Synthesizing in 280 Characters or Less: The Case of Hayes
In describing how he gets ideas for articles or columns, commentator Chris Hayes praises the web and social media (link here). As he puts it:
“Twitter is where I spend a good deal of my life. That’s partly because I’m an inveterate poster and have been most of my life and also because it allows me to synthesize vast amounts of information very very quickly…Twitter is a place where all kinds of perspectives and obscure expertise are instantly accessible and overlapping.”
I have no reason to doubt Hayes’ testimony. It’s reasonable to believe that he has ready access to many idea, finds some of them compelling, and proves able to synthesize them with some effectiveness. Nor do I want to engage the question of whether Twitter should continue to exist, and, if so, what rules should apply.
But like most of us, Hayes is content simply to invoke the word synthesis, to assume that it is appropriate, and to imply that the process of synthesizing is relatively straightforward.
That’s what I used to think as well—in fact, for half a century, I’ve been content to say that “I like synthesizing” and “I think I am a reasonable synthesizer.”
That’s changed! In the last few years, I’ve reflected a great deal on what the concept of synthesis entails. I’ve come to realize that in fact it’s a concept, a process, an aspiration that is too little probed and too little understood. We have remarkably little systematic knowledge about how we ourselves synthesize, or how to inculcate synthesizing skills in students, workers, citizens, reporters—indeed in just about anyone else.
Let me unpack Chris Hayes’ comment as I have come to think of it:
He does not pay equal attention to everything.
Some things attract his attention—indeed they may seize him by the lapel.
He has to assimilate these, tag them, and store them in some way—probably in more than one way, perhaps in several ways, but certainly not in an infinite number of ways.
These stored items need to be available—but clearly not equally accessible in every situation.
He has to put relevant factors together in a way that makes sense to him, that expand his understanding (a bit like assembling pieces of a jigsaw puzzle whose final form is unknown to the player).
Indeed, the particular projects, concerns, assignments that have been on his radar screen motivate him to draw on information that seems appropriate for that context. And when new assignments come up, some of the same items, but new items as well, will be drawn upon.
So far, this seems pretty straightforward.
But the synthesis that works for you—even if it works very well—does not necessarily suffice.
Every potential synthesizer faces the challenge of making sure that the synthesis works for that person—for example, for you. But not just you… rather (at least potentially) for others interested in the topic. For students attempting a synthesis, this would be the teachers. For workers given an assignment, this would be the managers. For columnists, this would be an editor, initially—but then the readers—which may involve noting the number of hits, and, even more important, the amount of attention received by the writing—be it a 5000 word piece of long journalism or a tweet.
Of course, the audience may not be readily identifiable. Some great artists (Beethoven) and writers (Kierkegaard) believed that they were writing for audiences in the next century. And some of us may just synthesize for ourselves—though we are probably pleased if someone else “gets it.”
So far, I’ve had in mind one kind of synthesis, appropriate for our literate, journalistic society. But there are different kinds of societies, and other kinds of syntheses, and these would presumably have their own criteria of excellence, adequacy or inadequacy. Please feel free to browse other columns or blogs in the series (link here) or to add your own reflections on this enigmatic but powerful human capacity.
Reference
Hayes, C. (2022). Twitter has revealed something crucial about our online lives. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/26/opinion/chris-hayes-twitter-elon-musk.html.
For comments on an earlier draft, I think Shinri Furuzawa.
Photo by Alexander Shatov on Unsplash