Jonah Lehrer — he of the self-plagiarism and fabricated Dylan quotes — tried to start rehabilitating himself last week, and it didn’t go well. He gave a speech and Q&A session at a seminar hosted by the Knight Foundation (which says “it supports transformational ideas that promote quality journalism”). In it he laid out what he perceived were the causes of his misdeeds and how he intends to make sure they don’t happen again.
As a journalist, the author of this entertaining Forbes article was not impressed. This paragraph caught my eye:
The oddness of Lehrer’s thinking came into focus when he allowed himself to consider some of the factors that may have eased his way down the path of iniquity. One, he said, is his high intelligence. “For some cognitive biases, being smart, having a high IQ, can make you more vulnerable to them,” he said.
That’s really going to cause make Lehrer’s public feel sorry for him.
As a scientist, Jerry Coyne was not impressed.
When I was interviewed by Lehrer for his New Yorker story on E. O. Wilson, and saw the result, I sensed something amiss. There was such a disconnect between the science I taught him and what came out on the page that I suspected Lehrer was more interested in making a big splash than in the scientific truth. And, sure enough, truth has always taken a back seat to Lehrer’s self-promotion and desire to make a big splash at a young age.
In truth, and given the content of this speech, I sense that Lehrer is a bit of a sociopath. Yes, shows of contrition are often phony, meant to convince a gullible public (as in Lance Armstrong’s case) that they’re good to go again. But Lehrer can’t even be bothered to fake an apology that sounds meaningful. Call me uncharitable, but if I were a magazine editor, I’d never hire him; and we shouldn’t trust anything by him that’s not fact-checked by a legion of factotums. This is what happens when careerism trumps truth.
As a virtually unpaid fiction writer, though, I have to say I was impressed that Lehrer managed to get himself paid $20,000 for his little speech.
This whole thing makes it into my “Life is stupider than fiction” category–first, because Lehrer actually thinks he can rehabilitate his career by opining that his high intelligence was a cause of his problems. And second, because he got some charitable journalism foundation to pay him twenty grand for his deep thoughts on his malfeasance.
Upon sober reflection, the Knight Foundation realizes it may have made a bit of a mistake here.
Controversial speakers should have platforms, but Knight Foundation should not have put itself into a position tantamount to rewarding people who have violated the basic tenets of journalism. We regret our mistake.
The comments below their apology are not kind.
generally have two ways of approaching lying (and other moral issues): the utilitarian way or the Kantian way. If you go the utilitarian route, you can ask whether a particular lie adds to or subtracts from human happiness. If you go the Kantian route, you can ask whether there is a categorical imperative not to lie, because that’s the way people should behave. Harris dismisses Kant rather breezily, so we’re left with a utilitarian discussion, in which he brings up various cases where it might seem that lying would be a good idea, but it turns out not to be. People lie to grandma about her terminal cancer, and everyone is worse off. Harris tells a friend that his screenplay sucks, and the friend turns out to be grateful. That sort of thing. So, the world is better off if we don’t lie.
But it’s a terrible risk to take, especially when you’re fabricating Bob Dylan quotes for a public with any number of Dylan obsessives in it. As with the self-plagiarism, it seems to be a case of cutting corners. At least he came up with what sounds like a sincere apology:
Richard Bowker 