Non-fiction writing is entirely built upon trust. I have to trust that the author is attempting to tell the truth because I don't have the resources to fact-check every little thing.
Jonah Lehrer violated this trust. Big time. He has shown himself to be someone who lies and manipulates. And I think this is a cynical manipulation in an attempt to restore his career. (He should donate that $20k to some charity, btw.)
But he has forever lost my trust. There are too many other good writers and good books out there -- there will never be a reason for me to pick up a Jonah Lehrer book or pay attention to his words. Sorry.
Let's find some less well-known thinkers who deserve our attention and leave this guy out of the public conversation.
On one hand, I'm more likely to believe Lehrer now, because he will be writing for a large audience of people who would love nothing more than to catch him out again. Very few authors will publish under the kind of scrutiny he will, for a few years.
On the other hand, I'm less likely because he's a shameful liar, and I don't want to contribute to his livelihood as a liar. I mean, if he was a barrista I'd give him a tip, but it's hard to lie about a latte.
So I suppose when you add these two things together I'm more likely to finish my goddamn software project.
There's an ambiguity in your comment. You set up "more likely to believe Lehrer now", and then in the second paragraph go on to say:
"On the other hand, I'm less likely [to believe Lehrer now] because he's a shameful liar, and I don't want to contribute to his livelihood as a liar. I mean, if he was a barrista I'd give him a tip, but it's hard to lie about a latte."
It strikes me that the part I have italicised is an entirely separate point, disconnected from the "two hands" you had established.
I point this out in such a pedantic way because I think this separate point about not wanting to contribute to the livelihood of a liar is a particularly interesting (moral) one which could be elaborated on. Also, I found your barista analogy entertaining!
Could it also be the case that if you looked closely enough at any prolific and successful (both conditions) non-fiction writer, you would discover pretty much the same thing?
I see this akin to Doping in upper echelon Bicycling - it's not the case that you found the guilty one, it's just the case that you paid close attention to one, and they are all (at the highest echelons) pretty much guilty of the same thing, so of course the one you paid attention to was guilty. Even the cleanest of the clean, Lance Armstrong, turns out to have been guilty.
The writers who never plagarize, never tweak their quotes, never make up a few memorable and interesting (and perhaps somewhat fictional) might be those you never read because it's by doing those things that a writer comes up with interesting material. (At least those who write a substantial volume - it might be easier to be a highly successful completely clean non-fiction writer who only generates a smallish volume)
Long ago I basically decided that everything written down is almost guaranteed to be completely false, so I look to it for entertainment, and I'm never disappointed when it turns out be fraudulent.
That's why I never understood the excitement over Daisey and his, Chinese Factory Monologues - of course they were fictional. All reporting is, to some degree, fiction.
The cleanest of the clean is Greg LeMond, not Lance Armstrong. Greg LeMond is now the only American cyclist to with the Tour de France. Greg LeMond has been a vocal proponent of clean riding and a vocal critic of Lance Armstrong.
During the height of Lance Armstrong's popularity, Lance used his control at Trek to shut down the LeMond line of bicycles to punish Greg for his continued public comments about doping.
No one intimately involved in bicycling was under any illusion that Lance wasn't cheating. It had been regularly coming out that his saved blood failed newer tests for doping and other irregularities.
Calling Lance the cleanest of the clean would be like calling baseball's Mark McGuire the cleanest of the clean. If you followed the sport (and saw his ridiculous head size), you knew he was not only cheating, but the best at it.
Being a wealthy, best-selling author is not a right. Of course he deserves a second chance as a human being. I'm sure he's not that bad of a guy.
But I feel he's forfeited this opportunity [to be a high-profile science journalist]. At least as far as I'm concerned. Plenty of other great stuff to read.
I've never read any of his writing, so I have no opinion about its quality.
But this was as thorough an apology as I can recall seeing from anyone about anything. I will be very surprised if he turns out not to have meant it.
It actually predisposes me to take a look at whatever he writes next. The process of confronting one's character flaws and addressing them deepens a person. I expect that whatever he has to say next will be edifying -- as indeed this piece was.
EDITED to add: it's certainly possible I'm being naive and accepting his apology too easily.
> But this was as thorough an apology as I can recall seeing from anyone about anything.
I thought that at first too, but then I wondered what was with that story about the Muslim lawyer who was erroneously picked up and jailed by the FBI and it turned out they had it wrong. Is he saying he's a victim?!?!? That's what it started to sound like to me. So I'm not sure I believe it's an apology.
If that story is supposed to be an analogy, Jonah Lehrer is the FBI. The Muslim lawyer wasn't the one who made mistakes that had consequences, and the Muslim lawyer wasn't the one that needed explicit procedures to decrease the odds of it happening again. That was the FBI (and Lehrer).
There are mistakes, then there are breaches of ethics, and then there are breaches of ethics so severe that you don't get a second chance. (You embezzle money, you don't get a second chance at handling finances for a living.)
I wish Lehrer luck in whatever career he chooses to switch to in the future.
Oh, he deserves a second chance. Just go ahead and stand in line, after those who have been doing their work honestly and still waiting for their first chances to come.
I've never read anything by him, but I'd say I'm more likely to do so now, having read this speech. Of course I won't just believe whatever he says because he says it, but then again I could say that about anyone. My default position is skepticism. Popular non-fiction writing is about marketing and what will sell from an airport book kiosk far more than it is about trust. It may well be that Lehrer has nothing to offer us in book form but marketability, and he may not have that anymore. Unlike most speeches, however, this one said something of interest.
Not suggesting this isn't true, but consider this:
Most people on this site consider themselves skeptics;
Most people on this site will read something that comes from a source and, if they are not experts in the field being discussed, will tend to accept it;
This is more likely should the argument be well put together;
This will happen despite us considering ourselves skeptics;
Because it is easier to accept a well written article on an issue we know little about rather than research it ourselves;
Many of us will subsequently argue a position based upon the information contained in said article or discussion, especially against other non-experts
It doesn't matter how skeptical you consider yourself it's simply too mentally expensive to look for backup on everything you read, and we are really bad at guessing what things are outright lies when those lies are presented in an intelligent and intelligible form
All points well taken. It is difficult to be sufficiently skeptical about topics on which one doesn't have enough background, especially when one is surrounded by "experts". There's another dynamic at play here as well: many of us on HN grew up wanting to learn and know as much as we could about a wide range of topics. This motivation is an aspect of curiosity, and it is a good attitude for children, but it leads us astray when we're adults. We can seek all possible knowledge about our narrow areas of specific expertise, at least until we can develop a sense of what to retain and what to ignore. However, for the broad sweep of general human knowledge that we can't carefully study ourselves, we ought to cultivate an attitude of intentional, studied indifference. It's fine to pay a bit of attention to everything that catches the eye, and it's fine to slowly add to the set of topics about which we're truly knowledgeable, but most of what we "learn" we should consider a form of entertainment.
That goes double for what I learn on HN! Update your priors, but at a steady, slow rate.
Most people on this site will read something that comes from a source and, if they are not experts in the field being discussed, will tend to accept it, unless another expert from that field offers a contrarian comment explaining what is wrong with it
I might suggest that you help (in some small way) improve the quality of these popular non-fiction books by not supporting people like Jonah Lehrer. Let him experience a literary death penalty. It'll help keep other writers from falling into that same trap.
I'm fascinated with this whole Lehrer affair, not sure why.
I think the problem with Lehrer and esp. his last book is that what he had to say was not very interesting, novel, or enlightening, EVEN with the help of fabricated quotes to backup his claims. That is, if the quotes/anecdotes had been true, it would not have been a better book.
There was a fantastic (very critical and negative) article about this book that came out before the scandal; the scandal obscured those issues. (Can't remember the author or website but will try to look it up later!)
This article pointed out that the whole thesis of Lehrer (and his many predecessors and followers in the self-help department) is circular: it simply tries to define success as, well, success.
What's more, I believe people who are outraged with Lehrer "lies" are a little delusional.
There isn't a world of difference between picking and choosing (true) anecdotes in support of a specific thesis, and outright making them up.
Actual honesty would be to report all facts (which may be impossible) and pay special attention to those who may contradict what you are trying to say (the scientific approach).
I'll rephrase: picking and choosing true anecdotes in support of a specific thesis, while leaving out other true anecdotes that don't support that thesis, isn't (in my book) that different from making up anecdotes.
I'm not accusing Gladwell of ever "lying"; I have issues with "anecdotal evidence" which deserves its bad rep, and on which Gladwell (and many, many others) built their whole careers.
I think Lehrer is early.
Some time ago, lies and distortions that are routinely used today in fiction (TV, film, even novels) would have been considered unbecoming and simply unthinkable. But nowadays, what would be unthinkable in fiction "based on a true story", would be to stick to the facts.
But journalism is also fiction; the very act of reporting isn't neutral, it creates a new reality.
I do think it's possible to do actual journalism. If we keep the error and bias level below a certain threshold, it looks factual enough. I think this attitude that modern journalists have--that we're all equally biased, so just admit your bias up front and then we'll all figure it out on our own--is lazy and wasteful. It's lazy, because if they would simply make an effort at being unbiased they would find they can do it, and it's wasteful with my time, because now it's assumed that I'll go read a bunch of other biased sources and form my opinion. This means I need three times as much journalism, and I didn't want any to begin with. So I'd say, yes, it's a fact that reporting creates a new reality, but it doesn't have to do so with the kind of audacious intentionality that most modern news does. A small amount of unintentional change is a lot more manageable than flagrant, unnecessary meddling.
As for Gladwell, I really enjoy his essays. I have a lot of trouble expressing their content after reading them, though, which made me think of them more as a form of entertainment than reporting. As for his books, I agree with you completely, they're basically bullshit. But they're an interesting diversion.
The Slate article slagging on Lehrer is of no inherent interest to hackers. His speech, self-serving and dishonest as it may have been, addresses some interesting and little-discussed aspects of psychology, work, and knowledge. That is something I appreciate on HN. Of course the GP provides valuable context for the speech, and I'm glad it was shared, but it doesn't stand by itself as a top-level post.
How could you possibly evaluate whether this article was correct without having read Lehrer's original article?
For what it's worth, I think this whole thing is dumb. The main problem with Lehrer isn't that he plagiarized a few articles, but that his writing is mostly b-level propaganda to begin with.
Seriously, he's correct in many of the things he said, but he's probably the wrong person to be saying this. Perhaps in a couple of decades he might be the right person. Humans really are flawed creatures. We really do screw up all the time. It really isn't enough to be governed by a strong moral compass: that sense of morality must be assisted by the wisdom to avoid situations that will corrupt it. Strong habits, traditions, or even "standard operating procedures" assist the wise in this avoidance.
I still have sympathy for this guy. My suspicion is that those in the media who are really piling on, are doing so at least partially to avoid hearing what's being said. Lehrer is bad, so we can't admit that most of what he did, we do if only to a lesser degree. Otherwise we would be bad. This sort of binary morality is really primitive and pathetic, but many people don't have anything else available to them.
If's fine if you don't sympathize with Lehrer as I do, but I don't understand how people can complain that he brought up the FBI lab as an example. Why would they be above him? He didn't send any innocent people to jail! If you'd like proof that this is a serious problem, read up on the mess they have in Mississippi with bogus forensics. If Lehrer does anything to improve forensics in this country, all his plagiarism will have been worth it.
I think he is the right person to be saying this. And I'd like to read an update in a year or two as well, see how it's working out for him.
Frankly the state of US journalism is so weighed down by bias, the institution in general could probably use a dose of the Checklist Manifesto. And if this guy can come up with some SOPs that work for him, he should publish them and maybe they can help others who are willing.
I think a lot of the HN reaction to this is understandable. It's akin to a fall down drunk getting his 30 day chip, and announcing it to the world.
But Lehrer didn't sound like he was proud of his "30 day chip", just that he's starting to see what the road to wellness is going to take. It's the first step in his making amends.
People can take what he offers and accept it, disregard it, chew him up and spit him on the ground, or whatever. But at least he is offering something. That's his part. I'll be interested to see how he does and where he goes.
It really isn't enough to be governed by a strong moral compass: that sense of morality must be assisted by the wisdom to avoid situations that will corrupt it.
I don't think he was governed by a "strong moral compass" in the first place. "Don't plagiarize" is a pretty simple rule to follow; not being able to follow it does not indicate a strong moral compass with a lack of wisdom; it indicates a weak moral compass to begin with.
My suspicion is that those in the media who are really piling on, are doing so at least partially to avoid hearing what's being said.
This may well be true; I think many people in the media do the same things Lehrer did, they just haven't been caught yet. But that doesn't give me any more sympathy for Lehrer; it gives me less sympathy for the media in general.
If someone is willing to plagiarize, I have a hard time seeing how any set of "standard operating procedures" is going to help that person to refrain from plagiarizing in the future.
See, this is the sort of binary morality I was talking about. You could plug any bad act into the "plagiarize" slot and your statement would have precisely the same content. The Lehrer who existed three years ago didn't plagiarize all the time, and he probably didn't realize he was plagiarizing at least part of the time he was doing it. He plagiarized in specific situations, and furthermore he probably brought about those situations through his own actions (e.g., exempting himself from fact-checking on a problematic article by concocting an excuse his editor would buy), even if he didn't realize it at the time. Today's Lehrer can endeavor to avoid those situations, and certainly to never bring them about through his own actions, just by being more aware.
I don't say this to excuse Lehrer's actions. All of us humans are the same flawed creatures as he, and we're all judged for our actions. I don't have to believe in the devil, but if I can imagine him, I can imagine a fiend who tempts all humanity, virtuous or not. Then I can make ready for his temptations even though I'm not a bad person like Lehrer.
I'm not here to moralize. In at least some cases, he clearly copied and pasted and then did some minor edits. I don't see how that could have happened accidentally, and therefore I don't think it's unreasonable to ask how having a set of rules is going to help (given that, obviously, it will typically require a certain amount of diligence to follow any set of rules). I'm not saying that it won't help, but if it will, it would certainly be instructive to understand exactly how.
The first phase involved a literal reconstruction of my mistakes. I wanted to have an accounting, in my head, of how I fabricated those Dylan quotes. I wanted to understand the mechanics of every lapse, to relive all those errors that led to my disgrace. I wanted to understand so that I could explain it to people, so that I could explain it in a talk like this.
This is basically doing a post-mortem. When I think about things I've done wrong, I go through this process. Then when I try to explain to people, I go through this process. However, when I do this, I fear that other people think I'm just trying to justify my mistakes.
As such, I don't often try to explain myself to others. I apologize, but I don't go into detail; and usually, people are willing to accept simply the apology and the high-level explanation. When I say go into detail, I mean a truly blow by blow account of every premise, piece of context, and minor decision that led to the big one. I think part of it is that a lot of people simply don't have the patience for such details.
To clarify what I'm talking about in terms of level of detail, I give the example of a time a girl asked me, "So do you prefer Vancouver food or Hong Kong food?". And I responded with a 5 minute dissection of the question to better understand what the question was asking, because the answer could vary depending on the question's true meaning and intent. Then she got exasperated and said, "Wow, I just asked you whether you prefer this food or that food!!! What's the big deal???")
So maybe I have two fears when I want to give the blow by blow account. The stupid fear is that people will think I'm crazy for going into such detail. The more scary fear is that people will think I'm trying to justify myself when I'm in fact not trying to do that at all. And this fear keeps me from sharing my thoughts with others.
I have no idea whether this guy is sincere or not, and so it's funny that the fear I have regarding other people being suspicious of my sincerity, I am casting similar suspicions (though not aggressively, as it's not a significant event to me whether or not this guy is sincere).
> "I responded with a 5 minute dissection of the question"
I used to do this shit all the time. Turns out I was missing the obvious part: people ask imprecise questions, not because they're being intellectually sloppy, but because they're looking for a conversation, not an answer.
And you can safely infer this, because the imprecise questions are almost always about things that simply do not matter.
No-one really cares if you like Vancouver food vs Hong Kong food. (If your opinion on the matter was of objective interest, the question would have been far more precise.)
As phrased, it's pretty close to a nonsense question. So when you find yourself thinking "what on earth could they mean by that?" just stop and have the conversation with them, not at them.
That is: stop at your first (appropriate) impression, phrase it as open or closed based on your desire to actually continue the conversation, and toss the ball back. And always keep in mind that the answers are irrelevant; what matters is how you pass the ball.
> I wanted to understand the mechanics of every lapse...
It's a futile exercise, and counterproductive. Therapy falls apart when you get stuck in the loop of asking "why did I do this?"
The important part is not to do that, but that's not what we want, because that would involve real, actual change. And as we know, feeling bad about yourself > the pain of changing.
> a girl asked me, "So do you prefer Vancouver food or Hong Kong food?". And I responded with a 5 minute dissection of the question to better understand what the question was asking, because the answer could vary depending on the question's true meaning and intent.
Your answer should have been, "howcome?", or "X is my favorite, howcome?"
The weird (infuriating?) part of this is that he was paid $20,000 by the Knight foundation to give this speech. We shouldn't be rewarding plagarisers, he should have given the speech for free out as an opportunity to explain himself.
It would be cool if he could go back through all the "defective" works he's produced, rewrite them so as to be accurate, and republish them for free. Those who have bought his work will be able to get the updated and amended copy without charge, and those who haven't been exposed to anything other than the drama around his transgressions will have an almost no-risk access to his works. It's easier to forgive when an apology is combined with action.
His work had so much promise and appeal. If anything, it would be a shame if we couldn't benefit from his ability to convey concepts in an interesting and engaging way.
Some people haven't even gotten that far. Ira Glass got right in front of credibility issues on his watch and it served him very well. Dan Rather, in comparison, was still sticking to the "I wasn't proven false in a court of law" defense as of last week.
In the Navy, your career is over if your ship goes aground. Even if it wasn’t your fault. The lack of justice for the one guy is way more than made up by a greater justice for everybody else when every captain makes sure their ship doesn’t go aground.
Unfortunately, non-fiction writing is a system entirely built on trust. The system may be unfair, but Jonah Lehrer violated that trust, and now his career is rightfully over.
In the Navy, not necessarily: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/16/admiral-nomi...
With regards to Mr Lehrer: if he could write a worthwhile nonfiction book, I'm guessing that he could find someone to publish it, and it would have the chance to rise on its own merits -- no one can really 'end' the career of an author, only damage their reputation, and most of the time (as in this case) that is self-inflicted. But his hopes for making the short list of lite-fare nonfiction authors who can sell a lot of books, alongside Gladwell et al, would appear to be well and truly dashed.
Hard to dislike a guy that writes so well, and I agree with the general premise of recognizing the human capacity, and necessity, for error.
But I do think it's a bit disingenuous to compare the "mistakes" of scientists to fabrication and deceit. Would Niels Bohr have been referring to the manufacture of evidence when he spoke of "all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field?"
This was extremely well-written. It's a shame he had to sully his good name by taking the easy route and make up quotes, etc. Hopefully he can bounce back and revitalize his career.
Does anyone else feel like Lehrer is receiving more criticism than he deserves? The fact that he defended the fabricated Dylan quotes is regrettable, but it's so trivial compared to lies we hear everyday from people we "trust" (media, politicians, bloggers, friends). And I don't give a damn about the self plagiarism. It was sloppy, not evil.
I personally wish we could forget about the whole thing. After this debacle, I'd trust Lehrer over almost any other science writer. If he ever writes Frontal Cortex again, I'm sure it will be the most thoroughly fact-checked journalism available.
The thing is that when somebody lies about trivial but pointless stuff -- not little white lies like "Ooh, I'd love to come but I'm booked that day" or "No, that dress looks great on you" but rather, "Bob Dylan said this" -- then you can't trust the rest of what they write.
People criticize Lehrer because they liked him and trusted him. Now everything they liked about him was cast into doubt, over something totally idiotic. It seriously calls his judgment and character into question. There was no compelling reason for him to fabricate what he fabricated. There was no enormous gain from that fabrication. It's a sign of either laziness, OR pathological lying.
Pathological liars are distinguished from the rest of us because they lie about pointless things, without a direct thing to gain from it.
We understand that politicians lie for gain… they are not, GENERALLY, pathological. Because they lie for gain, we can ferret out their lies because we can ask, "Gee, does xyz have something to gain here?" - and we understand them. That doesn't make it excusable, but that's probably part of why there's more uproar about Lehrer (we trusted him! WHY did he lie about THAT?!) than yet one more political lie.
> Designers refer to this sort of rule as a forcing function. These functions are everywhere and they keep us from doing all sorts of stupid things. Just think of your car. There is, for instance, the reverse lockout, which prevents us from throwing a moving car into reverse and accidentally ripping apart the transmission.
> whatever I write will be fact-checked and fully footnoted.
I was interested in learning more about this "reverse lockout." From the Wikipedia entry [1] which is the top Google result for "reverse lockout" (I typed it into Google without quotes):
> a forcing function or poka-yoke, is a technique used in error-tolerant design to prevent the user from making common errors or mistakes. One example is the reverse lockout on the transmission of a moving automobile.
I don't want to spend time researching this further, but it's interesting that he came up with the same name and example of the concept as the Wikipedia article (without attribution). Wikipedia articles are supposed to be secondary sources -- "original research" is an explicitly discouraged category of content. But none of the links cited by the Wikipedia article mention "forcing function."
So here's someone, writing a mea culpa about his past plagiarism, who uses a phrase and idea without proper footnoting of it (nebulously crediting "designers" with the idea); and a single Google search for the idea turns up a Wikipedia article which also mentions the idea without citing a source!
It's a legitimate question the parent asks. In my book, the guy deserves oblivion, after he has been revealed to be a pathological liar and fabulist. If you love the field of journalism, this guy should disgust you.
Bonus trivia: Lehrer was paid $20,000 to deliver this speech. Ridiculous and a mountainous source of embarrassment for the Knight Foundation.
First, I find it's unproductive to make psychological diagnoses of people you haven't met before. Having met actual pathological liars there is not remotely enough evidence that Lehrer is one, unless you're just using the word to mean "a liar I don't like," in which case you're cheapening the phrase.
Second, do you really want a world where errors -- even massive ones -- automatically disqualify you from being relevant again? Where there are no second acts in American life? I do think there are places where that makes sense, but they tend to be places where the supply is perceived to be abundant and commoditized. Ergo why we encourage failure amongst entrepreneurs.
Nobody automatically deserves forgiveness, but I do think Lehrer is a giften enough storyteller that we should not necessarily consign him to the dustbin.
If Lehrer gets a second act, he will earn it by convincing people that he is worth giving one. That's something each person will have to decide individually, and some will be convinced more easily than others.
Perhaps he will succeed, after some soul-searching and change. This article represents a step in the right direction: some people seem to already be on the cusp of forgiveness, while others would like (as is their right) some more assurance. Or maybe he'll fail in this: his sins may be too great, or he may prove to be incorrigible. Either way will be telling.
And this is as it should be. Forgiveness is earned, one way or another, and should be.
If we discount someone's current contributions and ideas because we are disgusted by their past mistakes, we risk losing some useful and insightful things.
This speech had a very important message: It's not enough to acknowledge or apologize for mistakes. You need to give yourself (and others) a reason to trust that you won't make similar mistakes in the future. Jonah goes into more detail: you need a standard operating procedure which prevents sloppiness, so that the routine ensures you don't make mistakes.
If you've not read this, because you feel he deserves oblivion, you should read it and pretend it was written by someone else. Also ... if someone deserves "oblivion" for mistakes, even egregious ones, what's the point of rehabilitation?
But his problem isn't that he is sloppy, it is that he is unscrupulous. This isn't some error in procedure, it is a deep character flaw. At best that takes years of self reflection and self refinement to remedy, not a simple list of rules. Rehabilitation for this is possible, but not probable and he should work in a different field that doesn't rely so much on personal integrity.
Does the Knight Foundation not make a habit of giving its speakers such staggering sums? If not, this is mysterious, and it would lead me to suspect he was being paid for something besides the speech. Were any decision-makers at Knight involved with any of Lehrer's discredited work?
If the Knight Foundation does regularly pay speakers this much, then I agree with those who say that the bulk of this fee should go to some agreeable charity.
I care. Jonah Lehrer is good writer who has written things that I enjoyed reading. I was saddened to hear about how he was taking such sloppy and dishonest shortcuts, and as a fellow imperfect human, I find it interesting to see how he's reflecting on the experience and trying to grow from it.
This might just be me, but I don't like wordsy apologies. I don't like apologies with intricate explanations.
Lehrer's point is that a lot of people try to soften apologies and remove some accountability, as if the apology is just part of a status quo, and he's worried people will think he's trying to do that; really, he's just trying to make a record of his actions.
But honestly, I think he's got it a bit wrong. People don't distrust verbose apologies because they're intended to be excuses, but because they are excuses by design.
If Lehrer said something to the effect of, "I fucked up. I'm sorry. I understand you may never trust me again and I'll have to deal with that." I would trust his apology much more than I do now.
But providing an explanation, however benign it is (especially in a highly media fueled instance like this where not much explanation isn't already known) garners sympathy from the audience and wraps the apology in something tolerable for the author.
I don't think it should be tolerable. But that's just my thought on it.
I think wordy apologies are a lot more appropriate when it's a for technical mistake "this is how the security breach happened and this is what we've done to prevent a reoccurrence" than a moral misjudgement "this is how I cheated and lied to everyone; please trust me again because I'm candid about it"
Blogging has always been questioned and critqued by trained journalists. We should be questioning anything self-published that appears to be journalism.
I hope he follows it up with another apology about the horrible unreadable text on that website. Good luck with that career, though, bud. You're going to need it.
Jonah Lehrer violated this trust. Big time. He has shown himself to be someone who lies and manipulates. And I think this is a cynical manipulation in an attempt to restore his career. (He should donate that $20k to some charity, btw.)
But he has forever lost my trust. There are too many other good writers and good books out there -- there will never be a reason for me to pick up a Jonah Lehrer book or pay attention to his words. Sorry.
Let's find some less well-known thinkers who deserve our attention and leave this guy out of the public conversation.