JONATHAN CHAIT MAY 19, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Bill Keller's anti-Twitter column is taking enormous abuse on, naturally, Twitter. But I think he has at least half a point here:
As a kind of masochistic experiment, the other day I tweeted “#TwitterMakesYouStupid. Discuss.” It produced a few flashes of wit (“Give a little credit to our public schools!”); a couple of earnestly obvious points (“Depends who you follow”); some understandable speculation that my account had been hacked by a troll; a message from my wife (“I don’t know if Twitter makes you stupid, but it’s making you late for dinner. Come home!”); and an awful lot of nyah-nyah-nyah (“Um, wrong.” “Nuh-uh!!”). Almost everyone who had anything profound to say in response to my little provocation chose to say it outside Twitter. In an actual discussion, the marshaling of information is cumulative, complication is acknowledged, sometimes persuasion occurs. In a Twitter discussion, opinions and our tolerance for others’ opinions are stunted. Whether or not Twitter makes you stupid, it certainly makes some smart people sound stupid.
My first reaction to Twitter was also to shake my fist and yell at it to get off my lawn. Of course, my debut on twitter was inauspicious, as I chronicled at the time:
I read Emily Bazelon's article about how somebody was impersonating her on Twitter. I signed in, just to make sure nobody was doing this to me, only to discover that this meant I have officially joined Twitter. Ever since, I've been receiving regular messages about how many "followers" I've been accumulating. My only message on Twitter was an instruction to my "followers" to go away because I wasn't planning to tweet anything:
Unsurprisingly, I managed to bungle it and the message never went out.
But I tried to stay on Twitter, and I hated it for precisely the reason Keller identifies. You can crack jokes or call attention to new developments -- and Twitter is really useful and fun at this -- but you simply cannot have a decent argument or even discussion there. People do try, and it's about as ridiculous as Keller portrays. A while ago, my children were having the "uh huh!" "nuh uh!" argument with each other, and I solemnly took them aside and advised them that nobody, in the history of the world, had ever won a debate by outlasting the other person in repeating "uh uh" or "nuh uh." They actually listened to me and have never done it since. I suspect one day people will be offering this same advice about Twitter debates.
The irony here is that blogging, a medium that very recently occupied the same space in the old media mind that Twitter does today, is extremely useful for debate. You have unlimited space. You can go back and forth quickly, and link to your partner's arguments so that readers can have both sides of the debate. You can use hyperlinks to establish premises without gumming up your writing by spelling out every supporting piece of evidence.
My initial aversion to Twitter was based on seeing it as a retrogression from blogging -- a thing that's aimed at people who want a much stupider form of blogging. It is that if you try to use it for the same purpose. But as a device to communicate ideas that don't need to stand up to critical scrutiny -- i.e., here's a story you should read, or here's a little joke -- it's pretty great. I am on Twitter now and no longer urging my followers to go away.
11 comments
"... to shake my first and yell at it ..." There's one too many letters in that sentence. There needs to be a spell/grammar button that allows messages to be sent to the bloggers about spelling and grammar mishaps without cluttering up the discussion. I would think that Twitter would require a great deal more discipline than blogging. You would have to reign in your emotions to make sure you don't send out something you might regret. With blogging (I could be wrong about this) you, at least, re-read what you've written and it takes enough time that you "cool off" before you publish something rash.
- dirque
May 19, 2011 at 2:50am
well, how about the Atlantic's renewed effort to establish a giant twitter book club. read war and peace and tweet you critique. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/05/hey-internet-what-if-we-all-read-the-same-book/238931/
- kras
May 19, 2011 at 5:27am
"I am on Twitter now" That would have been a great place to include a link to your Twitter account, Mr. Chait.
- santoast
May 19, 2011 at 6:24am
Jonathan I think you might find this 6 minute clip, from Monty Python's argument clinic, a good example for your kids of the nuh uh vs. uh huh form of arguing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
- Nusholtz
May 19, 2011 at 7:13am
Of course Twitter doesn't work as a place to have real arguments or debate. It wasn't meant for that. Twitter is basically a notification/breaking news device. People who use it to debate substantive points look silly because they are using it in the wrong way. It's like using the electronic scroll in Times Square to debate economic theory. Therefore, the problem isn't with Twitter, which does precisely what it was intended to do and does it well. The problem is with people who misuse it. Mr Keller's displeasure should be directed not at Twitter but at the people who misuse it. So what if Twitter isn't good for a decent argument? That's not its purpose. Might as well complain that your public library is no good because you can't play a decent game of jai-alai in the children's fiction section.
- DC Spence
May 19, 2011 at 7:14am
An article in the NYT last week indicated that the top students at places like MIT and Cal Tech are now going into the social network field. I suppose that's better than banking. But really. Will entertainment one day be America's only industry. As for twitter, why do I need to be the first to know breaking news; if my wife's in an accident, she will call me. Twitter makes the user feel more significant that he/she is, which I suppose is a good thing if it makes the user feel better about himself/herself. Yep, that's what twitter is all about: self esteem. We've become a nation of neurotics.
- rayward
May 19, 2011 at 7:56am
Nush, that's one of my favorites from Flying Circus. Thanks for the laugh. And speaking of funny and twitter, I found this site during a very slow day at the office. A collection of funny (some of them laugh-out-loud-hilarious) posts month by month that for some reason end with Oct 2010. Enjoy. http://www.besttweets.com/previous/funniest.html
- Tristan
May 19, 2011 at 8:49am
rayward we are not a nation of over sensitive neurotics now TAKE IT BACK TAKE IT BACK TAKE IT BACK. (sob)
- Tristan
May 19, 2011 at 8:53am
RAYWARD: One could argue that blogs are mainly a device for boosting self-esteem. At least, it certainly seems that way on a lot of blogs.
- DC Spence
May 19, 2011 at 9:07am
JC, you had me until your last sentence.
- JSAYKO@EXCITE.COM-old
May 19, 2011 at 12:20pm
Jonathan Chait at last has arrived at a sensible position on the uses - and idiocies - of Twitter.
- liberalref
May 19, 2011 at 1:32pm