If you can’t say it clearly, you aren’t thinking it clearly.

At Language Log, Geoffrey K. Pullum makes a crucial point in criticizing Sarah Palin’s inchoherence:

I think being so utterly unable to explain what one wants to say is truly and reasonably regarded as a defect in one’s qualifications for office – partly because being so inept at talking in a controlled and sensible way strongly suggests that there was no sensible thought back there, and partly because even if there were sensible thoughts back there somewhere, a leader needs to be more skilled at articulating them.

I suppose I’d qualify Mr. Pullum’s statement in one way — where there’s incoherence, there rarely are sensible thoughts, even allowing for the ungrammatical nature of a lot of spoken language,

In short, if you cannot write or speak your thoughts coherently, you don’t have coherent thoughts. Think about it. How often have you heard a lecture, thought how much brilliance was there, and then gone home to write down notes embodying that brilliance, only to find out that there are gaps and fallacies filling spaces that must be filled if the brilliance is to persist?

If you can’t say it, you don’t know it. On this point, Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink has been widely misinterpreted (and was perhaps intended) as a brief in favor of gut feeling over analysis. I think, given the compelling examples he writes about, that Gladwell’s thesis would better be stated as follows: the gut feelings of people well trained and experienced in a field are often better than analysis. There is a huge difference between the gut feelings of hockey moms untrained in tax or foreign policy and hockey moms trained in tax and foreign policy when it comes to opining on tax and foreign policy. Richard Posner’s review of Blink explains (emphasis and hyperlink added) my point well:

As Exhibit A for the superiority of intuitive to articulate thinking, Gladwell offers the case of a purported ancient Greek statue that was offered to the Getty Museum for $10 million. Months of careful study by a geologist (to determine the age of the statue) and by the museum’s lawyers (to trace the statue’s provenance) convinced the museum that it was genuine. But when historians of ancient art looked at it, they experienced an “intuitive revulsion,” and indeed it was eventually proved to be a fake.

The example is actually a bad one for Gladwell’s point, though it is a good illustration of the weakness of this book, which is a series of loosely connected anecdotes, rich in “human interest” particulars but poor in analysis. . . .

But back to the case of the Greek statue. It illustrates not the difference between intuitive thinking and articulate thinking, but different articulate methods of determining the authenticity of a work of art. One method is to trace the chain of title, ideally back to the artist himself (impossible in this case); another is to perform chemical tests on the material of the work; and a third is to compare the appearance of the work to that of works of art known to be authentic. The fact that the first two methods happened to take longer in the particular case of the Getty statue is happenstance. Had the seller produced a bill of sale from Phidias to Cleopatra, or the chemist noticed that the statue was made out of plastic rather than marble, the fake would have been detected in the blink of an eye. Conversely, had the statue looked more like authentic statues of its type, the art historians might have had to conduct a painstakingly detailed comparison of each feature of the work with the corresponding features of authentic works. Thus the speed with which the historians spotted this particular fake is irrelevant to Gladwell’s thesis. Practice may not make perfect, but it enables an experienced person to arrive at conclusions more quickly than a neophyte. The expert’s snap judgment is the result of a deliberative process made unconscious through habituation.