In Jonah Lehrer's "The Future of Reading" he writes with a set agenda. He wants to persuade his readers that, while the future of reading, one that involves Kindle and e-ink, is all good, it has its drawbacks. One of those drawbacks, he explains, is a loss of comprehension. Exactly how he goes about with this persuasion is scientific in the way he arranges his thoughts.
The first point in which the reader finds his argument is when he says, "My problem is that consumer technology moves in a single direction: It’s constantly making it easier for us to perceive the content." Up until this point, he has simply told the reader that he is an avid book reader and that he has a bit of a problem with e-readers, but he doesn't say exactly what. Even now, he does not explain right off the bat exactly what he means by "making it easier for us to perceive the content....we will trade understanding for perception." More importantly, he doesn't explain why he feels that is bad. This would be his introduction, using Bacon's terms. This is Lehrer's introduction of his "experiment", one in which he will conclude with a cause. Drawing on the idea of the ascending and descending ladder, the cause will in turn result in new experiments. So, this being his experiment, his hypothesis is that more easily perceived content will result in a drop in comprehension.
As the scientific arrangement progresses, Lehrer moves on to the methods and materials step. This would be the section where he explains the neuroscience behind his reasoning. He explains that there are two methods of reading. One of these involves more difficult text to read physically, due to ink smudges and whatnot, or mentally, due to an awkward phrasing or unknown word. This method, however, results in better comprehension, as explained through the neural activity of the human brain.
After the methods and materials section, Lehrer goes straight on to his results. He explains as clearly as possible, what he wishes for readers to do. He states, "here’s my wish for e-readers. I’d love them to include a feature that allows us to undo their ease, to make the act of reading just a little bit more difficult." This brings everything full circle. The reader has heard his views, read the reasons and facts behind it, and, if the persuasion has worked, is now on Lehrer's side as he presents his results.
While you do point out that Lehrer uses the Baconian scientific method and this makes his article scientific, does this make his article persuasive? I personally was not persuaded by his article and I'm wondering if you were, and what about his article persuaded you?
ReplyDeleteConsidering that I read this on an electronic medium (blog), do you feel that my words have grown less poignant than if I had written them on paper? Perhaps this would have been an interesting point to present. Perhaps I understand your point very well, but like you suggest, perhaps my perception ability in reading your article lacked as a result of it being online. It's somewhat ironic to think about.
ReplyDeleteJust my two cents. It's a fascinating idea to me.
I agree a lot with Shelli. Is he strictly speaking in a logical, scientific manner, or is it possible that he is attempting to be persuasive? Could the scientific arrangement simply be a coincidence in his desire to persuade? Or do you think he is trying to challenge the reader to come to his own conclusions because he uses such a logical, straight-forward path?
ReplyDelete