Thread by @biblioracle

A couple of days ago I did a thread on the difference between "debaters" and "illuminators" in public writing, using @tressiemcphd as an example of an illuminator. Today I have an object example of a debater.👇🧵

As I tried to show in the earlier thread, an illuminator is interested in shining a light on a phenomenon in order to increase the sum total of our collective understanding of that phenomenon.

https://twitter.com/biblioracle/status/1480900655246155779

A debater wants to "win" an argument, winning being gauged by moving people toward your position, or receiving approval or what have you. Winning may require obscuring as much or more than illuminating.

There's nothing inherently wrong with debating v. illuminating. Obviously this is how politicians must operate in a zero sum world where you can vote for only one candidate. Same when we're debating legislation that can either be enacted or thwarted. Debate is an important thing.

But I think it's important also to be aware of how the debater framework when employed thoughtlessly and at volume on social media degrades the overall information/opinion space and ultimately makes it much harder to reach positive consensus supported solutions.

Back to my initial example. Like many other liberal-ish opinionators, MY has declared that it is irrefutable that schools should be open to in-person instruction. To win that argument requires painting those who think things are more complicated as irrational.

This requires the construction of a strawman in which those who apply more caution than him to in-person instruction are somehow against the state providing useful public services. This is, of course, reductive and wrong, but it's helpful in terms of positioning the debate.

But it's easy to see how this debater mindset obscures instead of illuminates. Yglesias has no idea what's truly going on at the school where the students walked out, but he's willing, without evidence, to assert that it is unjustified because this helps his position.

This is fundamentally anti-illumination because illumination would almost certainly reveal a complex, more nuanced situation likely involving some measure of institutional failure. Inviting the notion that institutions aren't up to the task challenges MY's position.

Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with Yglesias' chosen mode of public discourse. It obviously works for him both personally and in the marketplace of ideas, but I want to make an argument for why readers should look for the illuminators.

The biggest difference between an illuminator and a debater is that the debater is trying to get you to adopt their judgement and opinion as your own. The illuminator is trying to better arm you to figure stuff out for yourself. Illuminators want you to think.

It's not that illuminators don't have clear stances. No one would accuse @tressiemcphd of not being clear on the issues. But that clarity is coupled with a transparency of the thinking that arrived at that stance. The illuminator shows the work for the benefit of the audience.

My bias towards illuminators is clear, but I also think collectively we'd be better off if we can recognize these different rhetorical approaches, and understand the effects they have on how we discuss and debate issues.

In working with students, I want them to get to a place where they will not reflexively outsource their own power of insight to someone else, which is why I steer them towards a writing practice oriented around illumination, rather than debate.

Once you recognize the patterns and practices of debaters v. illuminators, the distinctions become easier and easier to see and students really will think more deeply and with greater nuance about what they're writing. Writing is no longer a performance.

Writing IS thinking. When you read an illuminator you can see the thinking on the page. You're not just being told stuff, you're being shown the journey that arrived at the place. When students achieve this for themselves, it's transformational.

Don't get me wrong, I argue a lot in my public writing, and I very much want to be right and want people to be swayed by me, but I also want to achieve that by also making sure I'm illuminating. If I have to hide the ball to be convincing, I have to rethink the argument.

Here's a good pickup by Dr. Green on the example MY tweet that illustrates my distinction. I do not want to have to activate an existing prejudice to win an argument. I want to be accurate to the available information and evidence.

https://twitter.com/NCGreen_1776/status/1481629727219716101

Another way of thinking about it is debate is oriented around the short term, illumination is more about the long game. I obviously prefer talking about things as part of the long game because I think we have big problems that need deep thinking and complex solutions.

And again, it's not that debaters are inherently bad. They're necessary, but as a mode it has its limits and is also practiced irresponsibly. As readers we can help clean up some of these problems.

My preference is that when people see this story about students walking out, rather than sneering, "Ugh, those kids..." they instead say, "I wonder what's going on there?" The latter continues the discussion and leads towards illumination.

I always forget to include that if you're looking for a writing curriculum oriented around helping students become thinkers and illuminators, I got you covered. It's being used from 8th grade into college because writing is thinking at any age. bookshop.org/a/1793/9780143…