Shallow generalities

This discussion between Skip Bayless and Mark Cuban is worth watching for two main reasons.  In the first place, they have a disagreement over the significance of Bayless's Sports Punditry.  Without a lot of argument vocabulary, Cuban accuses Bayless of talking in "generalities."  This is not exactly the right term, as Bayless tends, at least according to Cuban, psychologize.  Second, no one yellls, each takes a turn without interupting the other person. 

More like this please.  Would that one of Tom Friedman or David Brooks' many critics had the time to make her or his points in this manner. 

Sad, however, that such long-form arguments take place on a sports show.

3 thoughts on “Shallow generalities”

  1. Thanks for linking that.  I'm not that familiar with Bayless, but Cuban comes off as very sharp.  I'm not impressed at all with Bayless' basketball analysis in this clip, but I give him credit for answering a critic face to face and not trying to talk over him, Hannity-style.  "Character" and working hard do matter, but Cuban's absolutely right that at that level, strong effort is a given, and it comes down to strategies and adjustments.  It's a matter of brains, of coaching and teamwork, not just "heart."  I particularly appreciated that Cuban gave LeBron James his due in the Mavericks series – James adjusted most of the time, but his teammates couldn't always deliver.
    I'm also reminded of the people who like to attribute every good act to a divine entity.  In their minds, no, it wasn't that experienced pilot who landed that plane safely; it was God.  It wasn't scientists and engineers who came up with a way to rescue those miners; it was God.     

    Driftglass, who often takes on Brooks and Friedman, sometimes recounts a tale of hearing Brooks give a talk somewhere and getting a polite but pointed question from a woman in the audience during the Q&A (about Brooks' Iraq War positions, IIRC) and Brooks told a boldfaced lie, denying his oft-repeated stances.  One of the problems with Brooks and Friedman is that, while they offer very shallow and often ridiculous arguments, they're smart enough to avoid the few venues where they'd be substantially challenged.

Comments are closed.