It came as a revelation from on high. It was while writing about the idiocy of politicians and other challenged individuals that the thought came. The idea was that before writing or speaking publicly about a subject you had to prove that you had some knowledge of it.
Could we bear the silence? How could we read newspapers with nothing but advertisements in them?
Luckily, we all get a free pass on this. If you have an argument, you are allowed to express it. That is why, as a public service, there should be a ‘Stupid Index’ applied to all publicly disseminated opinion pieces. We think this should be kept simple and be an easy to understand rating for each occasion on a scale of one to ten. We will call it the ‘SI.”
If a speech by a politician has a rating of SI-2, you will know ahead of time that the politician is talking to hear himself and has little clue on the subject matter. At the same time, you might note a scientific paper by a respected professor is rated at SI-9. This paper is based on years of research that has undergone rigorous peer review and is considered a breakthrough in the subject. Get the idea?
Arriving at these SI readings can be a simple matter of mathematics. Like the FOG Index of readability, a number of factors are considered and an average is computed. If the writer has an undergraduate degree in the subject matter, for example, you know that they have at least read something on the subject. Mind you, having studied a subject does not necessarily guarantee you know much about it. A factor for experience with the subject will have to be included.
Other factors would include the writer or speaker’s ability to explain themselves. Clarity of communication has to be an important measure. What the writer’s bias might be on the subject would be similar to the evaluation of a politician’s being an extremist on the left or the right. There is even a factor for the audience of the opinion. And does the writer/speaker want just simple concurrence or is this a call to arms?
There are some drawbacks to this plan. The one we keep stumbling over is the one that tells us who is going to vet the ratings. For example for such a good idea as this, we would award the writer a rating of SI-8. Someone else might note that there is a paucity of political subjects to write on at this time of year and that the summer heat has addled the writer’s brain. That reviewer might give the item an SI-3.
-30-
Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry
Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]