This article is written so floridly and weirdly, it's like trying to be the new yorker without meeting the new yorker's quality standards.
But it still kept me reading, so I guess it worked. But I feel dirty like after reading a buzzfeed article.
"in classic hominin style" -- I don't think that's a word. Does he mean "ad hominem"? That still doesn't actually make sense in context. Classic what now?
"she said something that has been loitering in my mind ever since, wanting my attention but not quite sure why or what it is doing there." Really? What?
"Poor Nick Mann, I think... To get some general sense of how unstable this man could turn out to be, I try to discover a bit more about him." -- how terribly disrespectful to these people you are interviewing and who's lives you are broadcasting to us.
While I largely agree with you in the context of this article, I don't really like a similar trend to this sentiment I've been seeing in HN comments recently. There seems to be a devoted core of people who hate long-form journalism and storytelling writing styles. Every time a New Yorker or Aeon article shows up here there will be multiple comments to the effect of "What's all this bullshit about random people? Get to the point!"
I really don't get it. Do these people want dry newswire articles to be the only form of nonfiction writing that exists?
Also, "ad hominem" is both misspelled and used grammatically incorrectly in this article, but it does apply in that case. The author is attempting to say that mainstream medical researchers attack the character of Morgellons "patients" rather than their arguments.
Or, assuming he did mean 'ad hominem', was he instead saying that the Morgellon's conference attendees were assuming that the government study wasn't going to be legit, just based on who was funding and carrying out the study, not on the substance of the study.
> There is a widespread acceptance at this conference that the American authorities have already decided that Morgellons is psychological and — in classic hominin style — are merely looking for evidence to reinforce their hunch.
It's unclear. And made even more confusing by the weird mis-wording.
I like some long-form journalism a lot, but don't like bad writing. Still, even I'm surprised by how annoying I find this writing, I'm not entirely sure why, it somehow seems bad in an especially compelling 'clickbaity' way. I can't explain exactly what I mean.
Actually I think he is referring to the tendency of humans (and presumably our close evolutionary ancestors, aka hominins) to discount evidence which doesn't fit their existing beliefs.
It's still a bizarre and unwieldy sentence, though.
> he American authorities have already decided that Morgellons is psychological and — in classic hominin style — are merely looking for evidence to reinforce their hunch.
This makes total sense.
It's a classic human psychological flaw to jump to a conclusion and then filter all evidence through that conclusion, rejecting evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notion.
So, there are ideas loitering in his mind that want his attention but aren't sure why? His ideas... have ideas of their own? Wait, or what is it that wants his attention but isn't sure why? Huh? I think it was an attempt at a metaphor that completely broke down, but I'm not certain.
But it still kept me reading, so I guess it worked. But I feel dirty like after reading a buzzfeed article.
"in classic hominin style" -- I don't think that's a word. Does he mean "ad hominem"? That still doesn't actually make sense in context. Classic what now?
"she said something that has been loitering in my mind ever since, wanting my attention but not quite sure why or what it is doing there." Really? What?
"Poor Nick Mann, I think... To get some general sense of how unstable this man could turn out to be, I try to discover a bit more about him." -- how terribly disrespectful to these people you are interviewing and who's lives you are broadcasting to us.