All those tweets, apps, updates may drain brainMay I make a suggestion? They also may NOT. And if that's as much of a likelihood (and it is) then why is anyone wasting our time with it? Why is the reporter, James Temple, being paid - in this economy - to waste our time with it? And why should I even bother to think about what James Temple shouldn't be paid to waste my time with?
See, that "may" tells me the entire premise of James Temple's article is a scam, a fraud, a deception, a waste - his entire article means nothing. "All those tweets, apps, updates may drain brain" or "All those tweets, apps, updates may NOT drain brain" but, because nobody knows, there's no point in James Temple telling me because guess what? I read the news to "know" something, not to be introduced to James Temple's guessing games.
Now here's a headline I like:
Blind Tasters Can't Tell Cheap Wines From ExpensiveWhy do I like it? Because it's actually telling us something we can use. What's it saying? It's saying wine is a scam, a fraud, a deception, a waste - the entire business is based on nothing. Absolutely nothing. It's saying, if you want to drink wine, a cheap bottle is good enough. There's no "may" in there. It's not saying "Blind Tasters May Not Be Able To Tell Cheap Wines From Expensive" - it says they "Can't Tell Cheap Wines From Expensive" - that's definitive. There's no wiggle room. All you have to do is understand that and - viola! - you're free of participating in a con.
But most wine drinkers won't stop participating in the con. Like cultists, after the guru's been busted or exposed, they'll keep on insisting there's something to wine because their identities are wrapped up in not admitting they've spent most of their lives living a lie.
And that - being surrounded by cultish thinking - is what makes critical thinking hard.
(Click the "wine" tag, below, for more on this BS industry.)