The Messenger and the Message
Ian (http://onthereddot.com/ian/2007/02/05/odysseus-had-the-ear-of-achilles-not-agamemnon/) and Aaron (http://aaron-ng.info/blog/the-medium-is-the-message.html) have
said their piece on this issue. Even Baey Yam Keng had something to say about it in the article which possibly constituted a declaration of war on the blogosphere. I believed he said that "'The identity is not important. It is the message that is important"
Messenger vs Message...so which is greater?.
If one observes how society works, one would realise that the Messenger who is successful in convincing people of the merits of the message often does so because people respect the fella and thus give more weight to his argument. Where does that respect come from? It could have been earned thru the messengers' hard work or through other factors (eg the messenger has powerful backing or so on so forth, not referring to anyone in particular). As much as a person tries to be objective to look only at the message, it remains difficult to separate the message from the messenger. As Ian pointed out, if a person like Lee Kuan Yew says something, you would think twice before disagreeing with him. Whether the message is accepted or even given due consideration has a lot to do with his/her personality and how his/her audience perceive him.
However, the essence of the message is also important. If the message is deemed by a reasonable average sane person to be crap, then no matter how great the person is, the message is crap. For example, Mr LKY's take on the issue of encouraging more graduate mothers to give birth in the belief that such children will be more "intelligent". Reasonable sane people will naturally see this as biased and elitist, and as such would object to such a view even if they are strong supporters of LKY. Yet, this is predicated on the presumption that human beings are generally rational beings. But as we all know, people are rarely rational. (For eg, i know of fellow countrymen who would rather spend money going on holidays and be miserly when it comes to healthcare)
The distinction is not very clear cut. This is because when dealing with human behaviour, we have essentially moved from the realm of the positive to the normative. However precedent has shown that generally, the messenger determines the effect of the message.
Refer back to the earlier example of Mr Lee and his graduate mother theory. Yes there were those who were against it at that time, never mind that it was an idea of one of the Founding fathers of Singapore. Yet there were also those who no doubt supported it precisely because Mr Lee said it. In the latter instance, either they were...to put it blunty, boot lickers Or they put great store by what Mr Lee said and were convinced by his argument because of the fact that Mr Lee, having played a role in the development of modern singapore, was deemed to have the experience. Furthermore, observing Mr Lee gives me the feeling that this is one fella who knows what he is talking about and though he has certain ideas which i do not agree with, one cannot deny that this man is intelligent and hardworking, thus his views no matter how great an affront to a person still deserve consideration. As Ian puts it, if some of the noobs come up and starts espousing LKY's ideals as the biblical truth, i would probably dismiss it as play acting as a mini lee.
Likewise, consider this scenario. If a person who is younger than u comes to u and starts talking about the Theory of Life and what have u, u would tend to ignore it or see it as mindless ranting. If however someone older than u tells u the same thing, u would see it as words of wisdom (he should be in the same age range...there is something called a generation gap after all).
Now lets look at the side of the opposition. Mr Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang, despite facing the fierce lightning in the recent GE came out the stronger. Why so? Because as messengers they were deemed by the people who supported them to be credible fellas who knew what they were talking about. Other factors also help increase the messengers standing; for example, Low Thia Kiang is a charismatic person while Chiam showed himself to be able to withstand the snipes about his age. The fact that they are seen as being close to their constiteunts helps them reach out to the people, thus while Chiam may talk about having an economic union with msia, people will still consider it.
On the other hand we have Mr Chee Soon Juan and Mr JBJ. Though i respect them for their courage, i must say that they do not make very good messengers. This could be attributed to the MSM bashing them and portraying them to be troublemakers and their methods which do not resonate well with the general public. Thus while i believe that their message, regarding the democratisation of singapore is a valid one, because the messengers are seen as lacking credibility, they have few supporters.
There are many more examples, but due to time constraints i believe this will do. Thus Mr Baey is mistaken to think that the message is more important, if that was even his actual thought in the first place. Perhaps he said that to be inline with the new "counter insurgency effort". However i believe as rational beings we must always try to separate the message from the messenger rather than judge the book by the cover...that however is for another time...
Ian (http://onthereddot.com/ian/2007/02/05/odysseus-had-the-ear-of-achilles-not-agamemnon/) and Aaron (http://aaron-ng.info/blog/the-medium-is-the-message.html) have
said their piece on this issue. Even Baey Yam Keng had something to say about it in the article which possibly constituted a declaration of war on the blogosphere. I believed he said that "'The identity is not important. It is the message that is important"
Messenger vs Message...so which is greater?.
If one observes how society works, one would realise that the Messenger who is successful in convincing people of the merits of the message often does so because people respect the fella and thus give more weight to his argument. Where does that respect come from? It could have been earned thru the messengers' hard work or through other factors (eg the messenger has powerful backing or so on so forth, not referring to anyone in particular). As much as a person tries to be objective to look only at the message, it remains difficult to separate the message from the messenger. As Ian pointed out, if a person like Lee Kuan Yew says something, you would think twice before disagreeing with him. Whether the message is accepted or even given due consideration has a lot to do with his/her personality and how his/her audience perceive him.
However, the essence of the message is also important. If the message is deemed by a reasonable average sane person to be crap, then no matter how great the person is, the message is crap. For example, Mr LKY's take on the issue of encouraging more graduate mothers to give birth in the belief that such children will be more "intelligent". Reasonable sane people will naturally see this as biased and elitist, and as such would object to such a view even if they are strong supporters of LKY. Yet, this is predicated on the presumption that human beings are generally rational beings. But as we all know, people are rarely rational. (For eg, i know of fellow countrymen who would rather spend money going on holidays and be miserly when it comes to healthcare)
The distinction is not very clear cut. This is because when dealing with human behaviour, we have essentially moved from the realm of the positive to the normative. However precedent has shown that generally, the messenger determines the effect of the message.
Refer back to the earlier example of Mr Lee and his graduate mother theory. Yes there were those who were against it at that time, never mind that it was an idea of one of the Founding fathers of Singapore. Yet there were also those who no doubt supported it precisely because Mr Lee said it. In the latter instance, either they were...to put it blunty, boot lickers Or they put great store by what Mr Lee said and were convinced by his argument because of the fact that Mr Lee, having played a role in the development of modern singapore, was deemed to have the experience. Furthermore, observing Mr Lee gives me the feeling that this is one fella who knows what he is talking about and though he has certain ideas which i do not agree with, one cannot deny that this man is intelligent and hardworking, thus his views no matter how great an affront to a person still deserve consideration. As Ian puts it, if some of the noobs come up and starts espousing LKY's ideals as the biblical truth, i would probably dismiss it as play acting as a mini lee.
Likewise, consider this scenario. If a person who is younger than u comes to u and starts talking about the Theory of Life and what have u, u would tend to ignore it or see it as mindless ranting. If however someone older than u tells u the same thing, u would see it as words of wisdom (he should be in the same age range...there is something called a generation gap after all).
Now lets look at the side of the opposition. Mr Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang, despite facing the fierce lightning in the recent GE came out the stronger. Why so? Because as messengers they were deemed by the people who supported them to be credible fellas who knew what they were talking about. Other factors also help increase the messengers standing; for example, Low Thia Kiang is a charismatic person while Chiam showed himself to be able to withstand the snipes about his age. The fact that they are seen as being close to their constiteunts helps them reach out to the people, thus while Chiam may talk about having an economic union with msia, people will still consider it.
On the other hand we have Mr Chee Soon Juan and Mr JBJ. Though i respect them for their courage, i must say that they do not make very good messengers. This could be attributed to the MSM bashing them and portraying them to be troublemakers and their methods which do not resonate well with the general public. Thus while i believe that their message, regarding the democratisation of singapore is a valid one, because the messengers are seen as lacking credibility, they have few supporters.
There are many more examples, but due to time constraints i believe this will do. Thus Mr Baey is mistaken to think that the message is more important, if that was even his actual thought in the first place. Perhaps he said that to be inline with the new "counter insurgency effort". However i believe as rational beings we must always try to separate the message from the messenger rather than judge the book by the cover...that however is for another time...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home