A guy I was chatting with in the men’s lounge of the spa at Harrah’s in Atlantic City was telling me about “slide words.” I can’t find anything about them (and I’ve tried “slider words” and a few other variants) anywhere. I don’t think he made the term up, and he certainly didn’t think he had.

Anyway, even though I can’t find any background information or previous discussion, I am going to talk about “slide words” (or whatever they’re called).

A slide word, I gather, is a word or phrase that has come to serve as shorthand for an entire argument—except that the argument isn’t really there. We’re all just supposed to think it is. The slide word acts as a black hole, drawing further discussion and thoughtful debate into itself and killing it.

Slide words are bad because they take the place of actual analysis of situations and events. Every slide word has a kind of implicit, “Sigh. Here we go again” attached to it, even though the “again” part is asserted through the use of the slide word itself and not actually demonstrated.

I have something to say here about three slide words: conspiracy theory, Chinese menu, and bikeshed.

“Conspiracy theory”

“Conspiracy theory” is perhaps the best example of a slide word. Consider the following exchange, which is made up but is actually very similar to several I have had:

With the invocation of the term “conspiracy theory,” all further discussion of what might have actually happened is discredited. The events surrounding the death of John Kipalani’s son need not be examined in any detail; nor need the press coverage (or lack thereof). “Conspiracy theory” plays the role of a rebuttal of the statements about the Challenger disaster, even though it has no actual connection to them.

Again, the slide word (or slide phrase) gets played as if it were a trump card, when in fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of Bush’s culpability in the 9/11 attacks, and neither refutes the logic that’s on offer nor adds information that might bring about a reconsideration of that logic.

“Chinese menu”

Another slide word I’ve come across, in a somewhat narrower setting, is “Chinese menu.”

When I was teaching at a university, I was involved in lots of discussions, formal and otherwise, about core curricula: what they should include, how they should be administered, and so on. I remember that in one series of such discussions, any time anyone suggested anything along the lines of having students choose one or more courses from each of several course groupings, someone else would say, “That’s like a Chinese menu.” Eventually it became just “Chinese menu.”

I have no memory of any discussion of why it was considered a bad idea to adminster a core curriculum this way. All that was required to rebut the idea was “Chinese menu.” Actual argumentation did not enter into it.

“Bikeshed”

Another slide word, a rather obnoxious one that seems to be enjoying considerable popularity these days, is “bikeshed.” If someone says “bikeshed,” they’ve said all they need to say (or at least all they think they need to say, and certainly all they’re planning to say) to establish that what you have been talking about is trivial and not worth discussing.

Saying “bikeshed” to someone, instead of telling that person outright that you find his or her statements trivial and worthless, is not only needlessly indirect but, in most cases I’ve seen, wrong.

The original bikeshed concept, as I understand it (which is from second-hand accounts, so I could be wrong), had to do with the phenomenon of committees spending more time arguing over what color to paint the company bikeshed, than over the allocation of funds to build a nuclear power plant.

The problem with the typical usage of “bikeshed” today is that there’s no nuclear power plant in the picture. It’s more likely to be a bunch of people on an email list discussing the best name for a proposed new method in Ruby, or something like that. Then someone who feels superior to the discussion (which would exclude the creator of Ruby, as well as many of his colleagues, associates, and friends) comes along and says “Bikeshed.”

But if we weren’t talking about method names, we’d be talking about literal constructors for runtime objects. And if not that, then perhaps the question of whether parentheses around parameter lists in method definitions should be mandatory. All of these things are important to people interested in the Ruby programming language; but, with respect, I will state unequivocally that none of them is as important an issue as nuclear power.

Furthermore, saying “bikeshed” implies that you think the group you’re addressing not only is wasting its time on the current topic, but has a history of spending too little time on important things. Even scaling it down so that the important things aren’t really important things in the nuclear power sense, no one ever says what those things are. That’s probably because “bikeshed” is just a snide way to say, “What you’re saying is stupid,” and not a unit of cogent or well-sustained argumentation of any kind.

Thus slide words. I’m glad there’s a name for them, even though it’s puzzling that the only person who seems to have heard the name is that guy at Harrah’s.

I love reading Wikipedia, and I’ve learned a lot from doing so. I’m not, in other words, rabidly anti-Wikipedia. But I do have a few serious concerns about it.

It seems to me that Wikipedia is, in effect whether or not in intent, pushing the Web in exactly the direction it isn’t best suited for: namely, centralization of information. Mailing list posts and IRC channels are full of links to Wikipedia articles, on everything from… well, on lots of things. It seems that the standard way of saying, “If you’re not familiar with the term I just used, here’s how to learn about it” is to provide a Wikipedia link.

I strongly suspect that this is automatic on the part of the people doing it—automatic, that is, rather than based on a thorough search of all the resources available on a given topic and a reasoned decision about which is best-written and/or most informative. That’s the thing: Wikipedia provides something close to one-stop shopping. You’ll find something on almost anything.

Furthermore, Wikipedia itself seems to buy into and cultivate the image of itself as a centralized, objective source of information about everything. One symptom of this is the fact that links within Wikipedia articles are always, or very nearly always, links to other Wikipedia articles. In spite of how open it is, in terms of contributions, it’s ultimately a closed system.

Yes, external sources are indicated at the bottom of articles. But the providing of sources, while important in terms of academic honesty and paper-trailing, never stopped scholarly publications from taking something very close to a “voice of God” position with regard to their subject matter. And it doesn’t stop Wikipedia from doing the same thing. How often have you bothered to go look up all the books and articles listed at the bottom of a Wikipedia article, and carefully analyzed how the information was gleaned and pieced together?

The editorial emphasis on balance and completeness and objectivity is another troubling sign. What’s wrong with balance? What’s wrong with it is that it’s a mirage. Any undergraduate who’s taken a reasonably decent mass communication course knows that what the news media call “balance” is simply an editorial or presentational style. And it requires constant reinforcement. “We report; you decide,” says Fox. “We’ll give you the world,” says at least one radio station (or conglomerate, probably, at this point). The idea is that the discouse provides a perfect substitute for the reality, so you can consider yourself to have been served the reality when you consume the discourse.

Wikipedia operates, I believe, in exponentially greater faith than the news media. But the philosophy of representation is the same, and it’s very old-school. An article is a simulacrum of a discrete, finite reality, and an article’s suitability for publication can be measured by how closely it has cloned that reality. While there’s often room for improvement, every article has the noble goal of achieving a perfect fit with its subject matter, and the potential to do so.

The fact, however, is that it’s not in the nature of written discourse to be a perfect fit with some arbitrary slice of reality. It doesn’t work that way. There’s no shame in acknowledging this, but Wikipedia battles against it.

What troubles me is not just that it’s child’s play to debunk the “voice of God” philosophy of discourse, but that I’d thought the Web was doing a pretty good job teaching people that reality and discourse actually map to each other sloppily, crazily, contradictorily, and ironically. Measured both by its editorial policies and by its wide, eager adoption as a centralized authority, Wikipedia unfortunately pushes against this more intriguing and, I would argue, more balanced take on things.

As of this morning, I can't find my London cell phone. Yes I know it sounds pretentious for an American even to have one... but I go to London usually two or three times a year, and you really can't have any kind of social life over there without one. Anyway, I'm at home in the U.S., and I can't find the phone.

That means I will almost certainly have to buy another one, solely because I'm too stupid to have put it away properly last time I got back from London.

I consider the price of the new phone to be a Stupidity Tax payment. I pay several hundred dollars a year in Stupidity Tax. I forget to cancel hotels; I neglect to send in rebate forms; I lose things. I have to say, the losing things thing is very deep-rooted; there's more to that syndrome than stupidity. Still, to the extent that I lose expensive things that should be simple to keep track of, their replacement is Stupidity Tax.

Thinking of all of this as Stupidity Tax actually makes it a little easier to deal with. It's just part of the cost of living. Of course I'd like to reduce it as much as possible. But it's unlikely I'll ever reduce it to zero. Life is too much of a sieve to hope for that. At least I can keep things interesting by rotating the reasons for the tax: a lost item here, a forgotten bill there. I'd like it not to get too interesting... but the Stupidity Tax is here to stay, so I might as well try to adapt to it.

I don’t think you have to be a language snob to wince (and laugh) at the way advertisers misuse English. They’re protected, of course, by the myths that surround their profession. If they get their grammar wrong, or misuse an idiom, they must have some ingenious marketing reason for doing so—or so people are willing to asusme. In fact, I think what’s happening is that the lousiness of the American educational system is trickling up into the ranks of copy writers and copy editors and basically everyone in the chain of custody of commercials.

The one that got me writing this post is a Verizon radio ad, specifically an ad for Verizon’s phone/cable/Internet triple package. It features the usual fake testimonial sound-bites from actors pretending to be customers. That’s par for the course, until one of them says (and the stuff in square brackets is a paraphrase; the rest is verbatim):

“[Verizon gives you a great deal,] providing all three services and not pulling any punches.“

I love the image of a Verizon repair person coming to my door and slugging me in the jaw, as hard as he or she can. (I’d rather it not happen, but I love the image.) It is, of course, completely clear that the person who wrote that line has no idea what the expression “pulling a punch” actually means, and neither do the executives who paid to have the ad written. I surmise that they think it means “pulling a stunt”, so that not pulling any punches means you’re entirely honest. Or something. Who knows?

I suppose that if Coors can actually bring to market a product called “Artic [sic] Ice”, then Verizon can sleepwalk through the process of producing radio commercials. In fact, it doesn’t surprise me any more. I no longer expect the ostensible gatekeepers to know what they’re doing. They probably never did, but I do think it’s gotten worse. And funnier.

I’m a sort of mediocre good sudoku solver—flashes of brilliance, too lazy to bother writing in all the possible values of each field so not in the running to solve a lot of the harder puzzles. But I enjoy them, and I go through phases of doing them quite a bit.

I also do crosswords—specifically, British-style cryptic crosswords. I’m quite good at those. I rarely finish one completely, but I still consider myself good at them because I often come within, say, two or three clues of finishing. And if the answer is something I’ve never heard of, I give myself partial credit, so to speak.

It’s actually the answers that I’ve been thinking about: the answers to crossword clues, and the answers to Sudoku.

When you work on a crossword clue, there’s a very specific goal for that clue. Clues can be fun, even in isolation. You can work on a crossword puzzle with someone else, even someone who can’t see the puzzle; you just give them a clue, and tell them how many letters you’ve already got, and they can work on it.

Sudoku are different. You can’t really say to your friend, “I’ve got a square that’s missing 2,8, and 9. The blank boxes are the center, the top right, and the middle left” and expect your friend to come up with a solution.

And after you’ve worked on a crossword puzzle – more to the point, after you’ve given up – you want to see the solution. When you see the answers to the clues you didn’t get, you may feel stupid or you may feel vindicated (if you decide the clue was bad, or the answer was something you truly never would have been able to come up with).

That’s where I wonder about Sudoku. You always get the solutions in the back of Sudoku books, or published the next day in the newspaper. But why, exactly? I can’t imagine working on a Sudoku, failing to complete it, and then looking at the third box from the left in the middle row of squares and saying, “Oh, of course! Seven!” The individual squares just don’t have the same relation to their answers that crossword clues have to theirs.

Another kind of weird thing about the solutions to Sudoku is that, at least if you put yourself in the right frame of mind, seeing them doesn’t matter. If I set out to solve a Sudoku rigorously – with no guessing, never filling in a box until I’m sure about it – having access to the solution doesn’t really make my job any easier.

What all of this amounts to is, I think, that the culture of puzzle publication dictates that solutions accompany puzzles, but not too closely (at the back of the book, or a day later), even though this way of doing it is a rather odd fit, in some respects, for Sudoku. No harm done, of course. I just find it kind of funny.

Just spotted on the on-screen program guide for Cablevision: “When a female Secret Service agent is killed, detectives investigate clients of her husband, a well-connected lobbyist.”

Years ago, there was a kind of riddle or puzzle in circulation—something to the effect of:

A father and son are in a car crash. They’re taken to the hospital. The doctor comes into the room, looks at the boy in the bed, and exclaims, “My son!” How can this happen?

I’d like to think that that riddle is obsolete. But I wonder. Apparently television blurb writers still feel the need to specify that a character is a female Secret Service agent, not just a Secret Service agent, even though reference is made to “her husband” in the same sentence.

I can understand alluding to a character’s sex—or ethnicity, age, sexual preference—if it’s materially relevant to the plot. The dramas of our culture involve these things, and there’s no reason that dramatic representations can or should be expected not to revolve around them. If an episode of a show is about child pornographers, I don’t expect the description not to mention children. If it’s about a serial murderer of gays, I don’t expect the description to be poker-faced on the matter of who the victims are.

So there are cases where the issue is the message, so to speak.

I don’t know, because I haven’t seen it, but I suspect the “female Secret Service agent” episode isn’t one of them. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say it is. That still leaves the question: what the hell could the “her” in “her husband” mean, except that the agent is female? Even if the plot does hinge specifically on the femaleness of the agent, “her” conveys that femaleness completely and unambiguously. There is literally no possible reason for the presence of the word “female” in that blurb.

I dislike the implication that it’s unacceptable to keep the femaleness of a Secret Service agent unrevealed even for a handful of words. That’s no good. If people find themselves thinking it must be a man and then revising their view later in the sentence, so be it. They should have to do that, if they assume that “Secret Service agent” means male agent, or that “teacher” means white teacher, or that “man” means heterosexual man.

Enough already with these regressive habits.

Now this was fun.

In London, the past Wednesday evening, I had dinner with two old friends: writer and critic Nicolette Jones and literature scholar-turned-banker Gurdon Wattles.

I met Nicolette in 1981, when I was a senior at Yale and she had come over to do a year at Yale as part of her graduate work in English at Oxford. So we’ve known each other for about 25 years. Nicolette and her family are among the friends I spend the most time with in London; indeed, I’ve spent more time with them over the years than with any number of my friends who live in, say, New York, less than fifty miles from me.

Gurdon I’ve known for forty years. We met when we were seven. My family was living in Cambridge, England, for several months, and I was going to school there. Gurdon and I became best mates at school. Over the years we’ve seen each other, either with our families or on our own, only three or four times, the most recent being in 1988. It’s only in the past few weeks that we’d been back in touch at all.

Here’s the funny thing, though: Nicolette and Gurdon, quite independently of me, have been good friends since their university days back in the late seventies or so. How did we figure out that we all knew each other? It was back in 1982, in the Spring of the year that Nicolette spent at Yale. She and I were sitting across from each other at a table in a student dining hall, and she was writing a postcard. Postcards are fair game, right? So I glanced at it, and saw that it was addressed to my old friend from Cambridge, Gurdon Wattles. That broke the ice, you may be sure.

Now it’s 2006, and the three of us were together in one place for the first time. And it was really fun. A long time in the making, and an absolute delight. More of the same to follow, I hope!