I was musing over Yvonne Lee’s article… [I can't help it... things tend to float around in my head.] and its presentation. Too reminiscent of the previous one done by yet another.
Let’s put it this way:
Majority of readers out there are ignorant about
1. Nomenclature of Law
2. Scientific research on homosexuality
Add these facts to the above:
1. Human beings do not like the status quo challenged because changes require mental effort and an open heart.
2. Whatever is unknown/new requires more mental effort to process.
3. Whatever requires more mental effort is likely not processed when one is in a hurry or when one has little stakes in it.
4. People think that professors know everything. [E.g. Even if you are a business Prof, people think you understand how the world begun.]
Can you imagine the effect of flooding the average reader with a bunch of law terms, followed by some general sweeping statements?
It’s like…
“Confuse them first! Then we feed them hogwash!”
I am not saying that readers are stupid. Readers are generally untrained… and how many would read the papers with such care? Most reading is done rather perfunctory- probably in the toilet or over the breakfast table. Readers typically don’t analyze what the author is saying. As such, what they take away is on the surface.
“Oh, a law professor? She must be an expert! So what she said must make tons of sense…”
But gee… who would ever know if such tactics are intentional or a mere coincidence? *blink*
—————————————————
I have forgotten about this article, which is related to this post… until someone read it.
