In the past

few months, I have received quite a few comments, some critical and some

complimentary, especially about my article on Harry Potter in March and

my most recent column on religion.

I appreciate

both the complimentary and the critical letters. Listening objectively

to both helps one improve one's communication skills.

However, with

both types of letters I sometimes wonder if the reader critically evaluated

what I had written. I thought it would be worthy to suggest some rules

well.

First of all,

I don't believe anything I read or hear just because it is on TV or in

print and I don't expect you to do so either. Some writers do not do their

homework very well, inadvertently printing incorrect information. Some

may even do it on purpose in order to promote their personal agendas.

I appreciate

gracious remarks from readers, but at the same time I hope they know that

my degrees, experience, or publications do not prove that I am right.

The education and experiences of writers increases the probability that

they know what they are talking about, but critical evaluation of any

published work requires one to analyze the information based on more than

the credentials of the writer.

Likewise, for

those who have criticized my work, if those criticisms are based on research

in the field, then you have done well. That is part of the ongoing process

of seeking truth.

However, if

a reader's criticisms are based on visceral response rather than substance,

replace emotion with critical analysis so that we all can benefit from

the analysis. If you take exception to something I have written, check

the data for yourself so that you can make an informed decision on the

issue at hand.

Second, consistency

of belief doesn't prove anything. We have a tendency to agree with a given

perspective if we already thought that way to begin with and we tend to

disagree with a perspective to which we already were opposed.

A wise reader

will consider the possibility that an argument could be correct, even

when the argument opposes his or her preexisting notions, evaluating the

evidence on which the argument is based. The argument is then either accepted

or rejected based on objectivity rather than subjectivity.

Third, most

of what I write is an assimilation of research in the area pertinent to

the column. I try to avoid proliferating my column with data because it

makes for tedious reading. However, I am always happy to provide sources

and references for any reader who requests it.

My goal is

not to convert readers into my way of thinking on every subject. Rather,

I intend to provide information, and in some cases inspiration, to parents

so that they might make informed decisions about their children.

Finally, remember

that a newspaper column is not meant to be exhaustive. The writer has

limited space and she or he must choose what material is most pertinent

to the column. There will always be exceptions to almost anything I write.

What I try

to provide for the reader is a synopsis of the general findings in the

field on a given topic. It would require volumes to list every possible

exception to what I have written. Human beings are a complex tapestry

of sociological, biological, psychological, and ideological issues. To

suppose that any writer would completely exhaust all possibilities in

600 words is unrealistic.

Whether you

are reading an article in Time magazine, a research article in the New

England Journal of Medicine, or a newspaper column, these guidelines apply.

Critical analysis helps us decide when to change our behavior and when

to continue doing things as we always have.

I like hearing

from readers. It lets me know people are reading my column and, as I said

before, both criticism and encouragement helps me to improve what I do.

I appreciate

all of you who read my column and I hope always to provide the best information

and encouragement so that we can all become better parents for our children.

Back

to Healthwise Home Page |