The commentary surrounding Ed Whelan’s ill-advised outing of his nemisis Publius raises interesting questions about whether credibility is established solely through the merit of one’s writing or whether attaching a name is necessary.  This made me think about both the nature of the content and the manner of presentation.  This led me to Mister Thorne.

Mister Thorne has a blog called Set in Style.  Before you ask, “Mister” is his first name, not his formal title or an affectation.  Don’t ask me.  I didn’t name him.  In any event, he’s an editor and his blog is dedicated to helping lawyers present themselves in the best possible light through their writing. 

Thorne (as he prefers to be called) posted about an article by Daniel Oppenheimer, professor of psychology at Princeton.

Dr. Oppenheimer reiterates what few attorney-authors can believe: readers consistently judge the writer who uses plain, clear language as more intelligent than the writer who arranges obscure terms in convoluted constructions.

To the extent that the content is internally credible, it is a function to some extent of the ability to use ordinary language in ordinary form.  This idea flies in the face of those who believe that tossing around jargon, or using $10 words, makes them look smarter.  It pains lawyers who, in their attempt to be hyper-precise, make their sentences so long and convoluted as to be both painful to read and far too much work for the reader to decipher.  For my part, when someone makes me work that hard, I take a pass unless it’s something I’m absolutely required to read.  It’s just not worth the effort.

My own version of this concept is that if you’ve got something to say, just say it.  It’s far more effective to take a complex concept and say it simply than muddle it up in prolix, painful language. 

But this applies to stand-alone ideas. Regardless of the source, the idea either has merit or doesn’t.   When it comes to a basic opinion (e.g., I like chocolate better than vanilla), an opinion is utterly worthless if the writer is unknown.  No one cares if you prefer chocolate.  Each of us has our own opinion, and no one else’s preference is going to persuade us that their choice is better than ours.  Each of us already has enough information to formulate our own opinion, and we don’t need anyone else’s help.

When it comes to more complex opinions (e.g., I believe that Sotomayor has demonstrated inadequate respect for the rights of criminal defendants), dealing with subjects on which we may not have sufficient information to formulate a valid opinion, we are subject to persuasion.  The basis could be examples supporting the position, or the credibility of the person offering the opinion.  If we tend to agree with the person offering the opinion, or hold that person’s opinion in high regard, the opinion is more likely to matter to us.

Very little of what we read online falls into the category of basic opinion.  Much of it falls into the complex opinion category.  This is where people get into trouble.  When the person offering opinion is anonymous, we have no basis whatsoever to determine whether they know what they are talking about.  Maybe it’s a Supreme Court justice opining off the cuff, or maybe it’s a 12 year old hiding in the basement trying to cause trouble.  We don’t know.  The fallback position is that the content should stand alone, regardless of who’s doing the writing. 

Sometimes, the merit of the content is clear, and it doesn’t make a bit of difference who is doing the writing.  This is far more rare than advocates of this position realize.  Almost every writing of this sort involves a value judgment, which depends on the worthiness of the writer.  More often than not, it involves a claim of knowledge (i.e., I read the decision and this is what it says) which can’t be tested.  If we are expected to rely on the integrity of the writer, then we must have some reason to trust the writer.  That he says so isn’t good enough.  That he insists “strenuously” makes it even worse.

The anonymity of the internet lends itself to being a soapbox for those who hold their own opinions in unduly high esteem.  There are some incredibly stupid people out there who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, yet feel compelled to make sure as many people know their thoughts as possible.  They get angry when their thoughts aren’t given the respect they believe they deserve.  And they believe that their mere announcement of their thoughts, standing alone, mandates that others address them respectfully.  It gets tiresome.

Still, I give a substantially greater amount of credence to someone who expresses their thoughts in a clear, simple manner.  I have never attributed it to a belief that they are more intelligent, as Thorne suggests, but to the honesty of their position.  I’m a sucker for someone with an honestly held belief, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Patrick at Popehat added Obsidian Wings to his blogroll following the outing of Publius.  In a comment to his post, an anonymous person offered this observation :

Ed Whelen is white trash.

Why do people think blogging under their real name is courageous?

In law, if you know your shit, you can prove it. Make your fucking arguments.

People who blog under their full names want to be lazy. LOOK AT MY (to my pea brain) BIG NAME. I NEED NOT CITE CASES OR ANALYZE ISSUES. BEING ME IS ENOUGH!

I think that’s being a pussy. Make your arguments. Don’t rely on who you (think) you are to make your case. (Wo)Man up.

Incidentally, I blogged anonymously until my blog was one of the first 8 Law.com blogs. (Later I quit because they cramped my style.) Then I had to out myself. It was no thing. If anything, I got “glory.” Which doesn’t really motivate me. Wow, look at me. I’m a unique snow flake. Whatever.

Now I blog only under my first name. It just spares me drama to not have people stalking me based on my blog posts. Yes, if you Google my name, my blog will be the first result. So people who know me can find my blog. But people who only know my blog need to do at least some diligence in order to find out my real name…. which is still pretty easy.

So I’m a half-coward? LMFAO!

I truly think real-named blogging is self-involved. My blogging has been cited twice in federal judicial opinions. They were “serious” posts on Section 1983 law, about which I’d say I know more than anyone what perhaps Sheldon Nahmod and Erwin Chemersinky.

Allow me to go orgasm all over myself!

Seriously, this shit cracks me up. I’ve had more success when I was blogging as a law student than most people who call others “cowards” for blogging anonymously will EVER have with their blogs.

They can all fuck off.

Get cited in some federal opinions. Then fucking tell me how brave and special you are because you blog under your real name!

The shit that impresses people about themselves truly astounds me!

Plain language?  Check.  Clear language?  Check.  Direct, uncovoluted sentences?  Check.  Presumption of intelligence?  Nope.  Credibility?  Zero.  On the other hand, if this was something I decided to write and post for the world to see, I would have done so anonymously too.  Perhaps with some effort I could identify the author of this comment, but there is no reason why I would want to do so.