More on Evangelicals, fundamentalists, and geometry

I have no reason to believe my earlier post inspired this GetReligion item, but I applaud it none the less and am glad to see I'm not the only one annoyed by the over (and inappropriate) use of the word "fundamentalism."

Explanation Problems

(Bear with me on the limited 'tech' lingo to follow... I promise it won't last long.)

More from the brain-trust known as CommonCraft.com:

Discovering the RSS Explanation Problem

"I... had an AHA! moment. It was clear to me that RSS had an explanation problem that was preventing it from being adopted...

Since then I've been thinking a lot about explanation problems I'm starting to define them and the problems they cause. Ultimately, I think it's about adoption - adoption of an idea, a product or service. Good explanations increase adoption and poor explanations limit adoption. Here's how I'd explain it in Plain English..."

(He goes on to illustrate, quite literally, this "explanation problem", once again showcasing the simple genius of CommonCraft.)

Now, I highlight this at blepo not to discuss technology at large or the finer details of RSS or anything of the sort. What Lee LeFever (at CommonCraft) has discovered is a profound lesson in communicating... both corporately and personally:

"...the question was asked by someone curious about [fill-in-the-blank] and the answer, while correct, didn't matter to the asker. An interesting way to look at this situation is by considering how questions are asked. Often, when someone asks "what is...", they really mean "Why does it matter to me?" By considering what matters to someone, the answer becomes different and more likely to give them information they can act on."

So, to what aspects of our daily, interpersonal communication might we apply this lesson? Just few of my initial thoughts:

• delegation of work tasks
• requests of (and from) our spouses
• explanation of beliefs: ...faith? ...political?
• education

We could spend a lot of energy and time "shouting from the roof tops" what we believe and why we believe it (presuming we're at that point in the first place), but perhaps the next step is understanding why those beliefs will matter to our audience, not just because we think "well, they should!"

I can't help but think this would go a long way to deliver a message in a way that our audience will truly hear.

(Then again, educators among us may read this and think, "well, duh! I coulda told you that!")

mh

Evangelicals, fundamentalists, and geometry

(or "Evangelical" doth not equal "fundmentalist")

I'm wondering if anyone else is as annoyed as I am about the use of the words "evangelical" and "fundamentalists" as synonyms by journalists. I've even seen it done by folks I think would know better including Carl Cameron (Fox News) and Juan Williams (Fox, NPR), particularly back during the Iowa caucuses.

I'm not a theologian, but I know a few and it seems to me that evangelicals CAN be fundamentalists and vice versa, but they do not necessarily mean the same thing. Granted, there are similarities and overlap in beliefs, but there are plenty of evangelicals who are not fundamentalists. I'm hoping most E's and F's would agree with me, but I'm open to being corrected.

It's always more complicated, but using the terms interchangeably, it seems to me, is the equivalent of using the words "square" and "rectangle". Yes, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square. (Thank you Sesame Street, circa early 80's.)

Then again, perhaps I'm to close to the whole thing and "hypersensitive" to the terms sense "I are one" (evangelical). Regardless, if journalists had accurate working definitions of the two words, I have to think it would positively impact their understanding (and thus reporting) on American religion.

mh

I'm hoping the good folks at GetReligion.org might chime in on this at some point with their stellar media critique. (Unless they have already and I've missed a past post, which is entirely possible.)

2007 Lessons learned

The folks at Commoncraft wax eloquent about 15 lessons they learned in 2007.

Themes of brevity, authenticity, "hedgehog concepts" and balance abound.

Some of my favs ...

Simple is better. Approach an explanation by removing information instead of adding it.

Production values and ideas are often at odds. Flashy graphics and cool music are sometimes a poor replacement for a good idea. Spend time focusing on the message.

It's not always about how it works - it's about why anyone should care.

Give it away. Find something you love to do and give it away. If people love it, it may become your business.

Lifestyle is what matters. If you're independent, remember why. Look closely at how your business impacts your life. Step back and remember that you have a choice in how you live. You don't have to do it all.

It's worth a read and a bookmark.

mh

How to learn about something you know nothing about

I ran across this nugget at David Frum's Diary on National Review:

When I was in law school, I devised my own idiosyncratic solution to the problem of studying a topic I knew nothing about. I'd wander into the library stacks, head to the relevant section, and pluck a book at random.

I'd flip to the footnotes, and write down the books that seemed to occur most often. Then I'd pull them off the shelves, read their footnotes, and look at those books. It usually took only 2 or 3 rounds of this exercise before I had a pretty fair idea of who were the leading authorities in the field.

After reading 3 or 4 of those books, I usually had at least enough orientation in the subject to understand what the main questions at issue were - and to seek my own answers, always provisional, always subject to new understanding, always requiring new reading and new thinking.

Thanks to David Frum for this brilliant strategy. In an information age, it's crucial to know where and how to get the best information. In a culture where time is a commodity, it is absolutely essential to get the best information quickly.

As a radio producer who (daily) receives both solicited and unsolicited books to review, it's extremely helpful to know who the 'authorities' are in any given field. (On that note, it also helps to know who the...well..."non-authorities", are.)

Book endorsements make a statement to people to need to make a fast decision about whether to go beyond the dust jacket, but not necessarily like you may think. The "big" names don't so much impress. The right mix of "big names" might, but if they're only "character endorsements" (that means they didn't actually comment on the book), I just yawn and move on.

Also, if the mix of character endorsements is extremely "homogeneous", I'm likely uninterested. In other words, if the list of book endorsements is clearly aimed at a very niche market (read: preaching to the choir), particularly in the worlds of religions and politics, I find they likely don't have much to offer listeners.

If, however, the mix of endorsements include "big names" or other authorities who don't normally agree with each other, it is that book which perks my interest.

(By the way, if you haven't read Frum's book about George W. Bush, it's worth a read.)

mh