala” I can resent like a Mo-Fo) Never seems as good as you think it’s gonna be, first its usually a resentment from years ago which necessitates a cross country trip, or at least a flight. Second, even with “Find a Grave” https://www.findagrave.com/ its not that easy to find the Piss-ee (“Block J”?? where the eff is Block I??) Third, by the time you find the grave, there’s always some Weisen-heimer cutting grass, placing flowers, or even worse, a funeral, so you gotta hold your piss (not good for your Detrusor) or come back later, Did the next best thang at Teddy the K’s grave, pissed in a Gatorade bottle, nonchalantly acted like I was “emptying” it before placing it in the correct recycling receptacle…
Frank
Wonderful advice! Some things have to be done with a smile on one’s face; for example, it is appropriate to grin when discussing the history — particularly relevant this week in June — of Attorney General Robert H. Bork (who was nominated to be, but rejected as, a Justice of the Supreme Court) and his tangential role regarding the tapes which revealed potential criminal activity by President Richard M. Nixon. The WaPo cartoon (by Herbert L. Block, at https://www.loc.gov/rr/print//swann/herblock/images/hblock11.jpg ) can spur the grin as we reading that very same ‘news’ outlet dismissing the J. Biden Tapes as vigorously — and as wrongly — as it dismissed the H. Biden laptop.
It is with a smile that one should remark that history doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes or, as Marx noted, “history repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a farce.” In this week and next, we recall the tragedy of Nixon’s downfall as we chuckle at the more farcical downfall of the Brobdingnag media and the defalcator(s) they foolishly support.
“But how often are we dealing with ‘a skeptical audience that is looking for reasoned argument?’”
Uh, this is a law blog, right? Isn’t that what lawyers are supposed to do?
Yes, this is a law blog. BUT…it’s target audience has dramatically changed. In the old days [ripple effect; sepia tones], I think the posts were aimed at lawyers, law students, law professors, and the like. But now, I doubt that 10% of us fall into these categories.
There are lots of serious people here. But, most of the posters are incredibly angry, and/or are trolls, and/or are Russian bots, and/or are bored and lonely men, living in mom’s basement, looking for diversions from their sad and pathetic lives. So, we end up with a lot of comments that are, sadly, predictable; and full of sound and fury and signifying . . . well, you get the idea..
“Isn’t that what lawyers are supposed to do?”
LOL! No one giving any attention to this thread could suppose that lawyers (and a number are quite evidently lawyers) are a “skeptical audience that is looking for reasoned argument’”.
Hard to say. The people who post most often are probably the least likely to fall under “skeptical audience that is looking for reasoned argument,” but I imagine there are many lurkers / occasional posters who qualify.
You’re wrong. And you’re an idiot. And everybody knows it.
Okay, that was pretty funny. (It took me a minute to get the parody/irony. I think it may fly over the heads of many readers…mostly because your comment is well down from the OP.)
That’s because I took a long pause before posting it, to make sure it was measured and well-reasoned.
Best 1-2 punch in the comment section in a long while. Well done, sir!
Why thank you. With that I’ll retire to my country estate (i.e., the recliner in front of the TV).
Magnificent comment, worthy of celebration.
(Here’s a longer dose, but you might want to start five minutes in . . .)
The Go-Go’s reference is lost on me, but just to be clear, my comment was a joke.
The songs (and Hall of Fame celebration) were an attempt to salute a great comment and bring a bit of brightness to a blog dominated by various forms of bigotry, delusion, and disaffectedness.
That is what ChatGPT is for.
This is very good advice, as anger is not useful for solving problems, it only prevents you from thinking soberly, which then leads to even bigger problems. Yes, I couldn’t control it, but over time my mental state began to deteriorate, and it’s a good thing that Australia Counselling came to my aid, which helped me cope with my anger and aggression, which subsequently improved my mental state and returned me to a normal lifestyle. I recommend everyone to visit mental therapists, because they can put you back on your feet and pull you out of the moral abyss.